Of course, the Russian dead and injured aren't from Moscow and St Petersburg. As seems always to be the case in Russia, it is the poorest provinces that are bearing the cost of the center's ambitions.
But Russia doesn't have an unlimited supply of young men.
In June, 98,600 people were born in Russia. So, rounding, we're talking about 49,000 male babies.
They're losing 30,000 people per month - killed, captured and wounded - in Ukraine.
If you compare this to the British losses on the Western Front in the first World World War, you're looking at around 40,000 male babies per month, against 20,000 casualties.
So, in the First World War, the British were losing the equivalent of half a month's births on the battlefield. The Russians, in Ukraine, are at 60%.
Ukraine has similar demographics of course, from a smaller base, with people oversees to boot - which is probably why many are downbeat on their prospects in most offensive phases, now the Russians have seemingly ridden themselves of the highest amount of incomptence.
Russia very rarely loses wars on the battlefield. Much more often, it loses them on the home front. That has to be Ukraine's grand strategy here too. The Kremlin is overheating its economy because of war efforts and in the short term that will also bring some popularity but there will be a price to pay (literally) as inflation increasingly bites, as it will.
Obviously, with a Trump presidency, Putin need worry less about Western retaliation to war crimes in terms of support for Ukraine, sanctions and so on, and presumably that's his plan: bomb Ukraine more. But it's not worked so far and people are resilient in such situations.
And anyway, by the spring offensive it will be a question of which way will President Vance go. (Assuming Putin doesn't have the dirt on him too...CCTV of his sofa?)
Vance is the type who doesn't need to have dirt on him.
Back once again for the renegade master D4 damager, power to the people Back once again for the renegade master D4 damager, with the ill behavior, with the ill behavior, with the ill behavior, with the ill behavior....
I still think Badenoch is the best choice for the Tories. Yes she’s a dice roll, she can be divisive, undisciplined, all-talk-no-action, gaffe prone etc. But she is different. And she does therefore offer the Tories a wildcard.
I have said before I’m not entirely convinced that the Tories build their voter coalition back by trying to be trendy Cameroon centrists again. At least not right now.
I am not quite sure where the Tories end up under Badenoch. That makes her an interesting prospect.
All these PBers on here saying 'roll the dice on Badenoch' she is a black woman with dreadlocks, looks different. Yet not one of you will vote Tory if she becomes leader.
Badenoch was a Leaver, so will not win back LDs and opposes withdrawal from the European Convention on Human Rights, so will not win back Reform voters and is fanatically anti woke so will not win back voters from Labour or most young people either.
So who apart from wealthy metropolitan Tories like Maude and Gove and Osborne does she actually appeal to?
Jenrick is a grifter, who says whatever he thinks his audience wish to hear.
SKS is currently shitting the bed to such a degree that any halfway competent Conservative leader can expect to make gains. SKS is a poor man’s Harold Wilson.
We’ll see if Badenoch is halfway competent. If she isn’t she can be replaced.
He's shat the bed within 100 days of taking office. He's stunningly incompetent.
Could the next GE2029 be one of the most astonishing ever, where one landslide overturns another?
Yes, a Lib Dem landslide seems more than likely....
Of course, the Russian dead and injured aren't from Moscow and St Petersburg. As seems always to be the case in Russia, it is the poorest provinces that are bearing the cost of the center's ambitions.
But Russia doesn't have an unlimited supply of young men.
In June, 98,600 people were born in Russia. So, rounding, we're talking about 49,000 male babies.
They're losing 30,000 people per month - killed, captured and wounded - in Ukraine.
If you compare this to the British losses on the Western Front in the first World World War, you're looking at around 40,000 male babies per month, against 20,000 casualties.
So, in the First World War, the British were losing the equivalent of half a month's births on the battlefield. The Russians, in Ukraine, are at 60%.
Ukraine has similar demographics of course, from a smaller base, with people oversees to boot - which is probably why many are downbeat on their prospects in most offensive phases, now the Russians have seemingly ridden themselves of the highest amount of incomptence.
Russia very rarely loses wars on the battlefield. Much more often, it loses them on the home front. That has to be Ukraine's grand strategy here too. The Kremlin is overheating its economy because of war efforts and in the short term that will also bring some popularity but there will be a price to pay (literally) as inflation increasingly bites, as it will.
Obviously, with a Trump presidency, Putin need worry less about Western retaliation to war crimes in terms of support for Ukraine, sanctions and so on, and presumably that's his plan: bomb Ukraine more. But it's not worked so far and people are resilient in such situations.
And anyway, by the spring offensive it will be a question of which way will President Vance go. (Assuming Putin doesn't have the dirt on him too...CCTV of his sofa?)
Vance has been even more vocally anti-Ukraine than Trump.
I mean, I think Trump will win North Carolina too, but I can see at least a few objections to this plan.
The chair of the conservative House Freedom Caucus says the North Carolina legislature should consider allocating the state’s presidential electors to Donald Trump even before votes are counted in the swing state.
Rep. Andy Harris (R-Md.) said Thursday that such a step by North Carolina’s Republican-controlled legislature “makes a lot of sense” given the devastation wrought by Hurricane Helene in the western part of the state. Counties in that region are expected to vote heavily for Trump...
“You statistically can go and say, ‘Look, you got disenfranchised in 25 counties. You know what that vote probably would have been,’” Harris said during an exchange with a speaker at the dinner. “Which would be — if I were in the legislature — enough to go, ‘Yeah we have to convene the legislature. We can’t disenfranchise the voters.’”
Of course, the Russian dead and injured aren't from Moscow and St Petersburg. As seems always to be the case in Russia, it is the poorest provinces that are bearing the cost of the center's ambitions.
But Russia doesn't have an unlimited supply of young men.
In June, 98,600 people were born in Russia. So, rounding, we're talking about 49,000 male babies.
They're losing 30,000 people per month - killed, captured and wounded - in Ukraine.
If you compare this to the British losses on the Western Front in the first World World War, you're looking at around 40,000 male babies per month, against 20,000 casualties.
So, in the First World War, the British were losing the equivalent of half a month's births on the battlefield. The Russians, in Ukraine, are at 60%.
Ukraine has similar demographics of course, from a smaller base, with people oversees to boot - which is probably why many are downbeat on their prospects in most offensive phases, now the Russians have seemingly ridden themselves of the highest amount of incomptence.
One of the main reasons that Ukraine has been pushed back a little this year, and suffered bad enough casualties that their only offensive was catching the Russians on the hop in Kursk, is that they've been fighting with a major imbalance in artillery ammunition. Just as in WWI, the majority of casualties have been caused by artillery.
If Ukraine can be supplied with greater quantities of ranged ammunition - they've been asking for funding for their domestic drone industry for example - then they can reverse the imbalance in ranged weapons to their advantage. They can destroy Russian munitions before they reach the battlefield, destroy more Russian artillery pieces, and inflict casualties on Russian infantry at a greater distance - reducing their own casualty rate at the same time.
That's the route to victory that also reduces the damage to the current generation of young Ukrainians.
Any damage they can be done to Russian war industry by making India and other countries a better offer to persuade them to prevent supply of components to Russia would also greatly help.
The other being the six month US supply drought over the end of last year.
If Harris is elected, and S Korea changes its policy because of fat Kim's involvement, next spring could look very different.
If Trump is elected, it will be grim for them.
Yep.
Europe and the UK are going to really need to step up in the event the Americans leave the party.
They won't step up, even if they could. Not to the level that would be needed in that event.
They could step up.
There's nothing to stop Europe from making more munitions and sending them to Ukraine.
Indeed, spending on ammunition and consumables has already stepped up sharply from where it was pre Ukraine.
But the question is whether there is the will. And whether some leaders see America pulling back as an excuse to say "Well, the battle is really over, there's no point in us prolonging the agony".
Which I think would be a sick and morally bankrupt thing to do. But there you go.
I still think Badenoch is the best choice for the Tories. Yes she’s a dice roll, she can be divisive, undisciplined, all-talk-no-action, gaffe prone etc. But she is different. And she does therefore offer the Tories a wildcard.
I have said before I’m not entirely convinced that the Tories build their voter coalition back by trying to be trendy Cameroon centrists again. At least not right now.
I am not quite sure where the Tories end up under Badenoch. That makes her an interesting prospect.
All these PBers on here saying 'roll the dice on Badenoch' she is a black woman with dreadlocks, looks different. Yet not one of you will vote Tory if she becomes leader.
Badenoch was a Leaver, so will not win back LDs and opposes withdrawal from the European Convention on Human Rights, so will not win back Reform voters and is fanatically anti woke so will not win back voters from Labour or most young people either.
So who apart from wealthy metropolitan Tories like Maude and Gove and Osborne wanting a fashionable leader of their party to talk about at Kensington dinner parties does she actually appeal to?
Fair points, well made.
I think it’s entirely possible that Badenoch could actually surprise on the downside - which would be some feat given how utterly useless she was as a government minister.
Trouble is, much the same is true of the other chap. Neither impressed in government. Whoever wins will need to overcome a bad first impression but the next election is four years off.
Back once again for the renegade master D4 damager, power to the people Back once again for the renegade master D4 damager, with the ill behavior, with the ill behavior, with the ill behavior, with the ill behavior....
Of course, the Russian dead and injured aren't from Moscow and St Petersburg. As seems always to be the case in Russia, it is the poorest provinces that are bearing the cost of the center's ambitions.
But Russia doesn't have an unlimited supply of young men.
In June, 98,600 people were born in Russia. So, rounding, we're talking about 49,000 male babies.
They're losing 30,000 people per month - killed, captured and wounded - in Ukraine.
If you compare this to the British losses on the Western Front in the first World World War, you're looking at around 40,000 male babies per month, against 20,000 casualties.
So, in the First World War, the British were losing the equivalent of half a month's births on the battlefield. The Russians, in Ukraine, are at 60%.
Ukraine has similar demographics of course, from a smaller base, with people oversees to boot - which is probably why many are downbeat on their prospects in most offensive phases, now the Russians have seemingly ridden themselves of the highest amount of incomptence.
One of the main reasons that Ukraine has been pushed back a little this year, and suffered bad enough casualties that their only offensive was catching the Russians on the hop in Kursk, is that they've been fighting with a major imbalance in artillery ammunition. Just as in WWI, the majority of casualties have been caused by artillery.
If Ukraine can be supplied with greater quantities of ranged ammunition - they've been asking for funding for their domestic drone industry for example - then they can reverse the imbalance in ranged weapons to their advantage. They can destroy Russian munitions before they reach the battlefield, destroy more Russian artillery pieces, and inflict casualties on Russian infantry at a greater distance - reducing their own casualty rate at the same time.
That's the route to victory that also reduces the damage to the current generation of young Ukrainians.
Any damage they can be done to Russian war industry by making India and other countries a better offer to persuade them to prevent supply of components to Russia would also greatly help.
The other being the six month US supply drought over the end of last year.
If Harris is elected, and S Korea changes its policy because of fat Kim's involvement, next spring could look very different.
If Trump is elected, it will be grim for them.
Yep.
Europe and the UK are going to really need to step up in the event the Americans leave the party.
They won't step up, even if they could. Not to the level that would be needed in that event.
They could step up.
There's nothing to stop Europe from making more munitions and sending them to Ukraine.
Indeed, spending on ammunition and consumables has already stepped up sharply from where it was pre Ukraine.
But the question is whether there is the will. And whether some leaders see America pulling back as an excuse to say "Well, the battle is really over, there's no point in us prolonging the agony".
Which I think would be a sick and morally bankrupt thing to do. But there you go.
I've been pleasantly surprised the level of support has even lasted as long as it has, but I fear the weariness is setting in, nations beyond those rigeht next door will take the opportunity to reluctantly accept the new status quo.
I still think Badenoch is the best choice for the Tories. Yes she’s a dice roll, she can be divisive, undisciplined, all-talk-no-action, gaffe prone etc. But she is different. And she does therefore offer the Tories a wildcard.
I have said before I’m not entirely convinced that the Tories build their voter coalition back by trying to be trendy Cameroon centrists again. At least not right now.
I am not quite sure where the Tories end up under Badenoch. That makes her an interesting prospect.
All these PBers on here saying 'roll the dice on Badenoch' she is a black woman with dreadlocks, looks different. Yet not one of you will vote Tory if she becomes leader.
Badenoch was a Leaver, so will not win back LDs and opposes withdrawal from the European Convention on Human Rights, so will not win back Reform voters and is fanatically anti woke so will not win back voters from Labour or most young people either.
So who apart from wealthy metropolitan Tories like Maude and Gove and Osborne wanting a fashionable leader of their party to talk about at Kensington dinner parties does she actually appeal to?
I'm voting for Badenoch because I think she's the best candidate of those left, and I'd love her to destroy Labour on culture-war issues - which they seem determined to impale themselves upon.
I don't give a flying fig whether she's black or not. We are well beyond that in the Tory party and, like MLK, now judge on character not skin.
That's a vain hope. Starmer Labour is not pushing culture war issues. Quite the opposite. All of that is dropped or backburnered. The modern metro left is almost as pissed off with him as you are.
Of course, the Russian dead and injured aren't from Moscow and St Petersburg. As seems always to be the case in Russia, it is the poorest provinces that are bearing the cost of the center's ambitions.
But Russia doesn't have an unlimited supply of young men.
In June, 98,600 people were born in Russia. So, rounding, we're talking about 49,000 male babies.
They're losing 30,000 people per month - killed, captured and wounded - in Ukraine.
If you compare this to the British losses on the Western Front in the first World World War, you're looking at around 40,000 male babies per month, against 20,000 casualties.
So, in the First World War, the British were losing the equivalent of half a month's births on the battlefield. The Russians, in Ukraine, are at 60%.
Ukraine has similar demographics of course, from a smaller base, with people oversees to boot - which is probably why many are downbeat on their prospects in most offensive phases, now the Russians have seemingly ridden themselves of the highest amount of incomptence.
One of the main reasons that Ukraine has been pushed back a little this year, and suffered bad enough casualties that their only offensive was catching the Russians on the hop in Kursk, is that they've been fighting with a major imbalance in artillery ammunition. Just as in WWI, the majority of casualties have been caused by artillery.
If Ukraine can be supplied with greater quantities of ranged ammunition - they've been asking for funding for their domestic drone industry for example - then they can reverse the imbalance in ranged weapons to their advantage. They can destroy Russian munitions before they reach the battlefield, destroy more Russian artillery pieces, and inflict casualties on Russian infantry at a greater distance - reducing their own casualty rate at the same time.
That's the route to victory that also reduces the damage to the current generation of young Ukrainians.
Any damage they can be done to Russian war industry by making India and other countries a better offer to persuade them to prevent supply of components to Russia would also greatly help.
The other being the six month US supply drought over the end of last year.
If Harris is elected, and S Korea changes its policy because of fat Kim's involvement, next spring could look very different.
If Trump is elected, it will be grim for them.
Yep.
Europe and the UK are going to really need to step up in the event the Americans leave the party.
They won't step up, even if they could. Not to the level that would be needed in that event.
They could step up.
There's nothing to stop Europe from making more munitions and sending them to Ukraine.
Indeed, spending on ammunition and consumables has already stepped up sharply from where it was pre Ukraine.
But the question is whether there is the will. And whether some leaders see America pulling back as an excuse to say "Well, the battle is really over, there's no point in us prolonging the agony".
Which I think would be a sick and morally bankrupt thing to do. But there you go.
I've been pleasantly surprised the levl of support has even lasted as long as it has, but I fear the weariness is setting in, nations beyond those rigeht next door will take the opportunity to reluctantly accept the new status quo.
I hope you are wrong, but fear you are right.
It's at times like this, I actually find myself wishing for Boris as PM.
I still think Badenoch is the best choice for the Tories. Yes she’s a dice roll, she can be divisive, undisciplined, all-talk-no-action, gaffe prone etc. But she is different. And she does therefore offer the Tories a wildcard.
I have said before I’m not entirely convinced that the Tories build their voter coalition back by trying to be trendy Cameroon centrists again. At least not right now.
I am not quite sure where the Tories end up under Badenoch. That makes her an interesting prospect.
All these PBers on here saying 'roll the dice on Badenoch' she is a black woman with dreadlocks, looks different. Yet not one of you will vote Tory if she becomes leader.
Badenoch was a Leaver, so will not win back LDs and opposes withdrawal from the European Convention on Human Rights, so will not win back Reform voters and is fanatically anti woke so will not win back voters from Labour or most young people either.
So who apart from wealthy metropolitan Tories like Maude and Gove and Osborne wanting a fashionable leader of their party to talk about at Kensington dinner parties does she actually appeal to?
I'm voting for Badenoch because I think she's the best candidate of those left, and I'd love her to destroy Labour on culture-war issues - which they seem determined to impale themselves upon.
I don't give a flying fig whether she's black or not. We are well beyond that in the Tory party and, like MLK, now judge on character not skin.
That's a vain hope. Starmer Labour is not pushing culture war issues. Quite the opposite. All of that is dropped or backburnered.
Good. Probably still some stuff to focus on, but it'd be depressing if there was enough for sole focus.
I still think Badenoch is the best choice for the Tories. Yes she’s a dice roll, she can be divisive, undisciplined, all-talk-no-action, gaffe prone etc. But she is different. And she does therefore offer the Tories a wildcard.
I have said before I’m not entirely convinced that the Tories build their voter coalition back by trying to be trendy Cameroon centrists again. At least not right now.
I am not quite sure where the Tories end up under Badenoch. That makes her an interesting prospect.
All these PBers on here saying 'roll the dice on Badenoch' she is a black woman with dreadlocks, looks different. Yet not one of you will vote Tory if she becomes leader.
Badenoch was a Leaver, so will not win back LDs and opposes withdrawal from the European Convention on Human Rights, so will not win back Reform voters and is fanatically anti woke so will not win back voters from Labour or most young people either.
So who apart from wealthy metropolitan Tories like Maude and Gove and Osborne does she actually appeal to?
Jenrick is a grifter, who says whatever he thinks his audience wish to hear.
SKS is currently shitting the bed to such a degree that any halfway competent Conservative leader can expect to make gains. SKS is a poor man’s Harold Wilson.
We’ll see if Badenoch is halfway competent. If she isn’t she can be replaced.
He's shat the bed within 100 days of taking office. He's stunningly incompetent.
Could the next GE2029 be one of the most astonishing ever, where one landslide overturns another?
My expectation is Starmer, who is already in his 60s, will resign around the time of the next election, in which case we shall see Labour attempt what the Conservatives have been doing for the last decade by electing new leaders to run against their own governments.
New: Josh Shapiro privately pressed Kamala Harris to take up one of his policies aimed at working-class voters — tossing out college degree requirements for government jobs.
In a number of areas the mandatory degree has become a barrier.
I mentioned before the issue of Afro-Caribbean’s in banking. Well guess which community is massively under represented in the degree’s? Not to mention White Working Class and a few other groups.
Back in the day, the literal Barrow Boy route - start with fetch the tea on a desk, could end up a senior manger… This did something for diversity - no, it wasn’t much, but it was something.
I work with a team of people of that background - all in their late forties. No more of them coming through now….
Indeed, there are plenty of jobs with a degree 'requirement' which just seems like a status thing, especially when the people in the job currently do not have one! I've seen many job descriptions like that, where nothing in it seems to justify that requirement, yet it is inserted without any question whatsoever.
Just make it desirable rather than a requirement and you immediately open the door to many others.
I have for a while being absolutely convinced that the graduatisation of the police is a deliberate and malicious attempt to cut out the main demographic, who would have been the bulk of applicants. White working class young men.
Even if it is not deliberate or malicious indirect indirect discrimination is an accepted thing, so would presumably apply.
It's just a silly route to go down, eventually everyone will need to get second degrees to distinguish themselves (when I was at University Canadian students claimed this was already the case for them). When I was at school there was a big push around different types of intelligence, and how not everyone had the kind of academic style intelligence and that was ok, but such policies argue pretty strongly it is not ok, when there is literally nothing else stopping someone from doing the job.
Maybe I should have done my masters on this topic.
For the police, absolutely it was, along with fast-tracked promotion and direct entry to CID. There has long been envy of working class oiks running the police on top salaries. The police have for decades been about the last place where you could go from GCSE school-leaver to the top.
I think it possible to become chief fire officer with no paper qualifications.
Of course, the Russian dead and injured aren't from Moscow and St Petersburg. As seems always to be the case in Russia, it is the poorest provinces that are bearing the cost of the center's ambitions.
But Russia doesn't have an unlimited supply of young men.
In June, 98,600 people were born in Russia. So, rounding, we're talking about 49,000 male babies.
They're losing 30,000 people per month - killed, captured and wounded - in Ukraine.
If you compare this to the British losses on the Western Front in the first World World War, you're looking at around 40,000 male babies per month, against 20,000 casualties.
So, in the First World War, the British were losing the equivalent of half a month's births on the battlefield. The Russians, in Ukraine, are at 60%.
