Zelensky has given the White House both barrels today. Which is rather interesting.
Well, if his claim is true, then it is deserved.
(It seems that the story that Ukraine wanted long-range Tomahawk cruise missiles was a secret part of Big Z's peace plan, told to the USA in confidence, and it soon leaked to the media. Note: Ukraine did not tell the USA about the Kursk offensive, and it worked. Someone in the US is leaking badly.)
Biden has been a disaster for Ukraine from the beginning.
No, he has not been a 'disaster'. He could have done better; but much of what he can do is stifled by.... the GOP.
Your mate Trump will be a disaster for Ukraine. You shill for Trump whilst having a reference to the Ukraine flag as your avatar. You should replace it with the Russian flag, as they're who you want to win in Ukraine.
Milley told lawmakers during closed-door briefings on Feb. 2 and 3 that a full-scale Russian invasion of Ukraine could result in the fall of Kyiv within 72-hours, and could come at a cost of 15,000 Ukrainian troop deaths and 4,000 Russian troop deaths.
Several lawmakers expressed concern that the Biden administration did not respond quickly to provide Ukraine with significant military aid, such as anti-aircraft and rocket launcher systems that would defend against an invasion from Russia.
Biden administration officials at the meetings responded to these concerns by saying that a significant supply of military aid to Ukraine could be used as a reason to invade Ukraine.
And what did Trump do to stop Russia between 2016 and 2020, when they were occupying Crimea and vast areas of the Donbass? Answer: weaken Ukraine by obsessing over a fucking laptop.
Replace your avatar with the Russian flag, you sick shill.
If I may, I think the position is more nuanced than you’d care to admit. Ukraine and Russia are locked in a war of attrition, their side looks like it might have more staying power than ours. And its partners are now providing not just shells but infantry.
Even with a 5-1 attrition ratio, it is not guaranteed that Russia collapses prior to Ukraine. Especially given the Washington consensus (and Berlin) seems to be to place extreme restrictions on Ukraine’s use of arms, for fear of escalation.
We must be realistic about what is politically and operational possible at this point. The democrats could win all three elections and it’s not clear that things next year would be very different to today. What is their plan to end the war? It’s clear they’ve thrown Zelenskys plan back in his face.
That's all very debateable, and is what some people have been saying from the start, from "Kyiv should just give in to Russia", back in February 2022 to "Congress will never allow Ukraine to get more weapons!" earlier in the year. Just to be proved wrong every time.
And if Russia is warning us against 'escalation', then they shouldn't fucking well constantly escalate themselves, whether it's long range weapons from Iran or troops and weapons from North Korea.
But this is irrelevant to Trump, whose only plan for 'peace' is an abject Ukrainian surrender.
If it had been left to Biden, Putin would have taken Kyiv within days. His approach was entirely reactive, and showed much less resolve than Boris Johnson.
We're talking about Trump. What do *you* think Trump will do to help Ukraine?
Hypothetically, if there is an armistice that freezes the current front line, that's not "abject surrender" and it would help Ukraine very much to have time to regroup without dealing with the burden of fighting a war and facing constant missile attacks.
Yes; that's an abject surrender as Russia will just regroup and try again. What's more Ukraine gets f'all out of it, and Russia gets loads. And dangling NATO membership in front of Ukraine does not deter Putin, as he knows your best bud Trump isn't NATO's biggest fan. Ukraine cannot rely on NATO with Trump in charge of the USA.
So I ask again: what do you think Trump will do to help Ukraine?
You're being irrational and driven by emotion. If you think that peace is nothing then you need a reality check.
The point is that what you said above is not a 'peace'; it is a defeat for Ukraine. You want Ukraine defeated - which is why your avatar is so egregious.
So I ask again: what do you think Trump will do to help Ukraine?
It's immoral to expect other people to die to satisfy your need for moral purity.
Did I hear correctly...."9 out of 10 people in the country would benefit from this budget to the tune of £600 a year"
BBC 6.00 News
Is the government spin....the independent number crunchers say otherwise....no real term increase in wages or household disposal income for the foreseeable future (and that is optimistic) as companies pass on the increase in NI. Plus higher interest rates, inflation and mortgage rates are forecast.
It was said by the announcer not a government stooge. The tone from the BBC via Vox Pops is very positive....
Who knows it might crash and burn as the experts sleep on it but it doesn't seem that way.
The announcer is just recycling what the govt is saying.
Like you say, it may crash and burn but it may not.
We will see.
Already the many budget scares from the Telegraph and Mail are in tatters. They were wrong on pension lump sums and ISAS being taxed, wrong on personal allowances being frozen, wrong on fuel duty hikes etc etc
All the government have done is shifted into several massive tax rises and huge borrowing rather salami slice it.
The alternative is shitter public services and further decline
The only real solution is growth and better productivity....the bean counters say todays budget has reduced growth and not really tackled the productivity issue.
Better healthcare, better education, better policing, better justice, and better transport will help fix those in the long term - the long term being something tories seem unable to fathom
Not alone they won't. Also, so far, no real policy on how to reform these intuitions to make them operate better. And they shit canned a load of transport infrastructure projects. Its a very strange mixed bag.
Another big concern is they front loaded all this money, rather than spread it out. That is often a recipe for disaster as you get the must spend it mentality. It takes time to plan things properly.
What I don't quite nderstand there is that that the details of the Green New Deal plan were worked over and refined for years, by Labour, and they laid them out to thd media as they went along.
There was, or maybe still is, a complex plan ready to go instantly. They might be planning to return to some or all of it in the future, and I can clearly see the logic of trying to get the public on side with their highest everyday concerns first, but I would say it's quite a big gamble to suddenly swap that to throw it at the NHS, first.
Just think, Rishi could have been gearing up for our own election right now if he'd wanted. Anyone think they would have done worse than they ended up managing in July? I'm still unsure.
Nothing fundamental has really changed. Still little to no growth, interest rates haven't come down much, and all the longer term structural issues that piss people off like getting a GP appointment are all there.
I’ve never been a fan of Reeves but genuinely impressed by her delivery earlier.
And can’t argue with the content. A genuinely redistributive budget which will benefit people who need services. Ending the non dom status a big winner for me.
And in other news Ah-nold is just the latest high profile Republican to endorse Harris. So many as to be pretty significant imho.
It didn’t sound to me like she’s ended the NonDom status. It sounded to me like she’s renamed it and plans to tweak some detail.
Zelensky has given the White House both barrels today. Which is rather interesting.
Well, if his claim is true, then it is deserved.
(It seems that the story that Ukraine wanted long-range Tomahawk cruise missiles was a secret part of Big Z's peace plan, told to the USA in confidence, and it soon leaked to the media. Note: Ukraine did not tell the USA about the Kursk offensive, and it worked. Someone in the US is leaking badly.)
Biden has been a disaster for Ukraine from the beginning.
No, he has not been a 'disaster'. He could have done better; but much of what he can do is stifled by.... the GOP.
Your mate Trump will be a disaster for Ukraine. You shill for Trump whilst having a reference to the Ukraine flag as your avatar. You should replace it with the Russian flag, as they're who you want to win in Ukraine.
Milley told lawmakers during closed-door briefings on Feb. 2 and 3 that a full-scale Russian invasion of Ukraine could result in the fall of Kyiv within 72-hours, and could come at a cost of 15,000 Ukrainian troop deaths and 4,000 Russian troop deaths.
Several lawmakers expressed concern that the Biden administration did not respond quickly to provide Ukraine with significant military aid, such as anti-aircraft and rocket launcher systems that would defend against an invasion from Russia.
Biden administration officials at the meetings responded to these concerns by saying that a significant supply of military aid to Ukraine could be used as a reason to invade Ukraine.
And what did Trump do to stop Russia between 2016 and 2020, when they were occupying Crimea and vast areas of the Donbass? Answer: weaken Ukraine by obsessing over a fucking laptop.
Replace your avatar with the Russian flag, you sick shill.
If I may, I think the position is more nuanced than you’d care to admit. Ukraine and Russia are locked in a war of attrition, their side looks like it might have more staying power than ours. And its partners are now providing not just shells but infantry.