Ukraine has similar demographics of course, from a smaller base, with people oversees to boot - which is probably why many are downbeat on their prospects in most offensive phases, now the Russians have seemingly ridden themselves of the highest amount of incomptence.
One of the main reasons that Ukraine has been pushed back a little this year, and suffered bad enough casualties that their only offensive was catching the Russians on the hop in Kursk, is that they've been fighting with a major imbalance in artillery ammunition. Just as in WWI, the majority of casualties have been caused by artillery.
If Ukraine can be supplied with greater quantities of ranged ammunition - they've been asking for funding for their domestic drone industry for example - then they can reverse the imbalance in ranged weapons to their advantage. They can destroy Russian munitions before they reach the battlefield, destroy more Russian artillery pieces, and inflict casualties on Russian infantry at a greater distance - reducing their own casualty rate at the same time.
That's the route to victory that also reduces the damage to the current generation of young Ukrainians.
Any damage they can be done to Russian war industry by making India and other countries a better offer to persuade them to prevent supply of components to Russia would also greatly help.
The other being the six month US supply drought over the end of last year.
If Harris is elected, and S Korea changes its policy because of fat Kim's involvement, next spring could look very different.
If Trump is elected, it will be grim for them.
Yep.
Europe and the UK are going to really need to step up in the event the Americans leave the party.
They won't step up, even if they could. Not to the level that would be needed in that event.
They could step up.
There's nothing to stop Europe from making more munitions and sending them to Ukraine.
Indeed, spending on ammunition and consumables has already stepped up sharply from where it was pre Ukraine.
But the question is whether there is the will. And whether some leaders see America pulling back as an excuse to say "Well, the battle is really over, there's no point in us prolonging the agony".
Which I think would be a sick and morally bankrupt thing to do. But there you go.
I've been pleasantly surprised the levl of support has even lasted as long as it has, but I fear the weariness is setting in, nations beyond those rigeht next door will take the opportunity to reluctantly accept the new status quo.
I hope you are wrong, but fear you are right.
It's at times like this, I actually find myself wishing for Boris as PM.
If Trump and Boris were in power I would be fairly amazed if Boris didn't read the room and follow Trump's lead.
Boris with an undecided US President or one that can be nudged would be useful, but he wouldnt sacrifice himself if it was a hail mary.
Of course, the Russian dead and injured aren't from Moscow and St Petersburg. As seems always to be the case in Russia, it is the poorest provinces that are bearing the cost of the center's ambitions.
But Russia doesn't have an unlimited supply of young men.
In June, 98,600 people were born in Russia. So, rounding, we're talking about 49,000 male babies.
They're losing 30,000 people per month - killed, captured and wounded - in Ukraine.
If you compare this to the British losses on the Western Front in the first World World War, you're looking at around 40,000 male babies per month, against 20,000 casualties.
So, in the First World War, the British were losing the equivalent of half a month's births on the battlefield. The Russians, in Ukraine, are at 60%.
Ukraine has similar demographics of course, from a smaller base, with people oversees to boot - which is probably why many are downbeat on their prospects in most offensive phases, now the Russians have seemingly ridden themselves of the highest amount of incomptence.
Russia very rarely loses wars on the battlefield. Much more often, it loses them on the home front. That has to be Ukraine's grand strategy here too. The Kremlin is overheating its economy because of war efforts and in the short term that will also bring some popularity but there will be a price to pay (literally) as inflation increasingly bites, as it will.
Obviously, with a Trump presidency, Putin need worry less about Western retaliation to war crimes in terms of support for Ukraine, sanctions and so on, and presumably that's his plan: bomb Ukraine more. But it's not worked so far and people are resilient in such situations.
And anyway, by the spring offensive it will be a question of which way will President Vance go. (Assuming Putin doesn't have the dirt on him too...CCTV of his sofa?)
Vance has been even more vocally anti-Ukraine than Trump.
Whilst there's no great threat to the UK, I'm pretty sure that Putin could invade us after Guy Fawkes night, and seize London. The Russian navy is no great shakes, but ours is almost an absence in force. It wouldn't hold of course - the Russians would have to fall back under a wave of soup thrown by odd people and beardy types clapping them far too firmly on the back. But, you know, just saying.
Of course, the Russian dead and injured aren't from Moscow and St Petersburg. As seems always to be the case in Russia, it is the poorest provinces that are bearing the cost of the center's ambitions.
But Russia doesn't have an unlimited supply of young men.
In June, 98,600 people were born in Russia. So, rounding, we're talking about 49,000 male babies.
They're losing 30,000 people per month - killed, captured and wounded - in Ukraine.
If you compare this to the British losses on the Western Front in the first World World War, you're looking at around 40,000 male babies per month, against 20,000 casualties.
So, in the First World War, the British were losing the equivalent of half a month's births on the battlefield. The Russians, in Ukraine, are at 60%.
Ukraine has similar demographics of course, from a smaller base, with people oversees to boot - which is probably why many are downbeat on their prospects in most offensive phases, now the Russians have seemingly ridden themselves of the highest amount of incomptence.
One of the main reasons that Ukraine has been pushed back a little this year, and suffered bad enough casualties that their only offensive was catching the Russians on the hop in Kursk, is that they've been fighting with a major imbalance in artillery ammunition. Just as in WWI, the majority of casualties have been caused by artillery.
If Ukraine can be supplied with greater quantities of ranged ammunition - they've been asking for funding for their domestic drone industry for example - then they can reverse the imbalance in ranged weapons to their advantage. They can destroy Russian munitions before they reach the battlefield, destroy more Russian artillery pieces, and inflict casualties on Russian infantry at a greater distance - reducing their own casualty rate at the same time.
That's the route to victory that also reduces the damage to the current generation of young Ukrainians.
Any damage they can be done to Russian war industry by making India and other countries a better offer to persuade them to prevent supply of components to Russia would also greatly help.
The other being the six month US supply drought over the end of last year.
If Harris is elected, and S Korea changes its policy because of fat Kim's involvement, next spring could look very different.
If Trump is elected, it will be grim for them.
Yep.
Europe and the UK are going to really need to step up in the event the Americans leave the party.
They won't step up, even if they could. Not to the level that would be needed in that event.
They could step up.
There's nothing to stop Europe from making more munitions and sending them to Ukraine.
Indeed, spending on ammunition and consumables has already stepped up sharply from where it was pre Ukraine.
But the question is whether there is the will. And whether some leaders see America pulling back as an excuse to say "Well, the battle is really over, there's no point in us prolonging the agony".
Which I think would be a sick and morally bankrupt thing to do. But there you go.
I've been pleasantly surprised the level of support has even lasted as long as it has, but I fear the weariness is setting in, nations beyond those rigeht next door will take the opportunity to reluctantly accept the new status quo.
Scholz is already shitting all over Zelensky’s victory plan. One might surmise that the plan all along was not a Ukrainian victory. But to exhaust the ussr stockpile of military equipment but so slowly that it would not risk Putin’s domestic authority. Most online bean counters say it’s nearly job done with the stockpiles, or will be some time in 2025. Either way the fix is in. I’d be very surprised if the war is still going next Xmas regardless who wins in Washington.
Of course, the Russian dead and injured aren't from Moscow and St Petersburg. As seems always to be the case in Russia, it is the poorest provinces that are bearing the cost of the center's ambitions.
But Russia doesn't have an unlimited supply of young men.
In June, 98,600 people were born in Russia. So, rounding, we're talking about 49,000 male babies.
They're losing 30,000 people per month - killed, captured and wounded - in Ukraine.
If you compare this to the British losses on the Western Front in the first World World War, you're looking at around 40,000 male babies per month, against 20,000 casualties.
So, in the First World War, the British were losing the equivalent of half a month's births on the battlefield. The Russians, in Ukraine, are at 60%.
Ukraine has similar demographics of course, from a smaller base, with people oversees to boot - which is probably why many are downbeat on their prospects in most offensive phases, now the Russians have seemingly ridden themselves of the highest amount of incomptence.
Russia very rarely loses wars on the battlefield. Much more often, it loses them on the home front. That has to be Ukraine's grand strategy here too. The Kremlin is overheating its economy because of war efforts and in the short term that will also bring some popularity but there will be a price to pay (literally) as inflation increasingly bites, as it will.
Obviously, with a Trump presidency, Putin need worry less about Western retaliation to war crimes in terms of support for Ukraine, sanctions and so on, and presumably that's his plan: bomb Ukraine more. But it's not worked so far and people are resilient in such situations.
And anyway, by the spring offensive it will be a question of which way will President Vance go. (Assuming Putin doesn't have the dirt on him too...CCTV of his sofa?)
Vance has made his position pretty clear already. And he was one of the leaders in the Senate against funding for Ukraine.
I mean, I think Trump will win North Carolina too, but I can see at least a few objections to this plan.
The chair of the conservative House Freedom Caucus says the North Carolina legislature should consider allocating the state’s presidential electors to Donald Trump even before votes are counted in the swing state.
Rep. Andy Harris (R-Md.) said Thursday that such a step by North Carolina’s Republican-controlled legislature “makes a lot of sense” given the devastation wrought by Hurricane Helene in the western part of the state. Counties in that region are expected to vote heavily for Trump...
“You statistically can go and say, ‘Look, you got disenfranchised in 25 counties. You know what that vote probably would have been,’” Harris said during an exchange with a speaker at the dinner. “Which would be — if I were in the legislature — enough to go, ‘Yeah we have to convene the legislature. We can’t disenfranchise the voters.’”
Putinistas domestically as well as internationally. Its the end of western democracy.
Some say that is panicking too much. I'd say given the rarity of democratic norms throughout history we have to react very seriously to any potential erosion of those norms.
Of course, the Russian dead and injured aren't from Moscow and St Petersburg. As seems always to be the case in Russia, it is the poorest provinces that are bearing the cost of the center's ambitions.
But Russia doesn't have an unlimited supply of young men.
In June, 98,600 people were born in Russia. So, rounding, we're talking about 49,000 male babies.
They're losing 30,000 people per month - killed, captured and wounded - in Ukraine.
If you compare this to the British losses on the Western Front in the first World World War, you're looking at around 40,000 male babies per month, against 20,000 casualties.
So, in the First World War, the British were losing the equivalent of half a month's births on the battlefield. The Russians, in Ukraine, are at 60%.
Ukraine has similar demographics of course, from a smaller base, with people oversees to boot - which is probably why many are downbeat on their prospects in most offensive phases, now the Russians have seemingly ridden themselves of the highest amount of incomptence.
One of the main reasons that Ukraine has been pushed back a little this year, and suffered bad enough casualties that their only offensive was catching the Russians on the hop in Kursk, is that they've been fighting with a major imbalance in artillery ammunition. Just as in WWI, the majority of casualties have been caused by artillery.
If Ukraine can be supplied with greater quantities of ranged ammunition - they've been asking for funding for their domestic drone industry for example - then they can reverse the imbalance in ranged weapons to their advantage. They can destroy Russian munitions before they reach the battlefield, destroy more Russian artillery pieces, and inflict casualties on Russian infantry at a greater distance - reducing their own casualty rate at the same time.
That's the route to victory that also reduces the damage to the current generation of young Ukrainians.
Any damage they can be done to Russian war industry by making India and other countries a better offer to persuade them to prevent supply of components to Russia would also greatly help.
The other being the six month US supply drought over the end of last year.
If Harris is elected, and S Korea changes its policy because of fat Kim's involvement, next spring could look very different.
If Trump is elected, it will be grim for them.
Yep.
Europe and the UK are going to really need to step up in the event the Americans leave the party.
They won't step up, even if they could. Not to the level that would be needed in that event.
They could step up.
There's nothing to stop Europe from making more munitions and sending them to Ukraine.
Indeed, spending on ammunition and consumables has already stepped up sharply from where it was pre Ukraine.
But the question is whether there is the will. And whether some leaders see America pulling back as an excuse to say "Well, the battle is really over, there's no point in us prolonging the agony".
Which I think would be a sick and morally bankrupt thing to do. But there you go.
I've been pleasantly surprised the level of support has even lasted as long as it has, but I fear the weariness is setting in, nations beyond those rigeht next door will take the opportunity to reluctantly accept the new status quo.
I'm far from convinced that a steadier supply of arms will change the situation.
Putin now has Korean troops to draw on, for instance.
Of course, the Russian dead and injured aren't from Moscow and St Petersburg. As seems always to be the case in Russia, it is the poorest provinces that are bearing the cost of the center's ambitions.
But Russia doesn't have an unlimited supply of young men.
In June, 98,600 people were born in Russia. So, rounding, we're talking about 49,000 male babies.
They're losing 30,000 people per month - killed, captured and wounded - in Ukraine.
If you compare this to the British losses on the Western Front in the first World World War, you're looking at around 40,000 male babies per month, against 20,000 casualties.
So, in the First World War, the British were losing the equivalent of half a month's births on the battlefield. The Russians, in Ukraine, are at 60%.
Ukraine has similar demographics of course, from a smaller base, with people oversees to boot - which is probably why many are downbeat on their prospects in most offensive phases, now the Russians have seemingly ridden themselves of the highest amount of incomptence.
Russia very rarely loses wars on the battlefield. Much more often, it loses them on the home front. That has to be Ukraine's grand strategy here too. The Kremlin is overheating its economy because of war efforts and in the short term that will also bring some popularity but there will be a price to pay (literally) as inflation increasingly bites, as it will.
Obviously, with a Trump presidency, Putin need worry less about Western retaliation to war crimes in terms of support for Ukraine, sanctions and so on, and presumably that's his plan: bomb Ukraine more. But it's not worked so far and people are resilient in such situations.
And anyway, by the spring offensive it will be a question of which way will President Vance go. (Assuming Putin doesn't have the dirt on him too...CCTV of his sofa?)
"Would" not "Will".
Cmon Mark. We're not caving, not even linguistically.
I still think Badenoch is the best choice for the Tories. Yes she’s a dice roll, she can be divisive, undisciplined, all-talk-no-action, gaffe prone etc. But she is different. And she does therefore offer the Tories a wildcard.
I have said before I’m not entirely convinced that the Tories build their voter coalition back by trying to be trendy Cameroon centrists again. At least not right now.
I am not quite sure where the Tories end up under Badenoch. That makes her an interesting prospect.
All these PBers on here saying 'roll the dice on Badenoch' she is a black woman with dreadlocks, looks different. Yet not one of you will vote Tory if she becomes leader.
Badenoch was a Leaver, so will not win back LDs and opposes withdrawal from the European Convention on Human Rights, so will not win back Reform voters and is fanatically anti woke so will not win back voters from Labour or most young people either.
So who apart from wealthy metropolitan Tories like Maude and Gove and Osborne wanting a fashionable leader of their party to talk about at Kensington dinner parties does she actually appeal to?
Yeah, I wouldn't piss on the Tory party if it was on fire, so my views are worth diddly. It does seem to me that Badenoch vs Jenrick is a choice of mad vs bad. I'd go for mad, personally. But it's not a great offer.
As promised I said I would get back re the Old Dean by election in Surrey Heath which was an extraordinarily result for the LDs, even more so if you know the history of the LDs in this ward. They have never won it and never come anywhere close. I presumed there was an underlying story rather than the national mood.
Well @HYUFD you were right (also for @JohnO and @Cicero information and anyone else who commented) there was not some scandal or anything like that. It was a normal by election, which makes the result even more extraordinary with big swings from Labour and the Tories. I was given a list of reasons, but frankly they were nothing out of the ordinary. A ward that the LDs haven't fought for many years, but which will have been canvassed and leafleted heavily for the GE and having won it the momentum rolls on in what was their most difficult ward.
Interestingly I was told that the LDs are now the only party there that has the resources to really fight a full blown campaign. In my day it was only the Tories that could do that. We had some wards with no members and no supporters and had to target ruthlessly.
This does bode well for the County elections in Surrey for the LDs. I anticipate big gains for the LDs in parliamentary seats they won.
This however is counter to what happened to @JohnO in Hersham. I know nothing about that by election, but John did win it back from the LDs and the LDs had won the constituency. Do you want to comment John? Would be interested in your views.
Thanks and have just caught up with the thread. I guess there were a number of factors at work in my by-election. First, the young LibDem Councillor (pleasant bloke) lived nowhere near the Ward and I have the feeling that he was a paper candidate in 2022, who was probably dismayed by his narrow victory (over me as it happened!). The LDs made huge gains across the Borough. He was almost invisible in the patch and finally quit in August on moving to Australia.
There was also a huge local issue on a planning development. I made clear my implacable opposition to it, making it front and centre of the campaign, together with other salient stuff.
Finally, I’m an old Hersham hack stretching way back thirty years. And have tried to be an approachable and active County Councillor since 2017. So there was a degree of name recognition and good will, but the extent is unknowable.
Of course, the Russian dead and injured aren't from Moscow and St Petersburg. As seems always to be the case in Russia, it is the poorest provinces that are bearing the cost of the center's ambitions.
But Russia doesn't have an unlimited supply of young men.
In June, 98,600 people were born in Russia. So, rounding, we're talking about 49,000 male babies.
They're losing 30,000 people per month - killed, captured and wounded - in Ukraine.
If you compare this to the British losses on the Western Front in the first World World War, you're looking at around 40,000 male babies per month, against 20,000 casualties.
So, in the First World War, the British were losing the equivalent of half a month's births on the battlefield. The Russians, in Ukraine, are at 60%.
Ukraine has similar demographics of course, from a smaller base, with people oversees to boot - which is probably why many are downbeat on their prospects in most offensive phases, now the Russians have seemingly ridden themselves of the highest amount of incomptence.
Russia very rarely loses wars on the battlefield. Much more often, it loses them on the home front. That has to be Ukraine's grand strategy here too. The Kremlin is overheating its economy because of war efforts and in the short term that will also bring some popularity but there will be a price to pay (literally) as inflation increasingly bites, as it will.
Obviously, with a Trump presidency, Putin need worry less about Western retaliation to war crimes in terms of support for Ukraine, sanctions and so on, and presumably that's his plan: bomb Ukraine more. But it's not worked so far and people are resilient in such situations.
And anyway, by the spring offensive it will be a question of which way will President Vance go. (Assuming Putin doesn't have the dirt on him too...CCTV of his sofa?)
Vance has been even more vocally anti-Ukraine than Trump.
Whilst there's no great threat to the UK, I'm pretty sure that Putin could invade us after Guy Fawkes night, and seize London. The Russian navy is no great shakes, but ours is almost an absence in force. It wouldn't hold of course - the Russians would have to fall back under a wave of soup thrown by odd people and beardy types clapping them far too firmly on the back. But, you know, just saying.
No chance. The last Russian naval victory was in the age of sail. Pathetic as our defences are after years of Tory neglect, the Royal Navy and RAF would sink their rustbuckets easily. The Ukranians have swept them from most of the Black Sea with no Navy at all..
Q: Russia's army is 15% larger and they have reinforced the 20% of Ukrainian territory that they hold. Is the Republican Party responsible for those setbacks?
As has been noted the Dems can technically afford to lose Nevada, but only if all else goes well and it does not presage a trend in the battlegrounds.
The only thing you can say there is that 168K have voted Dem. The others (heck eve some of the Rep) votes may also be for Harris.
That's the hope, and it could be right. But clearly I'm on the pessimistic side of things, given polling in many states is a tossup and the popular vote even looks to be very close in many.
It does seem to come down to whether the number of Harris voting GOPers is big enough.
I'm two articles into my weekend Newstatesman magazine and their correspondents clearly think Harris has lost.
Are they right or is James Carville?
I suspect the answer is nobody has a clue and those that do are saying things for political reasons as much as providing a truthful accurate viewpoint on reality.
As has been noted the Dems can technically afford to lose Nevada, but only if all else goes well and it does not presage a trend in the battlegrounds.
The only thing you can say there is that 168K have voted Dem. The others (heck eve some of the Rep) votes may also be for Harris.
That’s a very good point. What proportion of the primary vote was Haley getting? How many of them are early voting for Harris? Difficult to predict the future is.
Q: Russia's army is 15% larger and they have reinforced the 20% of Ukrainian territory that they hold. Is the Republican Party responsible for those setbacks?
Of course, the Russian dead and injured aren't from Moscow and St Petersburg. As seems always to be the case in Russia, it is the poorest provinces that are bearing the cost of the center's ambitions.
But Russia doesn't have an unlimited supply of young men.
In June, 98,600 people were born in Russia. So, rounding, we're talking about 49,000 male babies.
They're losing 30,000 people per month - killed, captured and wounded - in Ukraine.
If you compare this to the British losses on the Western Front in the first World World War, you're looking at around 40,000 male babies per month, against 20,000 casualties.
So, in the First World War, the British were losing the equivalent of half a month's births on the battlefield. The Russians, in Ukraine, are at 60%.
Ukraine has similar demographics of course, from a smaller base, with people oversees to boot - which is probably why many are downbeat on their prospects in most offensive phases, now the Russians have seemingly ridden themselves of the highest amount of incomptence.