Even with a 5-1 attrition ratio, it is not guaranteed that Russia collapses prior to Ukraine. Especially given the Washington consensus (and Berlin) seems to be to place extreme restrictions on Ukraine’s use of arms, for fear of escalation.
We must be realistic about what is politically and operational possible at this point. The democrats could win all three elections and it’s not clear that things next year would be very different to today. What is their plan to end the war? It’s clear they’ve thrown Zelenskys plan back in his face.
That's all very debateable, and is what some people have been saying from the start, from "Kyiv should just give in to Russia", back in February 2022 to "Congress will never allow Ukraine to get more weapons!" earlier in the year. Just to be proved wrong every time.
And if Russia is warning us against 'escalation', then they shouldn't fucking well constantly escalate themselves, whether it's long range weapons from Iran or troops and weapons from North Korea.
But this is irrelevant to Trump, whose only plan for 'peace' is an abject Ukrainian surrender.
If it had been left to Biden, Putin would have taken Kyiv within days. His approach was entirely reactive, and showed much less resolve than Boris Johnson.
We're talking about Trump. What do *you* think Trump will do to help Ukraine?
Hypothetically, if there is an armistice that freezes the current front line, that's not "abject surrender" and it would help Ukraine very much to have time to regroup without dealing with the burden of fighting a war and facing constant missile attacks.
Yes; that's an abject surrender as Russia will just regroup and try again. What's more Ukraine gets f'all out of it, and Russia gets loads. And dangling NATO membership in front of Ukraine does not deter Putin, as he knows your best bud Trump isn't NATO's biggest fan. Ukraine cannot rely on NATO with Trump in charge of the USA.
So I ask again: what do you think Trump will do to help Ukraine?
You're being irrational and driven by emotion. If you think that peace is nothing then you need a reality check.
The point is that what you said above is not a 'peace'; it is a defeat for Ukraine. You want Ukraine defeated - which is why your avatar is so egregious.
So I ask again: what do you think Trump will do to help Ukraine?
It's immoral to expect other people to die to satisfy your need for moral purity.
How is he doing that? It seems pretty clear he doesn't want to force Ukraine to the path of an enforced peace, which is what the Trump route seems likely to do, not demanding they fight to the last Ukrainian even if they do not want to do that. If aiding them so they don't feel obliged to reach a settlement is expecting people to die to satisfy moral purity then no nations should have given Ukraine any support in the first place?
Zelensky has given the White House both barrels today. Which is rather interesting.
Well, if his claim is true, then it is deserved.
(It seems that the story that Ukraine wanted long-range Tomahawk cruise missiles was a secret part of Big Z's peace plan, told to the USA in confidence, and it soon leaked to the media. Note: Ukraine did not tell the USA about the Kursk offensive, and it worked. Someone in the US is leaking badly.)
Biden has been a disaster for Ukraine from the beginning.
No, he has not been a 'disaster'. He could have done better; but much of what he can do is stifled by.... the GOP.
Your mate Trump will be a disaster for Ukraine. You shill for Trump whilst having a reference to the Ukraine flag as your avatar. You should replace it with the Russian flag, as they're who you want to win in Ukraine.
Milley told lawmakers during closed-door briefings on Feb. 2 and 3 that a full-scale Russian invasion of Ukraine could result in the fall of Kyiv within 72-hours, and could come at a cost of 15,000 Ukrainian troop deaths and 4,000 Russian troop deaths.
Several lawmakers expressed concern that the Biden administration did not respond quickly to provide Ukraine with significant military aid, such as anti-aircraft and rocket launcher systems that would defend against an invasion from Russia.
Biden administration officials at the meetings responded to these concerns by saying that a significant supply of military aid to Ukraine could be used as a reason to invade Ukraine.
And what did Trump do to stop Russia between 2016 and 2020, when they were occupying Crimea and vast areas of the Donbass? Answer: weaken Ukraine by obsessing over a fucking laptop.
Replace your avatar with the Russian flag, you sick shill.