One of the main reasons that Ukraine has been pushed back a little this year, and suffered bad enough casualties that their only offensive was catching the Russians on the hop in Kursk, is that they've been fighting with a major imbalance in artillery ammunition. Just as in WWI, the majority of casualties have been caused by artillery.
If Ukraine can be supplied with greater quantities of ranged ammunition - they've been asking for funding for their domestic drone industry for example - then they can reverse the imbalance in ranged weapons to their advantage. They can destroy Russian munitions before they reach the battlefield, destroy more Russian artillery pieces, and inflict casualties on Russian infantry at a greater distance - reducing their own casualty rate at the same time.
That's the route to victory that also reduces the damage to the current generation of young Ukrainians.
Any damage they can be done to Russian war industry by making India and other countries a better offer to persuade them to prevent supply of components to Russia would also greatly help.
The other being the six month US supply drought over the end of last year.
If Harris is elected, and S Korea changes its policy because of fat Kim's involvement, next spring could look very different.
If Trump is elected, it will be grim for them.
Yep.
Europe and the UK are going to really need to step up in the event the Americans leave the party.
They won't step up, even if they could. Not to the level that would be needed in that event.
They could step up.
There's nothing to stop Europe from making more munitions and sending them to Ukraine.
Indeed, spending on ammunition and consumables has already stepped up sharply from where it was pre Ukraine.
But the question is whether there is the will. And whether some leaders see America pulling back as an excuse to say "Well, the battle is really over, there's no point in us prolonging the agony".
Which I think would be a sick and morally bankrupt thing to do. But there you go.
I've been pleasantly surprised the level of support has even lasted as long as it has, but I fear the weariness is setting in, nations beyond those rigeht next door will take the opportunity to reluctantly accept the new status quo.
Scholz is already shitting all over Zelensky’s victory plan. One might surmise that the plan all along was not a Ukrainian victory. But to exhaust the ussr stockpile of military equipment but so slowly that it would not risk Putin’s domestic authority. Most online bean counters say it’s nearly job done with the stockpiles, or will be some time in 2025. Either way the fix is in. I’d be very surprised if the war is still going next Xmas regardless who wins in Washington.
Never attribute to malice that which might otherwise be explained by incompetence.
There's no 4D Chess looking to run down Soviet stocks while preventing Ukrainian victory. There is the reality that sending aid to Ukraine is politically contentious.
As has been noted the Dems can technically afford to lose Nevada, but only if all else goes well and it does not presage a trend in the battlegrounds.
The only thing you can say there is that 168K have voted Dem. The others (heck eve some of the Rep) votes may also be for Harris.
That’s a very good point. What proportion of the primary vote was Haley getting? How many of them are early voting for Harris? Difficult to predict the future is.
Really important point. Perhaps there is evidence that GOP registered voters who are turning up early are actually never-trump/Halley GOP?
I'm two articles into my weekend Newstatesman magazine and their correspondents clearly think Harris has lost.
Are they right or is James Carville?
I suspect the answer is nobody has a clue and those that do are saying things for political reasons as much as providing a truthful accurate viewpoint on reality.
They are saying them to say something
I think the suggestion, earlier that it is a 40% probability of a Harris win is not ridiculous.
I thought Putin allowing the BBC correspondent to attend and then ask a question at his conference was a bit of a masterstroke. Steve Rosenberg did nothing wrong but he was completely set up.
Putin thinks he's won in Ukraine and knows that a Mr Reasonable demeanour costs him nothing.
Unfortunately with Trump most likely in the White House he's played the perfect game.
Ukraine might have to capitulate, and, oh look, there are loads of NK troops (who I imagine all have family in cosy homes) in Europe.
As has been noted the Dems can technically afford to lose Nevada, but only if all else goes well and it does not presage a trend in the battlegrounds.
The only thing you can say there is that 168K have voted Dem. The others (heck eve some of the Rep) votes may also be for Harris.
That’s a very good point. What proportion of the primary vote was Haley getting? How many of them are early voting for Harris? Difficult to predict the future is.
Really important point. Perhaps there is evidence that GOP registered voters who are turning up early are actually never-trump/Halley GOP?
God - two more weeks of this!!!
Then 2 months of nervousness ahead of certification and inauguration (in the event Harris wins, if Trump wins some will be happy, some dismayed, but the legal and illegal shenanigans will probably be less, though not non-existent).
As has been noted the Dems can technically afford to lose Nevada, but only if all else goes well and it does not presage a trend in the battlegrounds.
The only thing you can say there is that 168K have voted Dem. The others (heck eve some of the Rep) votes may also be for Harris.
Some of those Democrats will have voted for Trump too. And I'm sure a good chunk of Independents.
And party registration data is often well out of date. There was a period when the South was dominated by Democrat registered voters, and yet the Republicans kept on winning.
Of course, the Russian dead and injured aren't from Moscow and St Petersburg. As seems always to be the case in Russia, it is the poorest provinces that are bearing the cost of the center's ambitions.
But Russia doesn't have an unlimited supply of young men.
In June, 98,600 people were born in Russia. So, rounding, we're talking about 49,000 male babies.
They're losing 30,000 people per month - killed, captured and wounded - in Ukraine.
If you compare this to the British losses on the Western Front in the first World World War, you're looking at around 40,000 male babies per month, against 20,000 casualties.
So, in the First World War, the British were losing the equivalent of half a month's births on the battlefield. The Russians, in Ukraine, are at 60%.
Ukraine has similar demographics of course, from a smaller base, with people oversees to boot - which is probably why many are downbeat on their prospects in most offensive phases, now the Russians have seemingly ridden themselves of the highest amount of incomptence.
One of the main reasons that Ukraine has been pushed back a little this year, and suffered bad enough casualties that their only offensive was catching the Russians on the hop in Kursk, is that they've been fighting with a major imbalance in artillery ammunition. Just as in WWI, the majority of casualties have been caused by artillery.
If Ukraine can be supplied with greater quantities of ranged ammunition - they've been asking for funding for their domestic drone industry for example - then they can reverse the imbalance in ranged weapons to their advantage. They can destroy Russian munitions before they reach the battlefield, destroy more Russian artillery pieces, and inflict casualties on Russian infantry at a greater distance - reducing their own casualty rate at the same time.
That's the route to victory that also reduces the damage to the current generation of young Ukrainians.
Any damage they can be done to Russian war industry by making India and other countries a better offer to persuade them to prevent supply of components to Russia would also greatly help.
The other being the six month US supply drought over the end of last year.
If Harris is elected, and S Korea changes its policy because of fat Kim's involvement, next spring could look very different.
If Trump is elected, it will be grim for them.
Yep.
Europe and the UK are going to really need to step up in the event the Americans leave the party.
They won't step up, even if they could. Not to the level that would be needed in that event.
They could step up.
There's nothing to stop Europe from making more munitions and sending them to Ukraine.
Indeed, spending on ammunition and consumables has already stepped up sharply from where it was pre Ukraine.
But the question is whether there is the will. And whether some leaders see America pulling back as an excuse to say "Well, the battle is really over, there's no point in us prolonging the agony".
Which I think would be a sick and morally bankrupt thing to do. But there you go.
I've been pleasantly surprised the level of support has even lasted as long as it has, but I fear the weariness is setting in, nations beyond those rigeht next door will take the opportunity to reluctantly accept the new status quo.
I'm not sure what they have to be weary about - the cost is pretty minimal and wouldn't change through giving Putin what he wants.
Energy isn't going to become any cheaper, food prices aren't going to fall and defence spending is still going to have to be increased.
This also applies to those who think that Trump can halve prices.
Of course, the Russian dead and injured aren't from Moscow and St Petersburg. As seems always to be the case in Russia, it is the poorest provinces that are bearing the cost of the center's ambitions.
But Russia doesn't have an unlimited supply of young men.
In June, 98,600 people were born in Russia. So, rounding, we're talking about 49,000 male babies.
They're losing 30,000 people per month - killed, captured and wounded - in Ukraine.
If you compare this to the British losses on the Western Front in the first World World War, you're looking at around 40,000 male babies per month, against 20,000 casualties.
So, in the First World War, the British were losing the equivalent of half a month's births on the battlefield. The Russians, in Ukraine, are at 60%.
Ukraine has similar demographics of course, from a smaller base, with people oversees to boot - which is probably why many are downbeat on their prospects in most offensive phases, now the Russians have seemingly ridden themselves of the highest amount of incomptence.
One of the main reasons that Ukraine has been pushed back a little this year, and suffered bad enough casualties that their only offensive was catching the Russians on the hop in Kursk, is that they've been fighting with a major imbalance in artillery ammunition. Just as in WWI, the majority of casualties have been caused by artillery.
If Ukraine can be supplied with greater quantities of ranged ammunition - they've been asking for funding for their domestic drone industry for example - then they can reverse the imbalance in ranged weapons to their advantage. They can destroy Russian munitions before they reach the battlefield, destroy more Russian artillery pieces, and inflict casualties on Russian infantry at a greater distance - reducing their own casualty rate at the same time.
That's the route to victory that also reduces the damage to the current generation of young Ukrainians.
Any damage they can be done to Russian war industry by making India and other countries a better offer to persuade them to prevent supply of components to Russia would also greatly help.
The other being the six month US supply drought over the end of last year.
If Harris is elected, and S Korea changes its policy because of fat Kim's involvement, next spring could look very different.
If Trump is elected, it will be grim for them.
Yep.
Europe and the UK are going to really need to step up in the event the Americans leave the party.
They won't step up, even if they could. Not to the level that would be needed in that event.
They could step up.
There's nothing to stop Europe from making more munitions and sending them to Ukraine.
Indeed, spending on ammunition and consumables has already stepped up sharply from where it was pre Ukraine.
But the question is whether there is the will. And whether some leaders see America pulling back as an excuse to say "Well, the battle is really over, there's no point in us prolonging the agony".
Which I think would be a sick and morally bankrupt thing to do. But there you go.
I've been pleasantly surprised the level of support has even lasted as long as it has, but I fear the weariness is setting in, nations beyond those rigeht next door will take the opportunity to reluctantly accept the new status quo.
Scholz is already shitting all over Zelensky’s victory plan. One might surmise that the plan all along was not a Ukrainian victory. But to exhaust the ussr stockpile of military equipment but so slowly that it would not risk Putin’s domestic authority. Most online bean counters say it’s nearly job done with the stockpiles, or will be some time in 2025. Either way the fix is in. I’d be very surprised if the war is still going next Xmas regardless who wins in Washington.
Never attribute to malice that which might otherwise be explained by incompetence.
There's no 4D Chess looking to run down Soviet stocks while preventing Ukrainian victory. There is the reality that sending aid to Ukraine is politically contentious.
Hmmm. That would be fine if the White House was gagging to send the right weapons promptly and with helpful rules of engagement, but were being stopped by Congress. That’s just not the story of this war since 2022. It’s very clear by now that Biden wet his knickers at the cia’s upgraded risk assessment of nuclear exchange and hence he’s been desperate above all else that the Russian front does not suddenly collapse. And for all I know that was the correct decision, though from my armchair it still feels wrong.
Of course, the Russian dead and injured aren't from Moscow and St Petersburg. As seems always to be the case in Russia, it is the poorest provinces that are bearing the cost of the center's ambitions.
But Russia doesn't have an unlimited supply of young men.
In June, 98,600 people were born in Russia. So, rounding, we're talking about 49,000 male babies.
They're losing 30,000 people per month - killed, captured and wounded - in Ukraine.
If you compare this to the British losses on the Western Front in the first World World War, you're looking at around 40,000 male babies per month, against 20,000 casualties.
So, in the First World War, the British were losing the equivalent of half a month's births on the battlefield. The Russians, in Ukraine, are at 60%.
Ukraine has similar demographics of course, from a smaller base, with people oversees to boot - which is probably why many are downbeat on their prospects in most offensive phases, now the Russians have seemingly ridden themselves of the highest amount of incomptence.
One of the main reasons that Ukraine has been pushed back a little this year, and suffered bad enough casualties that their only offensive was catching the Russians on the hop in Kursk, is that they've been fighting with a major imbalance in artillery ammunition. Just as in WWI, the majority of casualties have been caused by artillery.
If Ukraine can be supplied with greater quantities of ranged ammunition - they've been asking for funding for their domestic drone industry for example - then they can reverse the imbalance in ranged weapons to their advantage. They can destroy Russian munitions before they reach the battlefield, destroy more Russian artillery pieces, and inflict casualties on Russian infantry at a greater distance - reducing their own casualty rate at the same time.
That's the route to victory that also reduces the damage to the current generation of young Ukrainians.
Any damage they can be done to Russian war industry by making India and other countries a better offer to persuade them to prevent supply of components to Russia would also greatly help.
The other being the six month US supply drought over the end of last year.
If Harris is elected, and S Korea changes its policy because of fat Kim's involvement, next spring could look very different.
If Trump is elected, it will be grim for them.
Yep.
Europe and the UK are going to really need to step up in the event the Americans leave the party.
They won't step up, even if they could. Not to the level that would be needed in that event.
They could step up.
There's nothing to stop Europe from making more munitions and sending them to Ukraine.
Indeed, spending on ammunition and consumables has already stepped up sharply from where it was pre Ukraine.
But the question is whether there is the will. And whether some leaders see America pulling back as an excuse to say "Well, the battle is really over, there's no point in us prolonging the agony".
Which I think would be a sick and morally bankrupt thing to do. But there you go.
I've been pleasantly surprised the level of support has even lasted as long as it has, but I fear the weariness is setting in, nations beyond those rigeht next door will take the opportunity to reluctantly accept the new status quo.
I'm not sure what they have to be weary about - the cost is pretty minimal and wouldn't change through giving Putin what he wants.
Energy isn't going to become any cheaper, food prices aren't going to fall and defence spending is still going to have to be increased.
This also applies to those who think that Trump can halve prices.
Whether they should be weary does not speak to whether they are so. And with it being politically divisive in the key country of the USA, well, nations take the easy route.
Of course, the Russian dead and injured aren't from Moscow and St Petersburg. As seems always to be the case in Russia, it is the poorest provinces that are bearing the cost of the center's ambitions.
But Russia doesn't have an unlimited supply of young men.
In June, 98,600 people were born in Russia. So, rounding, we're talking about 49,000 male babies.
They're losing 30,000 people per month - killed, captured and wounded - in Ukraine.
If you compare this to the British losses on the Western Front in the first World World War, you're looking at around 40,000 male babies per month, against 20,000 casualties.
So, in the First World War, the British were losing the equivalent of half a month's births on the battlefield. The Russians, in Ukraine, are at 60%.
Ukraine has similar demographics of course, from a smaller base, with people oversees to boot - which is probably why many are downbeat on their prospects in most offensive phases, now the Russians have seemingly ridden themselves of the highest amount of incomptence.
Russia very rarely loses wars on the battlefield. Much more often, it loses them on the home front. That has to be Ukraine's grand strategy here too. The Kremlin is overheating its economy because of war efforts and in the short term that will also bring some popularity but there will be a price to pay (literally) as inflation increasingly bites, as it will.
Obviously, with a Trump presidency, Putin need worry less about Western retaliation to war crimes in terms of support for Ukraine, sanctions and so on, and presumably that's his plan: bomb Ukraine more. But it's not worked so far and people are resilient in such situations.
And anyway, by the spring offensive it will be a question of which way will President Vance go. (Assuming Putin doesn't have the dirt on him too...CCTV of his sofa?)
Vance has been even more vocally anti-Ukraine than Trump.
Whilst there's no great threat to the UK, I'm pretty sure that Putin could invade us after Guy Fawkes night, and seize London. The Russian navy is no great shakes, but ours is almost an absence in force. It wouldn't hold of course - the Russians would have to fall back under a wave of soup thrown by odd people and beardy types clapping them far too firmly on the back. But, you know, just saying.
No chance. The last Russian naval victory was in the age of sail. Pathetic as our defences are after years of Tory neglect, the Royal Navy and RAF would sink their rustbuckets easily. The Ukranians have swept them from most of the Black Sea with no Navy at all..
Suppose you string out the RN in a big long line and imagine that each ship can defend say 20 miles of coast - we're still well short. The RAF has some crazily small number of combat aircraft.
Look, I can't really judge, but it seems quite clear to me that we spend billions on the illusion of having a defence whereas the reality is that we have almost none at all.
Of course, the Russian dead and injured aren't from Moscow and St Petersburg. As seems always to be the case in Russia, it is the poorest provinces that are bearing the cost of the center's ambitions.
But Russia doesn't have an unlimited supply of young men.
In June, 98,600 people were born in Russia. So, rounding, we're talking about 49,000 male babies.
They're losing 30,000 people per month - killed, captured and wounded - in Ukraine.
If you compare this to the British losses on the Western Front in the first World World War, you're looking at around 40,000 male babies per month, against 20,000 casualties.
So, in the First World War, the British were losing the equivalent of half a month's births on the battlefield. The Russians, in Ukraine, are at 60%.
Ukraine has similar demographics of course, from a smaller base, with people oversees to boot - which is probably why many are downbeat on their prospects in most offensive phases, now the Russians have seemingly ridden themselves of the highest amount of incomptence.
Russia very rarely loses wars on the battlefield. Much more often, it loses them on the home front. That has to be Ukraine's grand strategy here too. The Kremlin is overheating its economy because of war efforts and in the short term that will also bring some popularity but there will be a price to pay (literally) as inflation increasingly bites, as it will.
Obviously, with a Trump presidency, Putin need worry less about Western retaliation to war crimes in terms of support for Ukraine, sanctions and so on, and presumably that's his plan: bomb Ukraine more. But it's not worked so far and people are resilient in such situations.
And anyway, by the spring offensive it will be a question of which way will President Vance go. (Assuming Putin doesn't have the dirt on him too...CCTV of his sofa?)
Vance has been even more vocally anti-Ukraine than Trump.
Whilst there's no great threat to the UK, I'm pretty sure that Putin could invade us after Guy Fawkes night, and seize London. The Russian navy is no great shakes, but ours is almost an absence in force. It wouldn't hold of course - the Russians would have to fall back under a wave of soup thrown by odd people and beardy types clapping them far too firmly on the back. But, you know, just saying.
No chance. The last Russian naval victory was in the age of sail. Pathetic as our defences are after years of Tory neglect, the Royal Navy and RAF would sink their rustbuckets easily. The Ukranians have swept them from most of the Black Sea with no Navy at all..
Suppose you string out the RN in a big long line and imagine that each ship can defend say 20 miles of coast - we're still well short. The RAF has some crazily small number of combat aircraft.
Look, I can't really judge, but it seems quite clear to me that we spend billions on the illusion of having a defence whereas the reality is that we have almost none at all.
Of course, the Russian dead and injured aren't from Moscow and St Petersburg. As seems always to be the case in Russia, it is the poorest provinces that are bearing the cost of the center's ambitions.
But Russia doesn't have an unlimited supply of young men.
In June, 98,600 people were born in Russia. So, rounding, we're talking about 49,000 male babies.
They're losing 30,000 people per month - killed, captured and wounded - in Ukraine.
If you compare this to the British losses on the Western Front in the first World World War, you're looking at around 40,000 male babies per month, against 20,000 casualties.
So, in the First World War, the British were losing the equivalent of half a month's births on the battlefield. The Russians, in Ukraine, are at 60%.
Ukraine has similar demographics of course, from a smaller base, with people oversees to boot - which is probably why many are downbeat on their prospects in most offensive phases, now the Russians have seemingly ridden themselves of the highest amount of incomptence.
One of the main reasons that Ukraine has been pushed back a little this year, and suffered bad enough casualties that their only offensive was catching the Russians on the hop in Kursk, is that they've been fighting with a major imbalance in artillery ammunition. Just as in WWI, the majority of casualties have been caused by artillery.
If Ukraine can be supplied with greater quantities of ranged ammunition - they've been asking for funding for their domestic drone industry for example - then they can reverse the imbalance in ranged weapons to their advantage. They can destroy Russian munitions before they reach the battlefield, destroy more Russian artillery pieces, and inflict casualties on Russian infantry at a greater distance - reducing their own casualty rate at the same time.
That's the route to victory that also reduces the damage to the current generation of young Ukrainians.
Any damage they can be done to Russian war industry by making India and other countries a better offer to persuade them to prevent supply of components to Russia would also greatly help.
The other being the six month US supply drought over the end of last year.
If Harris is elected, and S Korea changes its policy because of fat Kim's involvement, next spring could look very different.
If Trump is elected, it will be grim for them.
Yep.
Europe and the UK are going to really need to step up in the event the Americans leave the party.
They won't step up, even if they could. Not to the level that would be needed in that event.
They could step up.
There's nothing to stop Europe from making more munitions and sending them to Ukraine.
Indeed, spending on ammunition and consumables has already stepped up sharply from where it was pre Ukraine.
But the question is whether there is the will. And whether some leaders see America pulling back as an excuse to say "Well, the battle is really over, there's no point in us prolonging the agony".
Which I think would be a sick and morally bankrupt thing to do. But there you go.
I've been pleasantly surprised the level of support has even lasted as long as it has, but I fear the weariness is setting in, nations beyond those rigeht next door will take the opportunity to reluctantly accept the new status quo.
I'm not sure what they have to be weary about - the cost is pretty minimal and wouldn't change through giving Putin what he wants.
Energy isn't going to become any cheaper, food prices aren't going to fall and defence spending is still going to have to be increased.
This also applies to those who think that Trump can halve prices.
Whether they should be weary does not speak to whether they are so. And with it being politically divisive in the key country of the USA, well, nations take the easy route.
So that requires the leaders to actually lead.
And there is no easier route because there's nothing to be gained.
Its not a case of stop the war and prices fall to 2019 levels is it.
Of course, the Russian dead and injured aren't from Moscow and St Petersburg. As seems always to be the case in Russia, it is the poorest provinces that are bearing the cost of the center's ambitions.
But Russia doesn't have an unlimited supply of young men.
In June, 98,600 people were born in Russia. So, rounding, we're talking about 49,000 male babies.
They're losing 30,000 people per month - killed, captured and wounded - in Ukraine.
If you compare this to the British losses on the Western Front in the first World World War, you're looking at around 40,000 male babies per month, against 20,000 casualties.
So, in the First World War, the British were losing the equivalent of half a month's births on the battlefield. The Russians, in Ukraine, are at 60%.
Ukraine has similar demographics of course, from a smaller base, with people oversees to boot - which is probably why many are downbeat on their prospects in most offensive phases, now the Russians have seemingly ridden themselves of the highest amount of incomptence.
One of the main reasons that Ukraine has been pushed back a little this year, and suffered bad enough casualties that their only offensive was catching the Russians on the hop in Kursk, is that they've been fighting with a major imbalance in artillery ammunition. Just as in WWI, the majority of casualties have been caused by artillery.
If Ukraine can be supplied with greater quantities of ranged ammunition - they've been asking for funding for their domestic drone industry for example - then they can reverse the imbalance in ranged weapons to their advantage. They can destroy Russian munitions before they reach the battlefield, destroy more Russian artillery pieces, and inflict casualties on Russian infantry at a greater distance - reducing their own casualty rate at the same time.
That's the route to victory that also reduces the damage to the current generation of young Ukrainians.
Any damage they can be done to Russian war industry by making India and other countries a better offer to persuade them to prevent supply of components to Russia would also greatly help.
The other being the six month US supply drought over the end of last year.
If Harris is elected, and S Korea changes its policy because of fat Kim's involvement, next spring could look very different.
If Trump is elected, it will be grim for them.
Yep.
Europe and the UK are going to really need to step up in the event the Americans leave the party.
They won't step up, even if they could. Not to the level that would be needed in that event.
They could step up.
There's nothing to stop Europe from making more munitions and sending them to Ukraine.
Indeed, spending on ammunition and consumables has already stepped up sharply from where it was pre Ukraine.
But the question is whether there is the will. And whether some leaders see America pulling back as an excuse to say "Well, the battle is really over, there's no point in us prolonging the agony".
Which I think would be a sick and morally bankrupt thing to do. But there you go.
I've been pleasantly surprised the level of support has even lasted as long as it has, but I fear the weariness is setting in, nations beyond those rigeht next door will take the opportunity to reluctantly accept the new status quo.
I'm not sure what they have to be weary about - the cost is pretty minimal and wouldn't change through giving Putin what he wants.
Energy isn't going to become any cheaper, food prices aren't going to fall and defence spending is still going to have to be increased.
This also applies to those who think that Trump can halve prices.
Whether they should be weary does not speak to whether they are so. And with it being politically divisive in the key country of the USA, well, nations take the easy route.
Of course, the Russian dead and injured aren't from Moscow and St Petersburg. As seems always to be the case in Russia, it is the poorest provinces that are bearing the cost of the center's ambitions.
But Russia doesn't have an unlimited supply of young men.
In June, 98,600 people were born in Russia. So, rounding, we're talking about 49,000 male babies.
They're losing 30,000 people per month - killed, captured and wounded - in Ukraine.
If you compare this to the British losses on the Western Front in the first World World War, you're looking at around 40,000 male babies per month, against 20,000 casualties.
So, in the First World War, the British were losing the equivalent of half a month's births on the battlefield. The Russians, in Ukraine, are at 60%.
Ukraine has similar demographics of course, from a smaller base, with people oversees to boot - which is probably why many are downbeat on their prospects in most offensive phases, now the Russians have seemingly ridden themselves of the highest amount of incomptence.
One of the main reasons that Ukraine has been pushed back a little this year, and suffered bad enough casualties that their only offensive was catching the Russians on the hop in Kursk, is that they've been fighting with a major imbalance in artillery ammunition. Just as in WWI, the majority of casualties have been caused by artillery.
If Ukraine can be supplied with greater quantities of ranged ammunition - they've been asking for funding for their domestic drone industry for example - then they can reverse the imbalance in ranged weapons to their advantage. They can destroy Russian munitions before they reach the battlefield, destroy more Russian artillery pieces, and inflict casualties on Russian infantry at a greater distance - reducing their own casualty rate at the same time.
That's the route to victory that also reduces the damage to the current generation of young Ukrainians.
Any damage they can be done to Russian war industry by making India and other countries a better offer to persuade them to prevent supply of components to Russia would also greatly help.
The other being the six month US supply drought over the end of last year.
If Harris is elected, and S Korea changes its policy because of fat Kim's involvement, next spring could look very different.
If Trump is elected, it will be grim for them.
Yep.
Europe and the UK are going to really need to step up in the event the Americans leave the party.
They won't step up, even if they could. Not to the level that would be needed in that event.
They could step up.
There's nothing to stop Europe from making more munitions and sending them to Ukraine.
Indeed, spending on ammunition and consumables has already stepped up sharply from where it was pre Ukraine.
But the question is whether there is the will. And whether some leaders see America pulling back as an excuse to say "Well, the battle is really over, there's no point in us prolonging the agony".
Which I think would be a sick and morally bankrupt thing to do. But there you go.
I've been pleasantly surprised the level of support has even lasted as long as it has, but I fear the weariness is setting in, nations beyond those rigeht next door will take the opportunity to reluctantly accept the new status quo.
Scholz is already shitting all over Zelensky’s victory plan. One might surmise that the plan all along was not a Ukrainian victory. But to exhaust the ussr stockpile of military equipment but so slowly that it would not risk Putin’s domestic authority. Most online bean counters say it’s nearly job done with the stockpiles, or will be some time in 2025. Either way the fix is in. I’d be very surprised if the war is still going next Xmas regardless who wins in Washington.
Never attribute to malice that which might otherwise be explained by incompetence.
There's no 4D Chess looking to run down Soviet stocks while preventing Ukrainian victory. There is the reality that sending aid to Ukraine is politically contentious.
Hmmm. That would be fine if the White House was gagging to send the right weapons promptly and with helpful rules of engagement, but were being stopped by Congress. That’s just not the story of this war since 2022. It’s very clear by now that Biden wet his knickers at the cia’s upgraded risk assessment of nuclear exchange and hence he’s been desperate above all else that the Russian front does not suddenly collapse. And for all I know that was the correct decision, though from my armchair it still feels wrong.
That's one possible explanation.
The other is that he is desperate to avoid being slapped down by Congress, and is therefore looking to find what would be acceptable to swing Republican lawmakers. If he went out too big, the blowback would be such that he might not be able to get anything through later.
Your explanation is possible, maybe plausible.
But so is mine. The reality is that a large chunk of the Republican Congress is deeply opposed to sending anything to Ukraine, and a small number of Democrats are equally obstructive.
Of course, the Russian dead and injured aren't from Moscow and St Petersburg. As seems always to be the case in Russia, it is the poorest provinces that are bearing the cost of the center's ambitions.
But Russia doesn't have an unlimited supply of young men.
In June, 98,600 people were born in Russia. So, rounding, we're talking about 49,000 male babies.
They're losing 30,000 people per month - killed, captured and wounded - in Ukraine.
If you compare this to the British losses on the Western Front in the first World World War, you're looking at around 40,000 male babies per month, against 20,000 casualties.
So, in the First World War, the British were losing the equivalent of half a month's births on the battlefield. The Russians, in Ukraine, are at 60%.
Ukraine has similar demographics of course, from a smaller base, with people oversees to boot - which is probably why many are downbeat on their prospects in most offensive phases, now the Russians have seemingly ridden themselves of the highest amount of incomptence.
Russia very rarely loses wars on the battlefield. Much more often, it loses them on the home front. That has to be Ukraine's grand strategy here too. The Kremlin is overheating its economy because of war efforts and in the short term that will also bring some popularity but there will be a price to pay (literally) as inflation increasingly bites, as it will.
Obviously, with a Trump presidency, Putin need worry less about Western retaliation to war crimes in terms of support for Ukraine, sanctions and so on, and presumably that's his plan: bomb Ukraine more. But it's not worked so far and people are resilient in such situations.
And anyway, by the spring offensive it will be a question of which way will President Vance go. (Assuming Putin doesn't have the dirt on him too...CCTV of his sofa?)
Vance has been even more vocally anti-Ukraine than Trump.
Whilst there's no great threat to the UK, I'm pretty sure that Putin could invade us after Guy Fawkes night, and seize London. The Russian navy is no great shakes, but ours is almost an absence in force. It wouldn't hold of course - the Russians would have to fall back under a wave of soup thrown by odd people and beardy types clapping them far too firmly on the back. But, you know, just saying.
No chance. The last Russian naval victory was in the age of sail. Pathetic as our defences are after years of Tory neglect, the Royal Navy and RAF would sink their rustbuckets easily. The Ukranians have swept them from most of the Black Sea with no Navy at all..
Suppose you string out the RN in a big long line and imagine that each ship can defend say 20 miles of coast - we're still well short. The RAF has some crazily small number of combat aircraft.
Look, I can't really judge, but it seems quite clear to me that we spend billions on the illusion of having a defence whereas the reality is that we have almost none at all.
The Russian Navy never had much force projection.
Their surface navy (the bit that still floats) is covered with big, liquid fueled missiles. Which exposed very nicely when hit, as the Ukrainians demonstrated. Similar reasons to why their tanks throw their turrets…
Their one carrier is completely broken and can’t sail. And before you start the jokes, we have a carrier at sea. The F-35 on board are generations beyond anything Russian.
Their sub fleet is out of service.
Their amphibious landing capability is now next to nil.
So they can’t get to the U.K., can’t defend themselves on the way here and can’t land anything when they arrive. Aside from that…
Oh, and you don’t defend the U.K. by creating a picket line round the country (every 20 miles etc). As Nelson pointed out when he was in charge of the Channel Fleet, that’s not how it works
Of course, the Russian dead and injured aren't from Moscow and St Petersburg. As seems always to be the case in Russia, it is the poorest provinces that are bearing the cost of the center's ambitions.
But Russia doesn't have an unlimited supply of young men.
In June, 98,600 people were born in Russia. So, rounding, we're talking about 49,000 male babies.
They're losing 30,000 people per month - killed, captured and wounded - in Ukraine.
If you compare this to the British losses on the Western Front in the first World World War, you're looking at around 40,000 male babies per month, against 20,000 casualties.
So, in the First World War, the British were losing the equivalent of half a month's births on the battlefield. The Russians, in Ukraine, are at 60%.
Ukraine has similar demographics of course, from a smaller base, with people oversees to boot - which is probably why many are downbeat on their prospects in most offensive phases, now the Russians have seemingly ridden themselves of the highest amount of incomptence.
One of the main reasons that Ukraine has been pushed back a little this year, and suffered bad enough casualties that their only offensive was catching the Russians on the hop in Kursk, is that they've been fighting with a major imbalance in artillery ammunition. Just as in WWI, the majority of casualties have been caused by artillery.
If Ukraine can be supplied with greater quantities of ranged ammunition - they've been asking for funding for their domestic drone industry for example - then they can reverse the imbalance in ranged weapons to their advantage. They can destroy Russian munitions before they reach the battlefield, destroy more Russian artillery pieces, and inflict casualties on Russian infantry at a greater distance - reducing their own casualty rate at the same time.
That's the route to victory that also reduces the damage to the current generation of young Ukrainians.
Any damage they can be done to Russian war industry by making India and other countries a better offer to persuade them to prevent supply of components to Russia would also greatly help.
The other being the six month US supply drought over the end of last year.
If Harris is elected, and S Korea changes its policy because of fat Kim's involvement, next spring could look very different.
If Trump is elected, it will be grim for them.
Yep.
Europe and the UK are going to really need to step up in the event the Americans leave the party.
They won't step up, even if they could. Not to the level that would be needed in that event.
They could step up.
There's nothing to stop Europe from making more munitions and sending them to Ukraine.
Indeed, spending on ammunition and consumables has already stepped up sharply from where it was pre Ukraine.
But the question is whether there is the will. And whether some leaders see America pulling back as an excuse to say "Well, the battle is really over, there's no point in us prolonging the agony".
Which I think would be a sick and morally bankrupt thing to do. But there you go.
I've been pleasantly surprised the level of support has even lasted as long as it has, but I fear the weariness is setting in, nations beyond those rigeht next door will take the opportunity to reluctantly accept the new status quo.
Scholz is already shitting all over Zelensky’s victory plan. One might surmise that the plan all along was not a Ukrainian victory. But to exhaust the ussr stockpile of military equipment but so slowly that it would not risk Putin’s domestic authority. Most online bean counters say it’s nearly job done with the stockpiles, or will be some time in 2025. Either way the fix is in. I’d be very surprised if the war is still going next Xmas regardless who wins in Washington.
Never attribute to malice that which might otherwise be explained by incompetence.
There's no 4D Chess looking to run down Soviet stocks while preventing Ukrainian victory. There is the reality that sending aid to Ukraine is politically contentious.
Hmmm. That would be fine if the White House was gagging to send the right weapons promptly and with helpful rules of engagement, but were being stopped by Congress. That’s just not the story of this war since 2022. It’s very clear by now that Biden wet his knickers at the cia’s upgraded risk assessment of nuclear exchange and hence he’s been desperate above all else that the Russian front does not suddenly collapse. And for all I know that was the correct decision, though from my armchair it still feels wrong.
I think it was right, but you can't combine that with a public policy of total victory and unlimited arms, which is what the West has been doing.
I think there may not be any option ar some stage but for the West to go back to the drawing-board in terms of how it frames this conflict.
As has been noted the Dems can technically afford to lose Nevada, but only if all else goes well and it does not presage a trend in the battlegrounds.
The only thing you can say there is that 168K have voted Dem. The others (heck eve some of the Rep) votes may also be for Harris.
Some of those Democrats will have voted for Trump too. And I'm sure a good chunk of Independents.
And party registration data is often well out of date. There was a period when the South was dominated by Democrat registered voters, and yet the Republicans kept on winning.
Basically:
Beware of extrapolating from small datasets.
Nearly 500,000 early votes have been cast in Nevada...
Of course, the Russian dead and injured aren't from Moscow and St Petersburg. As seems always to be the case in Russia, it is the poorest provinces that are bearing the cost of the center's ambitions.
But Russia doesn't have an unlimited supply of young men.
In June, 98,600 people were born in Russia. So, rounding, we're talking about 49,000 male babies.
They're losing 30,000 people per month - killed, captured and wounded - in Ukraine.
If you compare this to the British losses on the Western Front in the first World World War, you're looking at around 40,000 male babies per month, against 20,000 casualties.
So, in the First World War, the British were losing the equivalent of half a month's births on the battlefield. The Russians, in Ukraine, are at 60%.
Ukraine has similar demographics of course, from a smaller base, with people oversees to boot - which is probably why many are downbeat on their prospects in most offensive phases, now the Russians have seemingly ridden themselves of the highest amount of incomptence.
Russia very rarely loses wars on the battlefield. Much more often, it loses them on the home front. That has to be Ukraine's grand strategy here too. The Kremlin is overheating its economy because of war efforts and in the short term that will also bring some popularity but there will be a price to pay (literally) as inflation increasingly bites, as it will.
Obviously, with a Trump presidency, Putin need worry less about Western retaliation to war crimes in terms of support for Ukraine, sanctions and so on, and presumably that's his plan: bomb Ukraine more. But it's not worked so far and people are resilient in such situations.
And anyway, by the spring offensive it will be a question of which way will President Vance go. (Assuming Putin doesn't have the dirt on him too...CCTV of his sofa?)
Vance has been even more vocally anti-Ukraine than Trump.
Whilst there's no great threat to the UK, I'm pretty sure that Putin could invade us after Guy Fawkes night, and seize London. The Russian navy is no great shakes, but ours is almost an absence in force. It wouldn't hold of course - the Russians would have to fall back under a wave of soup thrown by odd people and beardy types clapping them far too firmly on the back. But, you know, just saying.
No chance. The last Russian naval victory was in the age of sail. Pathetic as our defences are after years of Tory neglect, the Royal Navy and RAF would sink their rustbuckets easily. The Ukranians have swept them from most of the Black Sea with no Navy at all..
Suppose you string out the RN in a big long line and imagine that each ship can defend say 20 miles of coast - we're still well short. The RAF has some crazily small number of combat aircraft.
Look, I can't really judge, but it seems quite clear to me that we spend billions on the illusion of having a defence whereas the reality is that we have almost none at all.
The Russian Navy never had much force projection.
Their surface navy (the bit that still floats) is covered with big, liquid fueled missiles. Which exposed very nicely when hit, as the Ukrainians demonstrated. Similar reasons to why their tanks throw their turrets…
Their one carrier is completely broken and can’t sail. And before you start the jokes, we have a carrier at sea. The F-35 on board are generations beyond anything Russian.
Their sub fleet is out of service.
Their amphibious landing capability is now next to nil.
So they can’t get to the U.K., can’t defend themselves on the way here and can’t land anything when they arrive. Aside from that…
Oh, and you don’t defend the U.K. by creating a picket line round the country (every 20 miles etc). As Nelson pointed out when he was in charge of the Channel Fleet, that’s not how it works
Of course, the Russian dead and injured aren't from Moscow and St Petersburg. As seems always to be the case in Russia, it is the poorest provinces that are bearing the cost of the center's ambitions.
But Russia doesn't have an unlimited supply of young men.
In June, 98,600 people were born in Russia. So, rounding, we're talking about 49,000 male babies.
They're losing 30,000 people per month - killed, captured and wounded - in Ukraine.
If you compare this to the British losses on the Western Front in the first World World War, you're looking at around 40,000 male babies per month, against 20,000 casualties.
So, in the First World War, the British were losing the equivalent of half a month's births on the battlefield. The Russians, in Ukraine, are at 60%.
Ukraine has similar demographics of course, from a smaller base, with people oversees to boot - which is probably why many are downbeat on their prospects in most offensive phases, now the Russians have seemingly ridden themselves of the highest amount of incomptence.
Russia very rarely loses wars on the battlefield. Much more often, it loses them on the home front. That has to be Ukraine's grand strategy here too. The Kremlin is overheating its economy because of war efforts and in the short term that will also bring some popularity but there will be a price to pay (literally) as inflation increasingly bites, as it will.
Obviously, with a Trump presidency, Putin need worry less about Western retaliation to war crimes in terms of support for Ukraine, sanctions and so on, and presumably that's his plan: bomb Ukraine more. But it's not worked so far and people are resilient in such situations.
And anyway, by the spring offensive it will be a question of which way will President Vance go. (Assuming Putin doesn't have the dirt on him too...CCTV of his sofa?)
Vance has been even more vocally anti-Ukraine than Trump.
Whilst there's no great threat to the UK, I'm pretty sure that Putin could invade us after Guy Fawkes night, and seize London. The Russian navy is no great shakes, but ours is almost an absence in force. It wouldn't hold of course - the Russians would have to fall back under a wave of soup thrown by odd people and beardy types clapping them far too firmly on the back. But, you know, just saying.
No chance. The last Russian naval victory was in the age of sail. Pathetic as our defences are after years of Tory neglect, the Royal Navy and RAF would sink their rustbuckets easily. The Ukranians have swept them from most of the Black Sea with no Navy at all..
Suppose you string out the RN in a big long line and imagine that each ship can defend say 20 miles of coast - we're still well short. The RAF has some crazily small number of combat aircraft.
Look, I can't really judge, but it seems quite clear to me that we spend billions on the illusion of having a defence whereas the reality is that we have almost none at all.
The Russian Navy never had much force projection.
Their surface navy (the bit that still floats) is covered with big, liquid fueled missiles. Which exposed very nicely when hit, as the Ukrainians demonstrated. Similar reasons to why their tanks throw their turrets…
Their one carrier is completely broken and can’t sail. And before you start the jokes, we have a carrier at sea. The F-35 on board are generations beyond anything Russian.
Their sub fleet is out of service.