If I may, I think the position is more nuanced than you’d care to admit. Ukraine and Russia are locked in a war of attrition, their side looks like it might have more staying power than ours. And its partners are now providing not just shells but infantry.
Even with a 5-1 attrition ratio, it is not guaranteed that Russia collapses prior to Ukraine. Especially given the Washington consensus (and Berlin) seems to be to place extreme restrictions on Ukraine’s use of arms, for fear of escalation.
We must be realistic about what is politically and operational possible at this point. The democrats could win all three elections and it’s not clear that things next year would be very different to today. What is their plan to end the war? It’s clear they’ve thrown Zelenskys plan back in his face.
That's all very debateable, and is what some people have been saying from the start, from "Kyiv should just give in to Russia", back in February 2022 to "Congress will never allow Ukraine to get more weapons!" earlier in the year. Just to be proved wrong every time.
And if Russia is warning us against 'escalation', then they shouldn't fucking well constantly escalate themselves, whether it's long range weapons from Iran or troops and weapons from North Korea.
But this is irrelevant to Trump, whose only plan for 'peace' is an abject Ukrainian surrender.
If it had been left to Biden, Putin would have taken Kyiv within days. His approach was entirely reactive, and showed much less resolve than Boris Johnson.
We're talking about Trump. What do *you* think Trump will do to help Ukraine?
Hypothetically, if there is an armistice that freezes the current front line, that's not "abject surrender" and it would help Ukraine very much to have time to regroup without dealing with the burden of fighting a war and facing constant missile attacks.
Yes; that's an abject surrender as Russia will just regroup and try again. What's more Ukraine gets f'all out of it, and Russia gets loads. And dangling NATO membership in front of Ukraine does not deter Putin, as he knows your best bud Trump isn't NATO's biggest fan. Ukraine cannot rely on NATO with Trump in charge of the USA.
So I ask again: what do you think Trump will do to help Ukraine?
You're being irrational and driven by emotion. If you think that peace is nothing then you need a reality check.
The point is that what you said above is not a 'peace'; it is a defeat for Ukraine. You want Ukraine defeated - which is why your avatar is so egregious.
So I ask again: what do you think Trump will do to help Ukraine?
It's immoral to expect other people to die to satisfy your need for moral purity.
So you cannot answer the question.
My position is f-all to do with 'moral purity'; just as yours is nothing to do with helping Ukraine.
My position is this: a Russian victory in Ukraine is bad for the world, for a whole host of reasons that have been discussed before. That means for as long as Ukraine wants to fight, we need to support them in that fight, to the best of our abilities.
Zelensky has given the White House both barrels today. Which is rather interesting.
Well, if his claim is true, then it is deserved.
(It seems that the story that Ukraine wanted long-range Tomahawk cruise missiles was a secret part of Big Z's peace plan, told to the USA in confidence, and it soon leaked to the media. Note: Ukraine did not tell the USA about the Kursk offensive, and it worked. Someone in the US is leaking badly.)
Biden has been a disaster for Ukraine from the beginning.
No, he has not been a 'disaster'. He could have done better; but much of what he can do is stifled by.... the GOP.
Your mate Trump will be a disaster for Ukraine. You shill for Trump whilst having a reference to the Ukraine flag as your avatar. You should replace it with the Russian flag, as they're who you want to win in Ukraine.
Milley told lawmakers during closed-door briefings on Feb. 2 and 3 that a full-scale Russian invasion of Ukraine could result in the fall of Kyiv within 72-hours, and could come at a cost of 15,000 Ukrainian troop deaths and 4,000 Russian troop deaths.
Several lawmakers expressed concern that the Biden administration did not respond quickly to provide Ukraine with significant military aid, such as anti-aircraft and rocket launcher systems that would defend against an invasion from Russia.
Biden administration officials at the meetings responded to these concerns by saying that a significant supply of military aid to Ukraine could be used as a reason to invade Ukraine.
And what did Trump do to stop Russia between 2016 and 2020, when they were occupying Crimea and vast areas of the Donbass? Answer: weaken Ukraine by obsessing over a fucking laptop.
Replace your avatar with the Russian flag, you sick shill.