Their amphibious landing capability is now next to nil.
So they can’t get to the U.K., can’t defend themselves on the way here and can’t land anything when they arrive. Aside from that…
Oh, and you don’t defend the U.K. by creating a picket line round the country (every 20 miles etc). As Nelson pointed out when he was in charge of the Channel Fleet, that’s not how it works
As has been noted the Dems can technically afford to lose Nevada, but only if all else goes well and it does not presage a trend in the battlegrounds.
The only thing you can say there is that 168K have voted Dem. The others (heck eve some of the Rep) votes may also be for Harris.
Some of those Democrats will have voted for Trump too. And I'm sure a good chunk of Independents.
And party registration data is often well out of date. There was a period when the South was dominated by Democrat registered voters, and yet the Republicans kept on winning.
Basically:
Beware of extrapolating from small datasets.
Nearly 500,000 early votes have been cast in Nevada...
Sure, but you're extrapolating a lot from voter registration data. It's also entirely possible - maybe even likely - that lots of Republican leaning Independents (who voted Trump in 2016 and 2020) are now registererd Republicans, because they had a big drive to register voters.
It's also possible that Trump is cruising to victory in Nevada.
Of course, the Russian dead and injured aren't from Moscow and St Petersburg. As seems always to be the case in Russia, it is the poorest provinces that are bearing the cost of the center's ambitions.
But Russia doesn't have an unlimited supply of young men.
In June, 98,600 people were born in Russia. So, rounding, we're talking about 49,000 male babies.
They're losing 30,000 people per month - killed, captured and wounded - in Ukraine.
If you compare this to the British losses on the Western Front in the first World World War, you're looking at around 40,000 male babies per month, against 20,000 casualties.
So, in the First World War, the British were losing the equivalent of half a month's births on the battlefield. The Russians, in Ukraine, are at 60%.
Ukraine has similar demographics of course, from a smaller base, with people oversees to boot - which is probably why many are downbeat on their prospects in most offensive phases, now the Russians have seemingly ridden themselves of the highest amount of incomptence.
Russia very rarely loses wars on the battlefield. Much more often, it loses them on the home front. That has to be Ukraine's grand strategy here too. The Kremlin is overheating its economy because of war efforts and in the short term that will also bring some popularity but there will be a price to pay (literally) as inflation increasingly bites, as it will.
Obviously, with a Trump presidency, Putin need worry less about Western retaliation to war crimes in terms of support for Ukraine, sanctions and so on, and presumably that's his plan: bomb Ukraine more. But it's not worked so far and people are resilient in such situations.
And anyway, by the spring offensive it will be a question of which way will President Vance go. (Assuming Putin doesn't have the dirt on him too...CCTV of his sofa?)
Vance has been even more vocally anti-Ukraine than Trump.
Whilst there's no great threat to the UK, I'm pretty sure that Putin could invade us after Guy Fawkes night, and seize London. The Russian navy is no great shakes, but ours is almost an absence in force. It wouldn't hold of course - the Russians would have to fall back under a wave of soup thrown by odd people and beardy types clapping them far too firmly on the back. But, you know, just saying.
No chance. The last Russian naval victory was in the age of sail. Pathetic as our defences are after years of Tory neglect, the Royal Navy and RAF would sink their rustbuckets easily. The Ukranians have swept them from most of the Black Sea with no Navy at all..
Suppose you string out the RN in a big long line and imagine that each ship can defend say 20 miles of coast - we're still well short. The RAF has some crazily small number of combat aircraft.
Look, I can't really judge, but it seems quite clear to me that we spend billions on the illusion of having a defence whereas the reality is that we have almost none at all.
The Russian Navy never had much force projection.
Their surface navy (the bit that still floats) is covered with big, liquid fueled missiles. Which exposed very nicely when hit, as the Ukrainians demonstrated. Similar reasons to why their tanks throw their turrets…
Their one carrier is completely broken and can’t sail. And before you start the jokes, we have a carrier at sea. The F-35 on board are generations beyond anything Russian.
Their sub fleet is out of service.
Their amphibious landing capability is now next to nil.
So they can’t get to the U.K., can’t defend themselves on the way here and can’t land anything when they arrive. Aside from that…
Oh, and you don’t defend the U.K. by creating a picket line round the country (every 20 miles etc). As Nelson pointed out when he was in charge of the Channel Fleet, that’s not how it works
Ok, so just for the hell of it, what would you suggest would happen if Putin decided to try to seize London? RN sweeping the waves, and nothing more to be said?
Of course, the Russian dead and injured aren't from Moscow and St Petersburg. As seems always to be the case in Russia, it is the poorest provinces that are bearing the cost of the center's ambitions.
But Russia doesn't have an unlimited supply of young men.
In June, 98,600 people were born in Russia. So, rounding, we're talking about 49,000 male babies.
They're losing 30,000 people per month - killed, captured and wounded - in Ukraine.
If you compare this to the British losses on the Western Front in the first World World War, you're looking at around 40,000 male babies per month, against 20,000 casualties.
So, in the First World War, the British were losing the equivalent of half a month's births on the battlefield. The Russians, in Ukraine, are at 60%.
Ukraine has similar demographics of course, from a smaller base, with people oversees to boot - which is probably why many are downbeat on their prospects in most offensive phases, now the Russians have seemingly ridden themselves of the highest amount of incomptence.
Russia very rarely loses wars on the battlefield. Much more often, it loses them on the home front. That has to be Ukraine's grand strategy here too. The Kremlin is overheating its economy because of war efforts and in the short term that will also bring some popularity but there will be a price to pay (literally) as inflation increasingly bites, as it will.
Obviously, with a Trump presidency, Putin need worry less about Western retaliation to war crimes in terms of support for Ukraine, sanctions and so on, and presumably that's his plan: bomb Ukraine more. But it's not worked so far and people are resilient in such situations.
And anyway, by the spring offensive it will be a question of which way will President Vance go. (Assuming Putin doesn't have the dirt on him too...CCTV of his sofa?)
Vance has been even more vocally anti-Ukraine than Trump.
Whilst there's no great threat to the UK, I'm pretty sure that Putin could invade us after Guy Fawkes night, and seize London. The Russian navy is no great shakes, but ours is almost an absence in force. It wouldn't hold of course - the Russians would have to fall back under a wave of soup thrown by odd people and beardy types clapping them far too firmly on the back. But, you know, just saying.
No chance. The last Russian naval victory was in the age of sail. Pathetic as our defences are after years of Tory neglect, the Royal Navy and RAF would sink their rustbuckets easily. The Ukranians have swept them from most of the Black Sea with no Navy at all..
Suppose you string out the RN in a big long line and imagine that each ship can defend say 20 miles of coast - we're still well short. The RAF has some crazily small number of combat aircraft.
Look, I can't really judge, but it seems quite clear to me that we spend billions on the illusion of having a defence whereas the reality is that we have almost none at all.
The Russian Navy never had much force projection.
Their surface navy (the bit that still floats) is covered with big, liquid fueled missiles. Which exposed very nicely when hit, as the Ukrainians demonstrated. Similar reasons to why their tanks throw their turrets…
Their one carrier is completely broken and can’t sail. And before you start the jokes, we have a carrier at sea. The F-35 on board are generations beyond anything Russian.
Their sub fleet is out of service.
Their amphibious landing capability is now next to nil.
So they can’t get to the U.K., can’t defend themselves on the way here and can’t land anything when they arrive. Aside from that…
Oh, and you don’t defend the U.K. by creating a picket line round the country (every 20 miles etc). As Nelson pointed out when he was in charge of the Channel Fleet, that’s not how it works
Suppose you string out the RN in a big long line and imagine that each ship can defend say 20 miles of coast - we're still well short.
It really doesn't work like that. Amphibious landings are hard. Very hard. You always want to concentrate the limited amount of men and hardware you can viably transport into one area. So the RN would also concentrate its units in that same area.
Britain doesn't really have specific defences against this kind of threat, but it doesn't need them. You simply don't invade an island nation that has a modern (albeit small) surface fleet, advanced SSNs, capable fast jets, and plenty of friends nearby, not unless you have similar or better technology and a vast force advantage.
As has been noted the Dems can technically afford to lose Nevada, but only if all else goes well and it does not presage a trend in the battlegrounds.
The only thing you can say there is that 168K have voted Dem. The others (heck eve some of the Rep) votes may also be for Harris.
Some of those Democrats will have voted for Trump too. And I'm sure a good chunk of Independents.
And party registration data is often well out of date. There was a period when the South was dominated by Democrat registered voters, and yet the Republicans kept on winning.
Basically:
Beware of extrapolating from small datasets.
Nearly 500,000 early votes have been cast in Nevada...
Sure, but you're extrapolating a lot from voter registration data. It's also entirely possible - maybe even likely - that lots of Republican leaning Independents (who voted Trump in 2016 and 2020) are now registererd Republicans, because they had a big drive to register voters.
It's also possible that Trump is cruising to victory in Nevada.
I know that, and I also know you deprecate early voting numbers, but I have to use something. There are only three indicators I know for POTUS: polls, early voting, campaign locations. The polls are a dead heat and the campaign stops are weird (Trump in Colorado, Kamala in Texas), so that just leaves me with early voting. Which in Nevada is bad for the Dems. If you have a better indicator please tell me.
I still think Badenoch is the best choice for the Tories. Yes she’s a dice roll, she can be divisive, undisciplined, all-talk-no-action, gaffe prone etc. But she is different. And she does therefore offer the Tories a wildcard.
I have said before I’m not entirely convinced that the Tories build their voter coalition back by trying to be trendy Cameroon centrists again. At least not right now.
I am not quite sure where the Tories end up under Badenoch. That makes her an interesting prospect.
All these PBers on here saying 'roll the dice on Badenoch' she is a black woman with dreadlocks, looks different. Yet not one of you will vote Tory if she becomes leader.
Badenoch was a Leaver, so will not win back LDs and opposes withdrawal from the European Convention on Human Rights, so will not win back Reform voters and is fanatically anti woke so will not win back voters from Labour or most young people either.
So who apart from wealthy metropolitan Tories like Maude and Gove and Osborne wanting a fashionable leader of their party to talk about at Kensington dinner parties does she actually appeal to?
Suppose you string out the RN in a big long line and imagine that each ship can defend say 20 miles of coast - we're still well short.
It really doesn't work like that. Amphibious landings are hard. Very hard. You always want to concentrate the limited amount of men and hardware you can viably transport into one area. So the RN would also concentrate its units in that same area.
Britain doesn't really have specific defences against this kind of threat, but it doesn't need them. You simply don't invade an island nation that has a modern (albeit small) surface fleet, advanced SSNs, capable fast jets, and plenty of friends nearby, not unless you have similar or better technology and a vast force advantage.
Of course, the Russian dead and injured aren't from Moscow and St Petersburg. As seems always to be the case in Russia, it is the poorest provinces that are bearing the cost of the center's ambitions.
But Russia doesn't have an unlimited supply of young men.
In June, 98,600 people were born in Russia. So, rounding, we're talking about 49,000 male babies.
They're losing 30,000 people per month - killed, captured and wounded - in Ukraine.
If you compare this to the British losses on the Western Front in the first World World War, you're looking at around 40,000 male babies per month, against 20,000 casualties.
So, in the First World War, the British were losing the equivalent of half a month's births on the battlefield. The Russians, in Ukraine, are at 60%.
Ukraine has similar demographics of course, from a smaller base, with people oversees to boot - which is probably why many are downbeat on their prospects in most offensive phases, now the Russians have seemingly ridden themselves of the highest amount of incomptence.
Russia very rarely loses wars on the battlefield. Much more often, it loses them on the home front. That has to be Ukraine's grand strategy here too. The Kremlin is overheating its economy because of war efforts and in the short term that will also bring some popularity but there will be a price to pay (literally) as inflation increasingly bites, as it will.
Obviously, with a Trump presidency, Putin need worry less about Western retaliation to war crimes in terms of support for Ukraine, sanctions and so on, and presumably that's his plan: bomb Ukraine more. But it's not worked so far and people are resilient in such situations.
And anyway, by the spring offensive it will be a question of which way will President Vance go. (Assuming Putin doesn't have the dirt on him too...CCTV of his sofa?)
Vance has been even more vocally anti-Ukraine than Trump.
Whilst there's no great threat to the UK, I'm pretty sure that Putin could invade us after Guy Fawkes night, and seize London. The Russian navy is no great shakes, but ours is almost an absence in force. It wouldn't hold of course - the Russians would have to fall back under a wave of soup thrown by odd people and beardy types clapping them far too firmly on the back. But, you know, just saying.
No chance. The last Russian naval victory was in the age of sail. Pathetic as our defences are after years of Tory neglect, the Royal Navy and RAF would sink their rustbuckets easily. The Ukranians have swept them from most of the Black Sea with no Navy at all..
Suppose you string out the RN in a big long line and imagine that each ship can defend say 20 miles of coast - we're still well short. The RAF has some crazily small number of combat aircraft.
Look, I can't really judge, but it seems quite clear to me that we spend billions on the illusion of having a defence whereas the reality is that we have almost none at all.
The Russian Navy never had much force projection.
Their surface navy (the bit that still floats) is covered with big, liquid fueled missiles. Which exposed very nicely when hit, as the Ukrainians demonstrated. Similar reasons to why their tanks throw their turrets…
Their one carrier is completely broken and can’t sail. And before you start the jokes, we have a carrier at sea. The F-35 on board are generations beyond anything Russian.
Their sub fleet is out of service.
Their amphibious landing capability is now next to nil.
So they can’t get to the U.K., can’t defend themselves on the way here and can’t land anything when they arrive. Aside from that…
Oh, and you don’t defend the U.K. by creating a picket line round the country (every 20 miles etc). As Nelson pointed out when he was in charge of the Channel Fleet, that’s not how it works
Ok, so just for the hell of it, what would you suggest would happen if Putin decided to try to seize London? RN sweeping the waves, and nothing more to be said?
He has nearly nothing to send. The Norwegian Navy would sink it all before we got a chance, probably.
If he totally lost it and tried to send a battle group centred on say, Peter The Great, with a handful of destroyers, they get hammered by air launched missiles and submarine torpedos on the voyage. Without meaningful amphibious assets, what would they do when they arrived, anyway? They have a surface to surface capability for some of the heavy missiles, sure, but that’s a couple dozen, with no reloads at sea.
Suppose you string out the RN in a big long line and imagine that each ship can defend say 20 miles of coast - we're still well short.
It really doesn't work like that. Amphibious landings are hard. Very hard. You always want to concentrate the limited amount of men and hardware you can viably transport into one area. So the RN would also concentrate its units in that same area.
Britain doesn't really have specific defences against this kind of threat, but it doesn't need them. You simply don't invade an island nation that has a modern (albeit small) surface fleet, advanced SSNs, capable fast jets, and plenty of friends nearby, not unless you have similar or better technology and a vast force advantage.
I do know that stringing out vessels in a line isn't sensible. However it does give an indication as to the scale of the defensive issue.
Of course, the Russian dead and injured aren't from Moscow and St Petersburg. As seems always to be the case in Russia, it is the poorest provinces that are bearing the cost of the center's ambitions.
But Russia doesn't have an unlimited supply of young men.
In June, 98,600 people were born in Russia. So, rounding, we're talking about 49,000 male babies.
They're losing 30,000 people per month - killed, captured and wounded - in Ukraine.
If you compare this to the British losses on the Western Front in the first World World War, you're looking at around 40,000 male babies per month, against 20,000 casualties.
So, in the First World War, the British were losing the equivalent of half a month's births on the battlefield. The Russians, in Ukraine, are at 60%.
Ukraine has similar demographics of course, from a smaller base, with people oversees to boot - which is probably why many are downbeat on their prospects in most offensive phases, now the Russians have seemingly ridden themselves of the highest amount of incomptence.
Russia very rarely loses wars on the battlefield. Much more often, it loses them on the home front. That has to be Ukraine's grand strategy here too. The Kremlin is overheating its economy because of war efforts and in the short term that will also bring some popularity but there will be a price to pay (literally) as inflation increasingly bites, as it will.
Obviously, with a Trump presidency, Putin need worry less about Western retaliation to war crimes in terms of support for Ukraine, sanctions and so on, and presumably that's his plan: bomb Ukraine more. But it's not worked so far and people are resilient in such situations.
And anyway, by the spring offensive it will be a question of which way will President Vance go. (Assuming Putin doesn't have the dirt on him too...CCTV of his sofa?)
Vance has been even more vocally anti-Ukraine than Trump.
Whilst there's no great threat to the UK, I'm pretty sure that Putin could invade us after Guy Fawkes night, and seize London. The Russian navy is no great shakes, but ours is almost an absence in force. It wouldn't hold of course - the Russians would have to fall back under a wave of soup thrown by odd people and beardy types clapping them far too firmly on the back. But, you know, just saying.
No chance. The last Russian naval victory was in the age of sail. Pathetic as our defences are after years of Tory neglect, the Royal Navy and RAF would sink their rustbuckets easily. The Ukranians have swept them from most of the Black Sea with no Navy at all..
Suppose you string out the RN in a big long line and imagine that each ship can defend say 20 miles of coast - we're still well short. The RAF has some crazily small number of combat aircraft.
Look, I can't really judge, but it seems quite clear to me that we spend billions on the illusion of having a defence whereas the reality is that we have almost none at all.
The Russian Navy never had much force projection.
Their surface navy (the bit that still floats) is covered with big, liquid fueled missiles. Which exposed very nicely when hit, as the Ukrainians demonstrated. Similar reasons to why their tanks throw their turrets…
Their one carrier is completely broken and can’t sail. And before you start the jokes, we have a carrier at sea. The F-35 on board are generations beyond anything Russian.
Their sub fleet is out of service.
Their amphibious landing capability is now next to nil.
So they can’t get to the U.K., can’t defend themselves on the way here and can’t land anything when they arrive. Aside from that…
Oh, and you don’t defend the U.K. by creating a picket line round the country (every 20 miles etc). As Nelson pointed out when he was in charge of the Channel Fleet, that’s not how it works
Ok, so just for the hell of it, what would you suggest would happen if Putin decided to try to seize London? RN sweeping the waves, and nothing more to be said?
His navy, such as it is, would be sunk in the Skaggerack.
As has been noted the Dems can technically afford to lose Nevada, but only if all else goes well and it does not presage a trend in the battlegrounds.
The only thing you can say there is that 168K have voted Dem. The others (heck eve some of the Rep) votes may also be for Harris.
Some of those Democrats will have voted for Trump too. And I'm sure a good chunk of Independents.
And party registration data is often well out of date. There was a period when the South was dominated by Democrat registered voters, and yet the Republicans kept on winning.
Basically:
Beware of extrapolating from small datasets.
Nearly 500,000 early votes have been cast in Nevada...
Sure, but you're extrapolating a lot from voter registration data. It's also entirely possible - maybe even likely - that lots of Republican leaning Independents (who voted Trump in 2016 and 2020) are now registererd Republicans, because they had a big drive to register voters.
It's also possible that Trump is cruising to victory in Nevada.
I know that, and I also know you deprecate early voting numbers, but I have to use something. There are only three indicators I know for POTUS: polls, early voting, campaign locations. The polls are a dead heat and the campaign stops are weird (Trump in Colorado, Kamala in Texas), so that just leaves me with early voting. Which in Nevada is bad for the Dems. If you have a better indicator please tell me.
Sure.
If you take early voting in Georgia, and weight it according to county and to sex, then it looks like Harris is up 2 percentage points in there. (I.e. where has early voting happened, and what were the results in 2020.)
But I'd be cautious about reading too much into that, because I suspect that people who live in urban areas, where queues on polling day can be brutal, will be more likely to vote early.
Of course, the Russian dead and injured aren't from Moscow and St Petersburg. As seems always to be the case in Russia, it is the poorest provinces that are bearing the cost of the center's ambitions.
But Russia doesn't have an unlimited supply of young men.
In June, 98,600 people were born in Russia. So, rounding, we're talking about 49,000 male babies.
They're losing 30,000 people per month - killed, captured and wounded - in Ukraine.
If you compare this to the British losses on the Western Front in the first World World War, you're looking at around 40,000 male babies per month, against 20,000 casualties.
So, in the First World War, the British were losing the equivalent of half a month's births on the battlefield. The Russians, in Ukraine, are at 60%.
Ukraine has similar demographics of course, from a smaller base, with people oversees to boot - which is probably why many are downbeat on their prospects in most offensive phases, now the Russians have seemingly ridden themselves of the highest amount of incomptence.
One of the main reasons that Ukraine has been pushed back a little this year, and suffered bad enough casualties that their only offensive was catching the Russians on the hop in Kursk, is that they've been fighting with a major imbalance in artillery ammunition. Just as in WWI, the majority of casualties have been caused by artillery.
If Ukraine can be supplied with greater quantities of ranged ammunition - they've been asking for funding for their domestic drone industry for example - then they can reverse the imbalance in ranged weapons to their advantage. They can destroy Russian munitions before they reach the battlefield, destroy more Russian artillery pieces, and inflict casualties on Russian infantry at a greater distance - reducing their own casualty rate at the same time.
That's the route to victory that also reduces the damage to the current generation of young Ukrainians.
Any damage they can be done to Russian war industry by making India and other countries a better offer to persuade them to prevent supply of components to Russia would also greatly help.
The other being the six month US supply drought over the end of last year.
If Harris is elected, and S Korea changes its policy because of fat Kim's involvement, next spring could look very different.
If Trump is elected, it will be grim for them.
Yep.
Europe and the UK are going to really need to step up in the event the Americans leave the party.
They won't step up, even if they could. Not to the level that would be needed in that event.
They could step up.
There's nothing to stop Europe from making more munitions and sending them to Ukraine.
Indeed, spending on ammunition and consumables has already stepped up sharply from where it was pre Ukraine.
But the question is whether there is the will. And whether some leaders see America pulling back as an excuse to say "Well, the battle is really over, there's no point in us prolonging the agony".
Which I think would be a sick and morally bankrupt thing to do. But there you go.
I heard a number today that artillery ammunition fired Russia:Ukraine is down from a peak 8-9:1 to about 2-3:1.
One factor in that South Korea supplies via the USA ali-shuffle.
If the USA pulls back Korea may supply direct, especially given that DPRK is now in the war.
I still think Badenoch is the best choice for the Tories. Yes she’s a dice roll, she can be divisive, undisciplined, all-talk-no-action, gaffe prone etc. But she is different. And she does therefore offer the Tories a wildcard.
I have said before I’m not entirely convinced that the Tories build their voter coalition back by trying to be trendy Cameroon centrists again. At least not right now.
I am not quite sure where the Tories end up under Badenoch. That makes her an interesting prospect.
All these PBers on here saying 'roll the dice on Badenoch' she is a black woman with dreadlocks, looks different. Yet not one of you will vote Tory if she becomes leader.
Badenoch was a Leaver, so will not win back LDs and opposes withdrawal from the European Convention on Human Rights, so will not win back Reform voters and is fanatically anti woke so will not win back voters from Labour or most young people either.
So who apart from wealthy metropolitan Tories like Maude and Gove and Osborne does she actually appeal to?
Jenrick is a grifter, who says whatever he thinks his audience wish to hear.
SKS is currently shitting the bed to such a degree that any halfway competent Conservative leader can expect to make gains. SKS is a poor man’s Harold Wilson.
We’ll see if Badenoch is halfway competent. If she isn’t she can be replaced.
He's shat the bed within 100 days of taking office. He's stunningly incompetent.
Could the next GE2029 be one of the most astonishing ever, where one landslide overturns another?
Yes, a Lib Dem landslide seems more than likely....
I doubt the Osborne endorsement makes much difference with members but confirms that after Cleverly was knocked out Badenoch is now the favourite of former Cameron and Sunak loyalists. See also endorsements from Hague and Gove for Badenoch (though she has also picked up support from IDS and Davis).
All I can say is I didn't vote for her and at most expect her to be a bit better than Truss, helped by the fact being in opposition she doesn't straight away get to implement any plans. Not that I have seen many plans from her, it is Jenrick with the policies on new homes, lower immigration, lower taxes etc.
Indeed the biggest winner from a Kemi win is probably Farage, an Electoral Calculus poll has a Badenoch led Tories just 1% ahead of Reform on 22% to 21%. So I expect champagne corks will pop at Reform Towers if she does win
Worth a cheeky few quid on Jenrick or pretty much a done deal just closer than the survey suggests?
I think so. The key thing for me is that ConservativeHome is not a reliable pollster. As they say "The ConservativeHome Party Members’ Survey is a self-selecting panel, not a demographically or geographically weighted poll".
So how to interpret it? Personally, I look at the reliable YouGov poll. And I look at the delta in the ConservativeHome poll since then. YouGov had Kemi very marginally ahead (52/48) on very similar numbers. So we can guess that it would have a similar result now. What's very hopeful for my preferred candidate Kemi (although not preferred betting position) is that the main movement has been an increase in don't knows. Suggesting people realising what a bastard Jenrick is.
I am green on both outcomes but very overweight Jenrick. And I will back him even more (while staying green) if the prices lengthen still further.
Kemi is absolutely awesome and an engineer as PM is a bit like choosing a chemist as PM, to my mind
Suppose you string out the RN in a big long line and imagine that each ship can defend say 20 miles of coast - we're still well short.
It really doesn't work like that. Amphibious landings are hard. Very hard. You always want to concentrate the limited amount of men and hardware you can viably transport into one area. So the RN would also concentrate its units in that same area.
Britain doesn't really have specific defences against this kind of threat, but it doesn't need them. You simply don't invade an island nation that has a modern (albeit small) surface fleet, advanced SSNs, capable fast jets, and plenty of friends nearby, not unless you have similar or better technology and a vast force advantage.
I do know that stringing out vessels in a line isn't sensible. However it does give an indication as to the scale of the defensive issue.
I doubt the Osborne endorsement makes much difference with members but confirms that after Cleverly was knocked out Badenoch is now the favourite of former Cameron and Sunak loyalists. See also endorsements from Hague and Gove for Badenoch (though she has also picked up support from IDS and Davis).
All I can say is I didn't vote for her and at most expect her to be a bit better than Truss, helped by the fact being in opposition she doesn't straight away get to implement any plans. Not that I have seen many plans from her, it is Jenrick with the policies on new homes, lower immigration, lower taxes etc.
Indeed the biggest winner from a Kemi win is probably Farage, an Electoral Calculus poll has a Badenoch led Tories just 1% ahead of Reform on 22% to 21%. So I expect champagne corks will pop at Reform Towers if she does win
Worth a cheeky few quid on Jenrick or pretty much a done deal just closer than the survey suggests?
I think so. The key thing for me is that ConservativeHome is not a reliable pollster. As they say "The ConservativeHome Party Members’ Survey is a self-selecting panel, not a demographically or geographically weighted poll".
So how to interpret it? Personally, I look at the reliable YouGov poll. And I look at the delta in the ConservativeHome poll since then. YouGov had Kemi very marginally ahead (52/48) on very similar numbers. So we can guess that it would have a similar result now. What's very hopeful for my preferred candidate Kemi (although not preferred betting position) is that the main movement has been an increase in don't knows. Suggesting people realising what a bastard Jenrick is.
I am green on both outcomes but very overweight Jenrick. And I will back him even more (while staying green) if the prices lengthen still further.
When is the next YouGov poll? Am seriously thinking on lamping on her further.
I still think Badenoch is the best choice for the Tories. Yes she’s a dice roll, she can be divisive, undisciplined, all-talk-no-action, gaffe prone etc. But she is different. And she does therefore offer the Tories a wildcard.
I have said before I’m not entirely convinced that the Tories build their voter coalition back by trying to be trendy Cameroon centrists again. At least not right now.
I am not quite sure where the Tories end up under Badenoch. That makes her an interesting prospect.
All these PBers on here saying 'roll the dice on Badenoch' she is a black woman with dreadlocks, looks different. Yet not one of you will vote Tory if she becomes leader.
Badenoch was a Leaver, so will not win back LDs and opposes withdrawal from the European Convention on Human Rights, so will not win back Reform voters and is fanatically anti woke so will not win back voters from Labour or most young people either.
So who apart from wealthy metropolitan Tories like Maude and Gove and Osborne wanting a fashionable leader of their party to talk about at Kensington dinner parties does she actually appeal to?
Well, she rather appeals to me, and I've an allergy to Conservatives in general.
I doubt the Osborne endorsement makes much difference with members but confirms that after Cleverly was knocked out Badenoch is now the favourite of former Cameron and Sunak loyalists. See also endorsements from Hague and Gove for Badenoch (though she has also picked up support from IDS and Davis).
All I can say is I didn't vote for her and at most expect her to be a bit better than Truss, helped by the fact being in opposition she doesn't straight away get to implement any plans. Not that I have seen many plans from her, it is Jenrick with the policies on new homes, lower immigration, lower taxes etc.
Indeed the biggest winner from a Kemi win is probably Farage, an Electoral Calculus poll has a Badenoch led Tories just 1% ahead of Reform on 22% to 21%. So I expect champagne corks will pop at Reform Towers if she does win
Worth a cheeky few quid on Jenrick or pretty much a done deal just closer than the survey suggests?
I think so. The key thing for me is that ConservativeHome is not a reliable pollster. As they say "The ConservativeHome Party Members’ Survey is a self-selecting panel, not a demographically or geographically weighted poll".
So how to interpret it? Personally, I look at the reliable YouGov poll. And I look at the delta in the ConservativeHome poll since then. YouGov had Kemi very marginally ahead (52/48) on very similar numbers. So we can guess that it would have a similar result now. What's very hopeful for my preferred candidate Kemi (although not preferred betting position) is that the main movement has been an increase in don't knows. Suggesting people realising what a bastard Jenrick is.
I am green on both outcomes but very overweight Jenrick. And I will back him even more (while staying green) if the prices lengthen still further.
When is the next YouGov poll? Am seriously thinking on lamping on her further.
Of course, the Russian dead and injured aren't from Moscow and St Petersburg. As seems always to be the case in Russia, it is the poorest provinces that are bearing the cost of the center's ambitions.
But Russia doesn't have an unlimited supply of young men.
In June, 98,600 people were born in Russia. So, rounding, we're talking about 49,000 male babies.
They're losing 30,000 people per month - killed, captured and wounded - in Ukraine.
If you compare this to the British losses on the Western Front in the first World World War, you're looking at around 40,000 male babies per month, against 20,000 casualties.
So, in the First World War, the British were losing the equivalent of half a month's births on the battlefield. The Russians, in Ukraine, are at 60%.
Ukraine has similar demographics of course, from a smaller base, with people oversees to boot - which is probably why many are downbeat on their prospects in most offensive phases, now the Russians have seemingly ridden themselves of the highest amount of incomptence.
One of the main reasons that Ukraine has been pushed back a little this year, and suffered bad enough casualties that their only offensive was catching the Russians on the hop in Kursk, is that they've been fighting with a major imbalance in artillery ammunition. Just as in WWI, the majority of casualties have been caused by artillery.
If Ukraine can be supplied with greater quantities of ranged ammunition - they've been asking for funding for their domestic drone industry for example - then they can reverse the imbalance in ranged weapons to their advantage. They can destroy Russian munitions before they reach the battlefield, destroy more Russian artillery pieces, and inflict casualties on Russian infantry at a greater distance - reducing their own casualty rate at the same time.
That's the route to victory that also reduces the damage to the current generation of young Ukrainians.
Any damage they can be done to Russian war industry by making India and other countries a better offer to persuade them to prevent supply of components to Russia would also greatly help.
The other being the six month US supply drought over the end of last year.
If Harris is elected, and S Korea changes its policy because of fat Kim's involvement, next spring could look very different.
If Trump is elected, it will be grim for them.
Yep.
Europe and the UK are going to really need to step up in the event the Americans leave the party.
They won't step up, even if they could. Not to the level that would be needed in that event.
They could step up.
There's nothing to stop Europe from making more munitions and sending them to Ukraine.
Indeed, spending on ammunition and consumables has already stepped up sharply from where it was pre Ukraine.
But the question is whether there is the will. And whether some leaders see America pulling back as an excuse to say "Well, the battle is really over, there's no point in us prolonging the agony".
Which I think would be a sick and morally bankrupt thing to do. But there you go.
I heard a number today that artillery ammunition fired Russia:Ukraine is down from a peak 8-9:1 to about 2-3:1.
One factor in that South Korea supplies via the USA ali-shuffle.
If the USA pulls back Korea may supply direct, especially given that DPRK is now in the war.
True but they have compensated with air-launched glide bombs, which can travel tens (hundreds?) of miles and the Ukranians have no defence.
Of course, the Russian dead and injured aren't from Moscow and St Petersburg. As seems always to be the case in Russia, it is the poorest provinces that are bearing the cost of the center's ambitions.
But Russia doesn't have an unlimited supply of young men.
In June, 98,600 people were born in Russia. So, rounding, we're talking about 49,000 male babies.
They're losing 30,000 people per month - killed, captured and wounded - in Ukraine.
If you compare this to the British losses on the Western Front in the first World World War, you're looking at around 40,000 male babies per month, against 20,000 casualties.
So, in the First World War, the British were losing the equivalent of half a month's births on the battlefield. The Russians, in Ukraine, are at 60%.
Ukraine has similar demographics of course, from a smaller base, with people oversees to boot - which is probably why many are downbeat on their prospects in most offensive phases, now the Russians have seemingly ridden themselves of the highest amount of incomptence.
Russia very rarely loses wars on the battlefield. Much more often, it loses them on the home front. That has to be Ukraine's grand strategy here too. The Kremlin is overheating its economy because of war efforts and in the short term that will also bring some popularity but there will be a price to pay (literally) as inflation increasingly bites, as it will.
Obviously, with a Trump presidency, Putin need worry less about Western retaliation to war crimes in terms of support for Ukraine, sanctions and so on, and presumably that's his plan: bomb Ukraine more. But it's not worked so far and people are resilient in such situations.
And anyway, by the spring offensive it will be a question of which way will President Vance go. (Assuming Putin doesn't have the dirt on him too...CCTV of his sofa?)
Vance has been even more vocally anti-Ukraine than Trump.
Whilst there's no great threat to the UK, I'm pretty sure that Putin could invade us after Guy Fawkes night, and seize London. The Russian navy is no great shakes, but ours is almost an absence in force. It wouldn't hold of course - the Russians would have to fall back under a wave of soup thrown by odd people and beardy types clapping them far too firmly on the back. But, you know, just saying.
No chance. The last Russian naval victory was in the age of sail. Pathetic as our defences are after years of Tory neglect, the Royal Navy and RAF would sink their rustbuckets easily. The Ukranians have swept them from most of the Black Sea with no Navy at all..
Suppose you string out the RN in a big long line and imagine that each ship can defend say 20 miles of coast - we're still well short. The RAF has some crazily small number of combat aircraft.
Look, I can't really judge, but it seems quite clear to me that we spend billions on the illusion of having a defence whereas the reality is that we have almost none at all.
The Russian Navy never had much force projection.
Their surface navy (the bit that still floats) is covered with big, liquid fueled missiles. Which exposed very nicely when hit, as the Ukrainians demonstrated. Similar reasons to why their tanks throw their turrets…
Their one carrier is completely broken and can’t sail. And before you start the jokes, we have a carrier at sea. The F-35 on board are generations beyond anything Russian.
Their sub fleet is out of service.
Their amphibious landing capability is now next to nil.
So they can’t get to the U.K., can’t defend themselves on the way here and can’t land anything when they arrive. Aside from that…
Oh, and you don’t defend the U.K. by creating a picket line round the country (every 20 miles etc). As Nelson pointed out when he was in charge of the Channel Fleet, that’s not how it works
Ok, so just for the hell of it, what would you suggest would happen if Putin decided to try to seize London? RN sweeping the waves, and nothing more to be said?
His navy, such as it is, would be sunk in the Skaggerack.
"[W]ould be sunk" might be too specific.
I would go simply with "would sink", as that would also cover the inevitable and likely numerous self inflicted wounds the Russian navy would inflict on itself.
Of course, the Russian dead and injured aren't from Moscow and St Petersburg. As seems always to be the case in Russia, it is the poorest provinces that are bearing the cost of the center's ambitions.
But Russia doesn't have an unlimited supply of young men.
In June, 98,600 people were born in Russia. So, rounding, we're talking about 49,000 male babies.
They're losing 30,000 people per month - killed, captured and wounded - in Ukraine.
If you compare this to the British losses on the Western Front in the first World World War, you're looking at around 40,000 male babies per month, against 20,000 casualties.
So, in the First World War, the British were losing the equivalent of half a month's births on the battlefield. The Russians, in Ukraine, are at 60%.
Ukraine has similar demographics of course, from a smaller base, with people oversees to boot - which is probably why many are downbeat on their prospects in most offensive phases, now the Russians have seemingly ridden themselves of the highest amount of incomptence.
One of the main reasons that Ukraine has been pushed back a little this year, and suffered bad enough casualties that their only offensive was catching the Russians on the hop in Kursk, is that they've been fighting with a major imbalance in artillery ammunition. Just as in WWI, the majority of casualties have been caused by artillery.
If Ukraine can be supplied with greater quantities of ranged ammunition - they've been asking for funding for their domestic drone industry for example - then they can reverse the imbalance in ranged weapons to their advantage. They can destroy Russian munitions before they reach the battlefield, destroy more Russian artillery pieces, and inflict casualties on Russian infantry at a greater distance - reducing their own casualty rate at the same time.
That's the route to victory that also reduces the damage to the current generation of young Ukrainians.
Any damage they can be done to Russian war industry by making India and other countries a better offer to persuade them to prevent supply of components to Russia would also greatly help.
The other being the six month US supply drought over the end of last year.
If Harris is elected, and S Korea changes its policy because of fat Kim's involvement, next spring could look very different.
If Trump is elected, it will be grim for them.
Yep.
Europe and the UK are going to really need to step up in the event the Americans leave the party.
They won't step up, even if they could. Not to the level that would be needed in that event.
They could step up.
There's nothing to stop Europe from making more munitions and sending them to Ukraine.
Indeed, spending on ammunition and consumables has already stepped up sharply from where it was pre Ukraine.
But the question is whether there is the will. And whether some leaders see America pulling back as an excuse to say "Well, the battle is really over, there's no point in us prolonging the agony".
Which I think would be a sick and morally bankrupt thing to do. But there you go.
I've been pleasantly surprised the level of support has even lasted as long as it has, but I fear the weariness is setting in, nations beyond those rigeht next door will take the opportunity to reluctantly accept the new status quo.
Scholz is already shitting all over Zelensky’s victory plan. One might surmise that the plan all along was not a Ukrainian victory. But to exhaust the ussr stockpile of military equipment but so slowly that it would not risk Putin’s domestic authority. Most online bean counters say it’s nearly job done with the stockpiles, or will be some time in 2025. Either way the fix is in. I’d be very surprised if the war is still going next Xmas regardless who wins in Washington.
Never attribute to malice that which might otherwise be explained by incompetence.
There's no 4D Chess looking to run down Soviet stocks while preventing Ukrainian victory. There is the reality that sending aid to Ukraine is politically contentious.
Hmmm. That would be fine if the White House was gagging to send the right weapons promptly and with helpful rules of engagement, but were being stopped by Congress. That’s just not the story of this war since 2022. It’s very clear by now that Biden wet his knickers at the cia’s upgraded risk assessment of nuclear exchange and hence he’s been desperate above all else that the Russian front does not suddenly collapse. And for all I know that was the correct decision, though from my armchair it still feels wrong.
That's one possible explanation.
The other is that he is desperate to avoid being slapped down by Congress, and is therefore looking to find what would be acceptable to swing Republican lawmakers. If he went out too big, the blowback would be such that he might not be able to get anything through later.
Your explanation is possible, maybe plausible.
But so is mine. The reality is that a large chunk of the Republican Congress is deeply opposed to sending anything to Ukraine, and a small number of Democrats are equally obstructive.
Of course, the Russian dead and injured aren't from Moscow and St Petersburg. As seems always to be the case in Russia, it is the poorest provinces that are bearing the cost of the center's ambitions.
But Russia doesn't have an unlimited supply of young men.
In June, 98,600 people were born in Russia. So, rounding, we're talking about 49,000 male babies.
They're losing 30,000 people per month - killed, captured and wounded - in Ukraine.
If you compare this to the British losses on the Western Front in the first World World War, you're looking at around 40,000 male babies per month, against 20,000 casualties.
So, in the First World War, the British were losing the equivalent of half a month's births on the battlefield. The Russians, in Ukraine, are at 60%.
Ukraine has similar demographics of course, from a smaller base, with people oversees to boot - which is probably why many are downbeat on their prospects in most offensive phases, now the Russians have seemingly ridden themselves of the highest amount of incomptence.
Russia very rarely loses wars on the battlefield. Much more often, it loses them on the home front. That has to be Ukraine's grand strategy here too. The Kremlin is overheating its economy because of war efforts and in the short term that will also bring some popularity but there will be a price to pay (literally) as inflation increasingly bites, as it will.
Obviously, with a Trump presidency, Putin need worry less about Western retaliation to war crimes in terms of support for Ukraine, sanctions and so on, and presumably that's his plan: bomb Ukraine more. But it's not worked so far and people are resilient in such situations.
And anyway, by the spring offensive it will be a question of which way will President Vance go. (Assuming Putin doesn't have the dirt on him too...CCTV of his sofa?)
Vance has been even more vocally anti-Ukraine than Trump.
Whilst there's no great threat to the UK, I'm pretty sure that Putin could invade us after Guy Fawkes night, and seize London. The Russian navy is no great shakes, but ours is almost an absence in force. It wouldn't hold of course - the Russians would have to fall back under a wave of soup thrown by odd people and beardy types clapping them far too firmly on the back. But, you know, just saying.