If I may, I think the position is more nuanced than you’d care to admit. Ukraine and Russia are locked in a war of attrition, their side looks like it might have more staying power than ours. And its partners are now providing not just shells but infantry.
Even with a 5-1 attrition ratio, it is not guaranteed that Russia collapses prior to Ukraine. Especially given the Washington consensus (and Berlin) seems to be to place extreme restrictions on Ukraine’s use of arms, for fear of escalation.
We must be realistic about what is politically and operational possible at this point. The democrats could win all three elections and it’s not clear that things next year would be very different to today. What is their plan to end the war? It’s clear they’ve thrown Zelenskys plan back in his face.
That's all very debateable, and is what some people have been saying from the start, from "Kyiv should just give in to Russia", back in February 2022 to "Congress will never allow Ukraine to get more weapons!" earlier in the year. Just to be proved wrong every time.
And if Russia is warning us against 'escalation', then they shouldn't fucking well constantly escalate themselves, whether it's long range weapons from Iran or troops and weapons from North Korea.
But this is irrelevant to Trump, whose only plan for 'peace' is an abject Ukrainian surrender.
If it had been left to Biden, Putin would have taken Kyiv within days. His approach was entirely reactive, and showed much less resolve than Boris Johnson.
We're talking about Trump. What do *you* think Trump will do to help Ukraine?
Hypothetically, if there is an armistice that freezes the current front line, that's not "abject surrender" and it would help Ukraine very much to have time to regroup without dealing with the burden of fighting a war and facing constant missile attacks.
Yes; that's an abject surrender as Russia will just regroup and try again. What's more Ukraine gets f'all out of it, and Russia gets loads. And dangling NATO membership in front of Ukraine does not deter Putin, as he knows your best bud Trump isn't NATO's biggest fan. Ukraine cannot rely on NATO with Trump in charge of the USA.
So I ask again: what do you think Trump will do to help Ukraine?
You're being irrational and driven by emotion. If you think that peace is nothing then you need a reality check.
The point is that what you said above is not a 'peace'; it is a defeat for Ukraine. You want Ukraine defeated - which is why your avatar is so egregious.
So I ask again: what do you think Trump will do to help Ukraine?
It's immoral to expect other people to die to satisfy your need for moral purity.
It’s extraordinary how unimpacted our lives have been, while we’ve expected Ukrainians to bleed and die with one hand behind their back, all in the name of depleting Russia’s Soviet stockpiles.
Zelensky has given the White House both barrels today. Which is rather interesting.
Well, if his claim is true, then it is deserved.
(It seems that the story that Ukraine wanted long-range Tomahawk cruise missiles was a secret part of Big Z's peace plan, told to the USA in confidence, and it soon leaked to the media. Note: Ukraine did not tell the USA about the Kursk offensive, and it worked. Someone in the US is leaking badly.)
Biden has been a disaster for Ukraine from the beginning.
No, he has not been a 'disaster'. He could have done better; but much of what he can do is stifled by.... the GOP.
Your mate Trump will be a disaster for Ukraine. You shill for Trump whilst having a reference to the Ukraine flag as your avatar. You should replace it with the Russian flag, as they're who you want to win in Ukraine.
Milley told lawmakers during closed-door briefings on Feb. 2 and 3 that a full-scale Russian invasion of Ukraine could result in the fall of Kyiv within 72-hours, and could come at a cost of 15,000 Ukrainian troop deaths and 4,000 Russian troop deaths.
Several lawmakers expressed concern that the Biden administration did not respond quickly to provide Ukraine with significant military aid, such as anti-aircraft and rocket launcher systems that would defend against an invasion from Russia.
Biden administration officials at the meetings responded to these concerns by saying that a significant supply of military aid to Ukraine could be used as a reason to invade Ukraine.
And what did Trump do to stop Russia between 2016 and 2020, when they were occupying Crimea and vast areas of the Donbass? Answer: weaken Ukraine by obsessing over a fucking laptop.
Replace your avatar with the Russian flag, you sick shill.
If I may, I think the position is more nuanced than you’d care to admit. Ukraine and Russia are locked in a war of attrition, their side looks like it might have more staying power than ours. And its partners are now providing not just shells but infantry.