No chance. The last Russian naval victory was in the age of sail. Pathetic as our defences are after years of Tory neglect, the Royal Navy and RAF would sink their rustbuckets easily. The Ukranians have swept them from most of the Black Sea with no Navy at all..
Suppose you string out the RN in a big long line and imagine that each ship can defend say 20 miles of coast - we're still well short. The RAF has some crazily small number of combat aircraft.
Look, I can't really judge, but it seems quite clear to me that we spend billions on the illusion of having a defence whereas the reality is that we have almost none at all.
The Russian Navy never had much force projection.
Their surface navy (the bit that still floats) is covered with big, liquid fueled missiles. Which exposed very nicely when hit, as the Ukrainians demonstrated. Similar reasons to why their tanks throw their turrets…
Their one carrier is completely broken and can’t sail. And before you start the jokes, we have a carrier at sea. The F-35 on board are generations beyond anything Russian.
Their sub fleet is out of service.
Their amphibious landing capability is now next to nil.
So they can’t get to the U.K., can’t defend themselves on the way here and can’t land anything when they arrive. Aside from that…
Oh, and you don’t defend the U.K. by creating a picket line round the country (every 20 miles etc). As Nelson pointed out when he was in charge of the Channel Fleet, that’s not how it works
Ok, so just for the hell of it, what would you suggest would happen if Putin decided to try to seize London? RN sweeping the waves, and nothing more to be said?
His navy, such as it is, would be sunk in the Skaggerack.
So a first strike by NATO? Just 10k Russian troops on a holiday cruise and you sink them? I know such scenarios are outlandish and unrealistic, but say it was just a thousand Russian special forces - seize a Scottish airbase, fly in more troops. It wouldn't work - it'd be a horrible defeat for Russia, but the line between it working and not working is very far from where it should be.
Of course, the Russian dead and injured aren't from Moscow and St Petersburg. As seems always to be the case in Russia, it is the poorest provinces that are bearing the cost of the center's ambitions.
But Russia doesn't have an unlimited supply of young men.
In June, 98,600 people were born in Russia. So, rounding, we're talking about 49,000 male babies.
They're losing 30,000 people per month - killed, captured and wounded - in Ukraine.
If you compare this to the British losses on the Western Front in the first World World War, you're looking at around 40,000 male babies per month, against 20,000 casualties.
So, in the First World War, the British were losing the equivalent of half a month's births on the battlefield. The Russians, in Ukraine, are at 60%.
Ukraine has similar demographics of course, from a smaller base, with people oversees to boot - which is probably why many are downbeat on their prospects in most offensive phases, now the Russians have seemingly ridden themselves of the highest amount of incomptence.
One of the main reasons that Ukraine has been pushed back a little this year, and suffered bad enough casualties that their only offensive was catching the Russians on the hop in Kursk, is that they've been fighting with a major imbalance in artillery ammunition. Just as in WWI, the majority of casualties have been caused by artillery.
If Ukraine can be supplied with greater quantities of ranged ammunition - they've been asking for funding for their domestic drone industry for example - then they can reverse the imbalance in ranged weapons to their advantage. They can destroy Russian munitions before they reach the battlefield, destroy more Russian artillery pieces, and inflict casualties on Russian infantry at a greater distance - reducing their own casualty rate at the same time.
That's the route to victory that also reduces the damage to the current generation of young Ukrainians.
Any damage they can be done to Russian war industry by making India and other countries a better offer to persuade them to prevent supply of components to Russia would also greatly help.
The other being the six month US supply drought over the end of last year.
If Harris is elected, and S Korea changes its policy because of fat Kim's involvement, next spring could look very different.
If Trump is elected, it will be grim for them.
Yep.
Europe and the UK are going to really need to step up in the event the Americans leave the party.
They won't step up, even if they could. Not to the level that would be needed in that event.
They could step up.
There's nothing to stop Europe from making more munitions and sending them to Ukraine.
Indeed, spending on ammunition and consumables has already stepped up sharply from where it was pre Ukraine.
But the question is whether there is the will. And whether some leaders see America pulling back as an excuse to say "Well, the battle is really over, there's no point in us prolonging the agony".
Which I think would be a sick and morally bankrupt thing to do. But there you go.
I've been pleasantly surprised the level of support has even lasted as long as it has, but I fear the weariness is setting in, nations beyond those rigeht next door will take the opportunity to reluctantly accept the new status quo.
Scholz is already shitting all over Zelensky’s victory plan. One might surmise that the plan all along was not a Ukrainian victory. But to exhaust the ussr stockpile of military equipment but so slowly that it would not risk Putin’s domestic authority. Most online bean counters say it’s nearly job done with the stockpiles, or will be some time in 2025. Either way the fix is in. I’d be very surprised if the war is still going next Xmas regardless who wins in Washington.
Never attribute to malice that which might otherwise be explained by incompetence.
There's no 4D Chess looking to run down Soviet stocks while preventing Ukrainian victory. There is the reality that sending aid to Ukraine is politically contentious.
Hmmm. That would be fine if the White House was gagging to send the right weapons promptly and with helpful rules of engagement, but were being stopped by Congress. That’s just not the story of this war since 2022. It’s very clear by now that Biden wet his knickers at the cia’s upgraded risk assessment of nuclear exchange and hence he’s been desperate above all else that the Russian front does not suddenly collapse. And for all I know that was the correct decision, though from my armchair it still feels wrong.
That's one possible explanation.
The other is that he is desperate to avoid being slapped down by Congress, and is therefore looking to find what would be acceptable to swing Republican lawmakers. If he went out too big, the blowback would be such that he might not be able to get anything through later.
Your explanation is possible, maybe plausible.
But so is mine. The reality is that a large chunk of the Republican Congress is deeply opposed to sending anything to Ukraine, and a small number of Democrats are equally obstructive.
We know Ireland is quite happy for the UK to defend it (which is a whole other can of worms) and to be frank an Astute class SSN doesn't care if you're heading for Ireland or Great Britain before it puts a torpedo into your hull.
Iceland would be a better target, but still deeply stupid. Good luck being the officer tasked with protecting a bunch of landing ships sitting in harbour in Iceland. Better hope your air defences are up to nailing those inbound F-35s.
Of course, the Russian dead and injured aren't from Moscow and St Petersburg. As seems always to be the case in Russia, it is the poorest provinces that are bearing the cost of the center's ambitions.
But Russia doesn't have an unlimited supply of young men.
In June, 98,600 people were born in Russia. So, rounding, we're talking about 49,000 male babies.
They're losing 30,000 people per month - killed, captured and wounded - in Ukraine.
If you compare this to the British losses on the Western Front in the first World World War, you're looking at around 40,000 male babies per month, against 20,000 casualties.
So, in the First World War, the British were losing the equivalent of half a month's births on the battlefield. The Russians, in Ukraine, are at 60%.
Ukraine has similar demographics of course, from a smaller base, with people oversees to boot - which is probably why many are downbeat on their prospects in most offensive phases, now the Russians have seemingly ridden themselves of the highest amount of incomptence.
One of the main reasons that Ukraine has been pushed back a little this year, and suffered bad enough casualties that their only offensive was catching the Russians on the hop in Kursk, is that they've been fighting with a major imbalance in artillery ammunition. Just as in WWI, the majority of casualties have been caused by artillery.
If Ukraine can be supplied with greater quantities of ranged ammunition - they've been asking for funding for their domestic drone industry for example - then they can reverse the imbalance in ranged weapons to their advantage. They can destroy Russian munitions before they reach the battlefield, destroy more Russian artillery pieces, and inflict casualties on Russian infantry at a greater distance - reducing their own casualty rate at the same time.
That's the route to victory that also reduces the damage to the current generation of young Ukrainians.
Any damage they can be done to Russian war industry by making India and other countries a better offer to persuade them to prevent supply of components to Russia would also greatly help.
The other being the six month US supply drought over the end of last year.
If Harris is elected, and S Korea changes its policy because of fat Kim's involvement, next spring could look very different.
If Trump is elected, it will be grim for them.
Yep.
Europe and the UK are going to really need to step up in the event the Americans leave the party.
They won't step up, even if they could. Not to the level that would be needed in that event.
They could step up.
There's nothing to stop Europe from making more munitions and sending them to Ukraine.
Indeed, spending on ammunition and consumables has already stepped up sharply from where it was pre Ukraine.
But the question is whether there is the will. And whether some leaders see America pulling back as an excuse to say "Well, the battle is really over, there's no point in us prolonging the agony".
Which I think would be a sick and morally bankrupt thing to do. But there you go.
I heard a number today that artillery ammunition fired Russia:Ukraine is down from a peak 8-9:1 to about 2-3:1.
One factor in that South Korea supplies via the USA ali-shuffle.
If the USA pulls back Korea may supply direct, especially given that DPRK is now in the war.
European and Korean Artillery is all well and good but could the Ukrainians feasibly fight on if they lost US satellite and awacs intelligence?
Totally off topic, the best second war war books series I have ever read was Ian Toll's Pacific War Trilogy, and if you haven't read it, you must.
I've just started on a new series: The Liberation Trilogy, by Rick Atkinson. It starts with Torch campaign in North Africa, which is something I knew very little about. And - so far - a fifth of the way in, I'm absolutely loving it.
Of course, the Russian dead and injured aren't from Moscow and St Petersburg. As seems always to be the case in Russia, it is the poorest provinces that are bearing the cost of the center's ambitions.
But Russia doesn't have an unlimited supply of young men.
In June, 98,600 people were born in Russia. So, rounding, we're talking about 49,000 male babies.
They're losing 30,000 people per month - killed, captured and wounded - in Ukraine.
If you compare this to the British losses on the Western Front in the first World World War, you're looking at around 40,000 male babies per month, against 20,000 casualties.
So, in the First World War, the British were losing the equivalent of half a month's births on the battlefield. The Russians, in Ukraine, are at 60%.
Ukraine has similar demographics of course, from a smaller base, with people oversees to boot - which is probably why many are downbeat on their prospects in most offensive phases, now the Russians have seemingly ridden themselves of the highest amount of incomptence.
One of the main reasons that Ukraine has been pushed back a little this year, and suffered bad enough casualties that their only offensive was catching the Russians on the hop in Kursk, is that they've been fighting with a major imbalance in artillery ammunition. Just as in WWI, the majority of casualties have been caused by artillery.
If Ukraine can be supplied with greater quantities of ranged ammunition - they've been asking for funding for their domestic drone industry for example - then they can reverse the imbalance in ranged weapons to their advantage. They can destroy Russian munitions before they reach the battlefield, destroy more Russian artillery pieces, and inflict casualties on Russian infantry at a greater distance - reducing their own casualty rate at the same time.
That's the route to victory that also reduces the damage to the current generation of young Ukrainians.
Any damage they can be done to Russian war industry by making India and other countries a better offer to persuade them to prevent supply of components to Russia would also greatly help.
The other being the six month US supply drought over the end of last year.
If Harris is elected, and S Korea changes its policy because of fat Kim's involvement, next spring could look very different.
If Trump is elected, it will be grim for them.
Yep.
Europe and the UK are going to really need to step up in the event the Americans leave the party.
They won't step up, even if they could. Not to the level that would be needed in that event.
They could step up.
There's nothing to stop Europe from making more munitions and sending them to Ukraine.
Indeed, spending on ammunition and consumables has already stepped up sharply from where it was pre Ukraine.
But the question is whether there is the will. And whether some leaders see America pulling back as an excuse to say "Well, the battle is really over, there's no point in us prolonging the agony".
Which I think would be a sick and morally bankrupt thing to do. But there you go.
I heard a number today that artillery ammunition fired Russia:Ukraine is down from a peak 8-9:1 to about 2-3:1.
One factor in that South Korea supplies via the USA ali-shuffle.
If the USA pulls back Korea may supply direct, especially given that DPRK is now in the war.
European and Korean Artillery is all well and good but could the Ukrainians feasibly fight on if they lost US satellite and awacs intelligence?
Do they recieve much AWACs intelligence? Satellite, I completely believe, but AWACs?
Of course, the Russian dead and injured aren't from Moscow and St Petersburg. As seems always to be the case in Russia, it is the poorest provinces that are bearing the cost of the center's ambitions.
But Russia doesn't have an unlimited supply of young men.
In June, 98,600 people were born in Russia. So, rounding, we're talking about 49,000 male babies.
They're losing 30,000 people per month - killed, captured and wounded - in Ukraine.
If you compare this to the British losses on the Western Front in the first World World War, you're looking at around 40,000 male babies per month, against 20,000 casualties.
So, in the First World War, the British were losing the equivalent of half a month's births on the battlefield. The Russians, in Ukraine, are at 60%.
Ukraine has similar demographics of course, from a smaller base, with people oversees to boot - which is probably why many are downbeat on their prospects in most offensive phases, now the Russians have seemingly ridden themselves of the highest amount of incomptence.
Russia very rarely loses wars on the battlefield. Much more often, it loses them on the home front. That has to be Ukraine's grand strategy here too. The Kremlin is overheating its economy because of war efforts and in the short term that will also bring some popularity but there will be a price to pay (literally) as inflation increasingly bites, as it will.
Obviously, with a Trump presidency, Putin need worry less about Western retaliation to war crimes in terms of support for Ukraine, sanctions and so on, and presumably that's his plan: bomb Ukraine more. But it's not worked so far and people are resilient in such situations.
And anyway, by the spring offensive it will be a question of which way will President Vance go. (Assuming Putin doesn't have the dirt on him too...CCTV of his sofa?)
Vance has been even more vocally anti-Ukraine than Trump.
Whilst there's no great threat to the UK, I'm pretty sure that Putin could invade us after Guy Fawkes night, and seize London. The Russian navy is no great shakes, but ours is almost an absence in force. It wouldn't hold of course - the Russians would have to fall back under a wave of soup thrown by odd people and beardy types clapping them far too firmly on the back. But, you know, just saying.
No chance. The last Russian naval victory was in the age of sail. Pathetic as our defences are after years of Tory neglect, the Royal Navy and RAF would sink their rustbuckets easily. The Ukranians have swept them from most of the Black Sea with no Navy at all..
Suppose you string out the RN in a big long line and imagine that each ship can defend say 20 miles of coast - we're still well short. The RAF has some crazily small number of combat aircraft.
Look, I can't really judge, but it seems quite clear to me that we spend billions on the illusion of having a defence whereas the reality is that we have almost none at all.
The Russian Navy never had much force projection.
Their surface navy (the bit that still floats) is covered with big, liquid fueled missiles. Which exposed very nicely when hit, as the Ukrainians demonstrated. Similar reasons to why their tanks throw their turrets…
Their one carrier is completely broken and can’t sail. And before you start the jokes, we have a carrier at sea. The F-35 on board are generations beyond anything Russian.
Their sub fleet is out of service.
Their amphibious landing capability is now next to nil.
So they can’t get to the U.K., can’t defend themselves on the way here and can’t land anything when they arrive. Aside from that…
Oh, and you don’t defend the U.K. by creating a picket line round the country (every 20 miles etc). As Nelson pointed out when he was in charge of the Channel Fleet, that’s not how it works
Ok, so just for the hell of it, what would you suggest would happen if Putin decided to try to seize London? RN sweeping the waves, and nothing more to be said?
His navy, such as it is, would be sunk in the Skaggerack.
So a first strike by NATO? Just 10k Russian troops on a holiday cruise and you sink them? I know such scenarios are outlandish and unrealistic, but say it was just a thousand Russian special forces - seize a Scottish airbase, fly in more troops. It wouldn't work - it'd be a horrible defeat for Russia, but the line between it working and not working is very far from where it should be.
You think there are 10,000 Russian special forces troops still alive and not tied down in trying to keep the Ukrainian invasion going?
I doubt the Osborne endorsement makes much difference with members but confirms that after Cleverly was knocked out Badenoch is now the favourite of former Cameron and Sunak loyalists. See also endorsements from Hague and Gove for Badenoch (though she has also picked up support from IDS and Davis).
All I can say is I didn't vote for her and at most expect her to be a bit better than Truss, helped by the fact being in opposition she doesn't straight away get to implement any plans. Not that I have seen many plans from her, it is Jenrick with the policies on new homes, lower immigration, lower taxes etc.
Indeed the biggest winner from a Kemi win is probably Farage, an Electoral Calculus poll has a Badenoch led Tories just 1% ahead of Reform on 22% to 21%. So I expect champagne corks will pop at Reform Towers if she does win
Worth a cheeky few quid on Jenrick or pretty much a done deal just closer than the survey suggests?
I think so. The key thing for me is that ConservativeHome is not a reliable pollster. As they say "The ConservativeHome Party Members’ Survey is a self-selecting panel, not a demographically or geographically weighted poll".
So how to interpret it? Personally, I look at the reliable YouGov poll. And I look at the delta in the ConservativeHome poll since then. YouGov had Kemi very marginally ahead (52/48) on very similar numbers. So we can guess that it would have a similar result now. What's very hopeful for my preferred candidate Kemi (although not preferred betting position) is that the main movement has been an increase in don't knows. Suggesting people realising what a bastard Jenrick is.
I am green on both outcomes but very overweight Jenrick. And I will back him even more (while staying green) if the prices lengthen still further.
When is the next YouGov poll? Am seriously thinking on lamping on her further.
The most recent came out on 2nd October with fieldwork 20-29 September. So I would guess similar sorts of dates. I'm not sure though.
If you're happy not to trade if it goes wrong and have conviction Kemi is going to win, then you could wait for the poll to come out. If it is a Kemi landslide... well never mind, you've lost out on 20% return. If it shows Jenrick in the lead however then you could potentially be putting things on at extremely attractive prices (after which I expect it to settle back down unless that lead were huge).
Of course, the Russian dead and injured aren't from Moscow and St Petersburg. As seems always to be the case in Russia, it is the poorest provinces that are bearing the cost of the center's ambitions.
But Russia doesn't have an unlimited supply of young men.
In June, 98,600 people were born in Russia. So, rounding, we're talking about 49,000 male babies.
They're losing 30,000 people per month - killed, captured and wounded - in Ukraine.
If you compare this to the British losses on the Western Front in the first World World War, you're looking at around 40,000 male babies per month, against 20,000 casualties.
So, in the First World War, the British were losing the equivalent of half a month's births on the battlefield. The Russians, in Ukraine, are at 60%.
Ukraine has similar demographics of course, from a smaller base, with people oversees to boot - which is probably why many are downbeat on their prospects in most offensive phases, now the Russians have seemingly ridden themselves of the highest amount of incomptence.
Russia very rarely loses wars on the battlefield. Much more often, it loses them on the home front. That has to be Ukraine's grand strategy here too. The Kremlin is overheating its economy because of war efforts and in the short term that will also bring some popularity but there will be a price to pay (literally) as inflation increasingly bites, as it will.
Obviously, with a Trump presidency, Putin need worry less about Western retaliation to war crimes in terms of support for Ukraine, sanctions and so on, and presumably that's his plan: bomb Ukraine more. But it's not worked so far and people are resilient in such situations.
And anyway, by the spring offensive it will be a question of which way will President Vance go. (Assuming Putin doesn't have the dirt on him too...CCTV of his sofa?)
Vance has been even more vocally anti-Ukraine than Trump.
Whilst there's no great threat to the UK, I'm pretty sure that Putin could invade us after Guy Fawkes night, and seize London. The Russian navy is no great shakes, but ours is almost an absence in force. It wouldn't hold of course - the Russians would have to fall back under a wave of soup thrown by odd people and beardy types clapping them far too firmly on the back. But, you know, just saying.
No chance. The last Russian naval victory was in the age of sail. Pathetic as our defences are after years of Tory neglect, the Royal Navy and RAF would sink their rustbuckets easily. The Ukranians have swept them from most of the Black Sea with no Navy at all..
Suppose you string out the RN in a big long line and imagine that each ship can defend say 20 miles of coast - we're still well short. The RAF has some crazily small number of combat aircraft.
Look, I can't really judge, but it seems quite clear to me that we spend billions on the illusion of having a defence whereas the reality is that we have almost none at all.
The Russian Navy never had much force projection.
Their surface navy (the bit that still floats) is covered with big, liquid fueled missiles. Which exposed very nicely when hit, as the Ukrainians demonstrated. Similar reasons to why their tanks throw their turrets…
Their one carrier is completely broken and can’t sail. And before you start the jokes, we have a carrier at sea. The F-35 on board are generations beyond anything Russian.
Their sub fleet is out of service.
Their amphibious landing capability is now next to nil.
So they can’t get to the U.K., can’t defend themselves on the way here and can’t land anything when they arrive. Aside from that…
Oh, and you don’t defend the U.K. by creating a picket line round the country (every 20 miles etc). As Nelson pointed out when he was in charge of the Channel Fleet, that’s not how it works
Ok, so just for the hell of it, what would you suggest would happen if Putin decided to try to seize London? RN sweeping the waves, and nothing more to be said?
His navy, such as it is, would be sunk in the Skaggerack.
So a first strike by NATO? Just 10k Russian troops on a holiday cruise and you sink them? I know such scenarios are outlandish and unrealistic, but say it was just a thousand Russian special forces - seize a Scottish airbase, fly in more troops. It wouldn't work - it'd be a horrible defeat for Russia, but the line between it working and not working is very far from where it should be.
You think there are 10,000 Russian special forces troops still alive and not tied down in trying to keep the Ukrainian invasion going?
Of course, the Russian dead and injured aren't from Moscow and St Petersburg. As seems always to be the case in Russia, it is the poorest provinces that are bearing the cost of the center's ambitions.
But Russia doesn't have an unlimited supply of young men.
In June, 98,600 people were born in Russia. So, rounding, we're talking about 49,000 male babies.
They're losing 30,000 people per month - killed, captured and wounded - in Ukraine.
If you compare this to the British losses on the Western Front in the first World World War, you're looking at around 40,000 male babies per month, against 20,000 casualties.
So, in the First World War, the British were losing the equivalent of half a month's births on the battlefield. The Russians, in Ukraine, are at 60%.
Ukraine has similar demographics of course, from a smaller base, with people oversees to boot - which is probably why many are downbeat on their prospects in most offensive phases, now the Russians have seemingly ridden themselves of the highest amount of incomptence.
One of the main reasons that Ukraine has been pushed back a little this year, and suffered bad enough casualties that their only offensive was catching the Russians on the hop in Kursk, is that they've been fighting with a major imbalance in artillery ammunition. Just as in WWI, the majority of casualties have been caused by artillery.
If Ukraine can be supplied with greater quantities of ranged ammunition - they've been asking for funding for their domestic drone industry for example - then they can reverse the imbalance in ranged weapons to their advantage. They can destroy Russian munitions before they reach the battlefield, destroy more Russian artillery pieces, and inflict casualties on Russian infantry at a greater distance - reducing their own casualty rate at the same time.
That's the route to victory that also reduces the damage to the current generation of young Ukrainians.
Any damage they can be done to Russian war industry by making India and other countries a better offer to persuade them to prevent supply of components to Russia would also greatly help.
The other being the six month US supply drought over the end of last year.
If Harris is elected, and S Korea changes its policy because of fat Kim's involvement, next spring could look very different.
If Trump is elected, it will be grim for them.
Yep.
Europe and the UK are going to really need to step up in the event the Americans leave the party.
They won't step up, even if they could. Not to the level that would be needed in that event.
They could step up.
There's nothing to stop Europe from making more munitions and sending them to Ukraine.
Indeed, spending on ammunition and consumables has already stepped up sharply from where it was pre Ukraine.
But the question is whether there is the will. And whether some leaders see America pulling back as an excuse to say "Well, the battle is really over, there's no point in us prolonging the agony".
Which I think would be a sick and morally bankrupt thing to do. But there you go.
I heard a number today that artillery ammunition fired Russia:Ukraine is down from a peak 8-9:1 to about 2-3:1.
One factor in that South Korea supplies via the USA ali-shuffle.
If the USA pulls back Korea may supply direct, especially given that DPRK is now in the war.
True but they have compensated with air-launched glide bombs, which can travel tens (hundreds?) of miles and the Ukranians have no defence.
The cost per launch of those has to be 10 or even 100x that of artillery, and their accuracy and impact fairly low, so how much of a difference can they make?
Of course, the Russian dead and injured aren't from Moscow and St Petersburg. As seems always to be the case in Russia, it is the poorest provinces that are bearing the cost of the center's ambitions.
But Russia doesn't have an unlimited supply of young men.
In June, 98,600 people were born in Russia. So, rounding, we're talking about 49,000 male babies.
They're losing 30,000 people per month - killed, captured and wounded - in Ukraine.
If you compare this to the British losses on the Western Front in the first World World War, you're looking at around 40,000 male babies per month, against 20,000 casualties.
So, in the First World War, the British were losing the equivalent of half a month's births on the battlefield. The Russians, in Ukraine, are at 60%.
Ukraine has similar demographics of course, from a smaller base, with people oversees to boot - which is probably why many are downbeat on their prospects in most offensive phases, now the Russians have seemingly ridden themselves of the highest amount of incomptence.
One of the main reasons that Ukraine has been pushed back a little this year, and suffered bad enough casualties that their only offensive was catching the Russians on the hop in Kursk, is that they've been fighting with a major imbalance in artillery ammunition. Just as in WWI, the majority of casualties have been caused by artillery.
If Ukraine can be supplied with greater quantities of ranged ammunition - they've been asking for funding for their domestic drone industry for example - then they can reverse the imbalance in ranged weapons to their advantage. They can destroy Russian munitions before they reach the battlefield, destroy more Russian artillery pieces, and inflict casualties on Russian infantry at a greater distance - reducing their own casualty rate at the same time.
That's the route to victory that also reduces the damage to the current generation of young Ukrainians.
Any damage they can be done to Russian war industry by making India and other countries a better offer to persuade them to prevent supply of components to Russia would also greatly help.
The other being the six month US supply drought over the end of last year.
If Harris is elected, and S Korea changes its policy because of fat Kim's involvement, next spring could look very different.
If Trump is elected, it will be grim for them.
Yep.
Europe and the UK are going to really need to step up in the event the Americans leave the party.
They won't step up, even if they could. Not to the level that would be needed in that event.
They could step up.
There's nothing to stop Europe from making more munitions and sending them to Ukraine.
Indeed, spending on ammunition and consumables has already stepped up sharply from where it was pre Ukraine.
But the question is whether there is the will. And whether some leaders see America pulling back as an excuse to say "Well, the battle is really over, there's no point in us prolonging the agony".
Which I think would be a sick and morally bankrupt thing to do. But there you go.
I heard a number today that artillery ammunition fired Russia:Ukraine is down from a peak 8-9:1 to about 2-3:1.
One factor in that South Korea supplies via the USA ali-shuffle.
If the USA pulls back Korea may supply direct, especially given that DPRK is now in the war.
European and Korean Artillery is all well and good but could the Ukrainians feasibly fight on if they lost US satellite and awacs intelligence?
Do they recieve much AWACs intelligence? Satellite, I completely believe, but AWACs?
NATO planes are in and out of the black sea and often along Ukraine's western border. There was a near miss on a RAF radar thingy years back.
Of course, the Russian dead and injured aren't from Moscow and St Petersburg. As seems always to be the case in Russia, it is the poorest provinces that are bearing the cost of the center's ambitions.
But Russia doesn't have an unlimited supply of young men.
In June, 98,600 people were born in Russia. So, rounding, we're talking about 49,000 male babies.
They're losing 30,000 people per month - killed, captured and wounded - in Ukraine.
If you compare this to the British losses on the Western Front in the first World World War, you're looking at around 40,000 male babies per month, against 20,000 casualties.
So, in the First World War, the British were losing the equivalent of half a month's births on the battlefield. The Russians, in Ukraine, are at 60%.
Ukraine has similar demographics of course, from a smaller base, with people oversees to boot - which is probably why many are downbeat on their prospects in most offensive phases, now the Russians have seemingly ridden themselves of the highest amount of incomptence.
One of the main reasons that Ukraine has been pushed back a little this year, and suffered bad enough casualties that their only offensive was catching the Russians on the hop in Kursk, is that they've been fighting with a major imbalance in artillery ammunition. Just as in WWI, the majority of casualties have been caused by artillery.
If Ukraine can be supplied with greater quantities of ranged ammunition - they've been asking for funding for their domestic drone industry for example - then they can reverse the imbalance in ranged weapons to their advantage. They can destroy Russian munitions before they reach the battlefield, destroy more Russian artillery pieces, and inflict casualties on Russian infantry at a greater distance - reducing their own casualty rate at the same time.
That's the route to victory that also reduces the damage to the current generation of young Ukrainians.
Any damage they can be done to Russian war industry by making India and other countries a better offer to persuade them to prevent supply of components to Russia would also greatly help.
The other being the six month US supply drought over the end of last year.
If Harris is elected, and S Korea changes its policy because of fat Kim's involvement, next spring could look very different.
If Trump is elected, it will be grim for them.
Yep.
Europe and the UK are going to really need to step up in the event the Americans leave the party.
They won't step up, even if they could. Not to the level that would be needed in that event.
They could step up.
There's nothing to stop Europe from making more munitions and sending them to Ukraine.
Indeed, spending on ammunition and consumables has already stepped up sharply from where it was pre Ukraine.
But the question is whether there is the will. And whether some leaders see America pulling back as an excuse to say "Well, the battle is really over, there's no point in us prolonging the agony".
Which I think would be a sick and morally bankrupt thing to do. But there you go.
I heard a number today that artillery ammunition fired Russia:Ukraine is down from a peak 8-9:1 to about 2-3:1.
One factor in that South Korea supplies via the USA ali-shuffle.
If the USA pulls back Korea may supply direct, especially given that DPRK is now in the war.
European and Korean Artillery is all well and good but could the Ukrainians feasibly fight on if they lost US satellite and awacs intelligence?
Do they recieve much AWACs intelligence? Satellite, I completely believe, but AWACs?
Of course, the Russian dead and injured aren't from Moscow and St Petersburg. As seems always to be the case in Russia, it is the poorest provinces that are bearing the cost of the center's ambitions.
But Russia doesn't have an unlimited supply of young men.
In June, 98,600 people were born in Russia. So, rounding, we're talking about 49,000 male babies.
They're losing 30,000 people per month - killed, captured and wounded - in Ukraine.
If you compare this to the British losses on the Western Front in the first World World War, you're looking at around 40,000 male babies per month, against 20,000 casualties.
So, in the First World War, the British were losing the equivalent of half a month's births on the battlefield. The Russians, in Ukraine, are at 60%.
Ukraine has similar demographics of course, from a smaller base, with people oversees to boot - which is probably why many are downbeat on their prospects in most offensive phases, now the Russians have seemingly ridden themselves of the highest amount of incomptence.
One of the main reasons that Ukraine has been pushed back a little this year, and suffered bad enough casualties that their only offensive was catching the Russians on the hop in Kursk, is that they've been fighting with a major imbalance in artillery ammunition. Just as in WWI, the majority of casualties have been caused by artillery.
If Ukraine can be supplied with greater quantities of ranged ammunition - they've been asking for funding for their domestic drone industry for example - then they can reverse the imbalance in ranged weapons to their advantage. They can destroy Russian munitions before they reach the battlefield, destroy more Russian artillery pieces, and inflict casualties on Russian infantry at a greater distance - reducing their own casualty rate at the same time.
That's the route to victory that also reduces the damage to the current generation of young Ukrainians.
Any damage they can be done to Russian war industry by making India and other countries a better offer to persuade them to prevent supply of components to Russia would also greatly help.
The other being the six month US supply drought over the end of last year.
If Harris is elected, and S Korea changes its policy because of fat Kim's involvement, next spring could look very different.
If Trump is elected, it will be grim for them.
Yep.
Europe and the UK are going to really need to step up in the event the Americans leave the party.
They won't step up, even if they could. Not to the level that would be needed in that event.
They could step up.
There's nothing to stop Europe from making more munitions and sending them to Ukraine.
Indeed, spending on ammunition and consumables has already stepped up sharply from where it was pre Ukraine.
But the question is whether there is the will. And whether some leaders see America pulling back as an excuse to say "Well, the battle is really over, there's no point in us prolonging the agony".
Which I think would be a sick and morally bankrupt thing to do. But there you go.
I heard a number today that artillery ammunition fired Russia:Ukraine is down from a peak 8-9:1 to about 2-3:1.
One factor in that South Korea supplies via the USA ali-shuffle.
If the USA pulls back Korea may supply direct, especially given that DPRK is now in the war.
European and Korean Artillery is all well and good but could the Ukrainians feasibly fight on if they lost US satellite and awacs intelligence?
Do they recieve much AWACs intelligence? Satellite, I completely believe, but AWACs?
I haven’t looked in ages but there always seemed to be a US AWACS flying in the Black Sea. Mind you, the Swedes are donating AWACS.
Suppose you string out the RN in a big long line and imagine that each ship can defend say 20 miles of coast - we're still well short.
It really doesn't work like that. Amphibious landings are hard. Very hard. You always want to concentrate the limited amount of men and hardware you can viably transport into one area. So the RN would also concentrate its units in that same area.
Britain doesn't really have specific defences against this kind of threat, but it doesn't need them. You simply don't invade an island nation that has a modern (albeit small) surface fleet, advanced SSNs, capable fast jets, and plenty of friends nearby, not unless you have similar or better technology and a vast force advantage.
I do know that stringing out vessels in a line isn't sensible. However it does give an indication as to the scale of the defensive issue.
No, it doesn’t.
The sea has always been vast. Distributing your forces all over it produces the effect of having nothing.
Congratulations - on discovering the principle of concentration of forces. Which has been standard naval tactics since long before the Spanish Armada.
We know Ireland is quite happy for the UK to defend it (which is a whole other can of worms) and to be frank an Astute class SSN doesn't care if you're heading for Ireland or Great Britain before it puts a torpedo into your hull.
Iceland would be a better target, but still deeply stupid. Good luck being the officer tasked with protecting a bunch of landing ships sitting in harbour in Iceland. Better hope your air defences are up to nailing those inbound F-35s.
#RedStormRising
The Russians don’t have the assets to do that, anymore.
Comments
There's nothing to stop Europe from making more munitions and sending them to Ukraine.
Indeed, spending on ammunition and consumables has already stepped up sharply from where it was pre Ukraine.
But the question is whether there is the will. And whether some leaders see America pulling back as an excuse to say "Well, the battle is really over, there's no point in us prolonging the agony".
Which I think would be a sick and morally bankrupt thing to do. But there you go.
I would say not scrapping the triple lock is the biggest one.
It's at times like this, I actually find myself wishing for Boris as PM.
(Registered) Republicans 24,000 statewide lead in ballots actually cast.
Rep 192k
Dem 168k
Others 118k
https://thenevadaindependent.com/article/the-early-voting-blog-2024
Boris with an undecided US President or one that can be nudged would be useful, but he wouldnt sacrifice himself if it was a hail mary.
And he was one of the leaders in the Senate against funding for Ukraine.
Putin now has Korean troops to draw on, for instance.
Cmon Mark. We're not caving, not even linguistically.
There was also a huge local issue on a planning development. I made clear my implacable opposition to it, making it front and centre of the campaign, together with other salient stuff.
Finally, I’m an old Hersham hack stretching way back thirty years. And have tried to be an approachable and active County Councillor since 2017. So there was a degree of name recognition and good will, but the extent is unknowable.
Are they right or is James Carville?
Mitch McConnell: Yeah, we took too long. All the Democrats were for Ukraine.
https://x.com/highbrow_nobrow/status/1849473139404677340
It does seem to come down to whether the number of Harris voting GOPers is big enough.
And of course even if she narrowly wins she needs to be able to overcome legislatures potentially not playing ball.
There's no 4D Chess looking to run down Soviet stocks while preventing Ukrainian victory. There is the reality that sending aid to Ukraine is politically contentious.
God - two more weeks of this!!!
I think the suggestion, earlier that it is a 40% probability of a Harris win is not ridiculous.
Putin thinks he's won in Ukraine and knows that a Mr Reasonable demeanour costs him nothing.
Unfortunately with Trump most likely in the White House he's played the perfect game.
Ukraine might have to capitulate, and, oh look, there are loads of NK troops (who I imagine all have family in cosy homes) in Europe.
Oh well. I always wanted to improve my Russian.
And party registration data is often well out of date. There was a period when the South was dominated by Democrat registered voters, and yet the Republicans kept on winning.
Basically:
Beware of extrapolating from small datasets.
Energy isn't going to become any cheaper, food prices aren't going to fall and defence spending is still going to have to be increased.
This also applies to those who think that Trump can halve prices.
Look, I can't really judge, but it seems quite clear to me that we spend billions on the illusion of having a defence whereas the reality is that we have almost none at all.
"Well, if I know it I'm sure the Russians do"
And there is no easier route because there's nothing to be gained.
Its not a case of stop the war and prices fall to 2019 levels is it.
The other is that he is desperate to avoid being slapped down by Congress, and is therefore looking to find what would be acceptable to swing Republican lawmakers. If he went out too big, the blowback would be such that he might not be able to get anything through later.
Your explanation is possible, maybe plausible.
But so is mine. The reality is that a large chunk of the Republican Congress is deeply opposed to sending anything to Ukraine, and a small number of Democrats are equally obstructive.
Inaction is always easier than action.
Their surface navy (the bit that still floats) is covered with big, liquid fueled missiles. Which exposed very nicely when hit, as the Ukrainians demonstrated. Similar reasons to why their tanks throw their turrets…
Their one carrier is completely broken and can’t sail. And before you start the jokes, we have a carrier at sea. The F-35 on board are generations beyond anything Russian.
Their sub fleet is out of service.
Their amphibious landing capability is now next to nil.
So they can’t get to the U.K., can’t defend themselves on the way here and can’t land anything when they arrive. Aside from that…
Oh, and you don’t defend the U.K. by creating a picket line round the country (every 20 miles etc). As Nelson pointed out when he was in charge of the Channel Fleet, that’s not how it works
I think there may not be any option ar some stage but for the West to go back to the drawing-board in terms of how it frames this conflict.
It is perfectly possible Harris wins. Indeed, it's close to a 50% shot, as it has been for two months.
Despite all the wailing and the gnashing of teeth, very little has changed. Trump remains the favorite, but a relatively narrow one.
It's also possible that Trump is cruising to victory in Nevada.
Emerson, Redfield & Wilton, and Morning Consult
Their results were:
Trump +2
Harris +1
Harris +2
Now, I'd reckon Trump is more likely to win Pennsylvania than Harris... But marginally.
And would I be surprised in Harris won it? Not at all.
We tend to forget that Dr Oz was leading Fetterman in the polls in Pennsyvania on election day, and had all the Momentum:
Yet the actual result was Fetterman +5. It wasn't even close.
Basically, everyone calm down, and if you can sell trump at more than a 60%, then you should.
Britain doesn't really have specific defences against this kind of threat, but it doesn't need them. You simply don't invade an island nation that has a modern (albeit small) surface fleet, advanced SSNs, capable fast jets, and plenty of friends nearby, not unless you have similar or better technology and a vast force advantage.
Are you sure?
If he totally lost it and tried to send a battle group centred on say, Peter The Great, with a handful of destroyers, they get hammered by air launched missiles and submarine torpedos on the voyage. Without meaningful amphibious assets, what would they do when they arrived, anyway? They have a surface to surface capability for some of the heavy missiles, sure, but that’s a couple dozen, with no reloads at sea.
If you take early voting in Georgia, and weight it according to county and to sex, then it looks like Harris is up 2 percentage points in there. (I.e. where has early voting happened, and what were the results in 2020.)
But I'd be cautious about reading too much into that, because I suspect that people who live in urban areas, where queues on polling day can be brutal, will be more likely to vote early.
One factor in that South Korea supplies via the USA ali-shuffle.
If the USA pulls back Korea may supply direct, especially given that DPRK is now in the war.
Bottoms Up!
So how to interpret it? Personally, I look at the reliable YouGov poll. And I look at the delta in the ConservativeHome poll since then. YouGov had Kemi very marginally ahead (52/48) on very similar numbers. So we can guess that it would have a similar result now. What's very hopeful for my preferred candidate Kemi (although not preferred betting position) is that the main movement has been an increase in don't knows. Suggesting people realising what a bastard Jenrick is.
I am green on both outcomes but very overweight Jenrick. And I will back him even more (while staying green) if the prices lengthen still further.
Kemi is absolutely awesome and an engineer as PM is a bit like choosing a chemist as PM, to my mind
Good evening, everybody.
I would go simply with "would sink", as that would also cover the inevitable and likely numerous self inflicted wounds the Russian navy would inflict on itself.
Iceland would be a better target, but still deeply stupid. Good luck being the officer tasked with protecting a bunch of landing ships sitting in harbour in Iceland. Better hope your air defences are up to nailing those inbound F-35s.
I've just started on a new series: The Liberation Trilogy, by Rick Atkinson. It starts with Torch campaign in North Africa, which is something I knew very little about. And - so far - a fifth of the way in, I'm absolutely loving it.
If you're happy not to trade if it goes wrong and have conviction Kemi is going to win, then you could wait for the poll to come out. If it is a Kemi landslide... well never mind, you've lost out on 20% return. If it shows Jenrick in the lead however then you could potentially be putting things on at extremely attractive prices (after which I expect it to settle back down unless that lead were huge).
The sea has always been vast. Distributing your forces all over it produces the effect of having nothing.
Congratulations - on discovering the principle of concentration of forces. Which has been standard naval tactics since long before the Spanish Armada.
The Russians don’t have the assets to do that, anymore.