Even with a 5-1 attrition ratio, it is not guaranteed that Russia collapses prior to Ukraine. Especially given the Washington consensus (and Berlin) seems to be to place extreme restrictions on Ukraine’s use of arms, for fear of escalation.
We must be realistic about what is politically and operational possible at this point. The democrats could win all three elections and it’s not clear that things next year would be very different to today. What is their plan to end the war? It’s clear they’ve thrown Zelenskys plan back in his face.
That's all very debateable, and is what some people have been saying from the start, from "Kyiv should just give in to Russia", back in February 2022 to "Congress will never allow Ukraine to get more weapons!" earlier in the year. Just to be proved wrong every time.
And if Russia is warning us against 'escalation', then they shouldn't fucking well constantly escalate themselves, whether it's long range weapons from Iran or troops and weapons from North Korea.
But this is irrelevant to Trump, whose only plan for 'peace' is an abject Ukrainian surrender.
If it had been left to Biden, Putin would have taken Kyiv within days. His approach was entirely reactive, and showed much less resolve than Boris Johnson.
We're talking about Trump. What do *you* think Trump will do to help Ukraine?
Hypothetically, if there is an armistice that freezes the current front line, that's not "abject surrender" and it would help Ukraine very much to have time to regroup without dealing with the burden of fighting a war and facing constant missile attacks.
Yes; that's an abject surrender as Russia will just regroup and try again. What's more Ukraine gets f'all out of it, and Russia gets loads. And dangling NATO membership in front of Ukraine does not deter Putin, as he knows your best bud Trump isn't NATO's biggest fan. Ukraine cannot rely on NATO with Trump in charge of the USA.
So I ask again: what do you think Trump will do to help Ukraine?
You're being irrational and driven by emotion. If you think that peace is nothing then you need a reality check.
The point is that what you said above is not a 'peace'; it is a defeat for Ukraine. You want Ukraine defeated - which is why your avatar is so egregious.
So I ask again: what do you think Trump will do to help Ukraine?
It's immoral to expect other people to die to satisfy your need for moral purity.
Isn’t that up to them
We appear to be back at February 2022 arguments in relation to the war, regrettably.
Just think, Rishi could have been gearing up for our own election right now if he'd wanted. Anyone think they would have done worse than they ended up managing in July? I'm still unsure.
If Sunak could have shown just a bit of the fight that he used today, the defeat may not have been so large.
He had more spirit in the House today that I can recall.
One test of a policy is whether the other lot will ever reverse it. Do you think a Tory PM in 2029 really would? Would they do compensation as well?
Reverse this? Yes. The next Tory Gvt will do something big on IHT incorporating that, because it will cement a chunk of voters.
The estimate I saw was farms change would affect 70,000 estates (govt thinks less) and raise £2bn/year. Quite a lot of money for not that many votes to gain?
Narratively it's save family farms, save the rural economy, send away the ambulance chasers and their tax assessment forms etc. There's nothing, absolutely nothing positive about any IHT, it's taxing grief and will always be seen as taxing grief and hence scrapping/reducing is always a vote winner
there is also still a lot of low key deference/respect to local faming land owners in the countryside . People will feel aggrieved on this and view it as an attack on the countryside and on their view of England far beyond farm holders
Agreed. Very Labour policy.
Labour should ask themselves why Clarkson's Farm is so popular on Amazon or indeed Countryfile on the BBC - Its not that viewers are farm obsessives but the buying into the mood culture of a rural romantic England of self reliance - An attack on farmers is a vote loser
Yes, I agree. The attack on the idyll, the ambulance chasing, peering through the windows at your mums crockery, valuing it. Everything about IHT is grim. Puritanical, joyless, concreted over, incessantly nannied and heavily taxed. Starmer's Britain
Bet you’re happy to analyse the cost of each item of an unemployed person’s trip to Tesco though
As somebody who lives on benefits I can safely say I am not
My apologies then. But I hope you understand my point.
I have a nuanced view on inheritance tax. While I acknowledge on a micro level it’s shit but on a macro level wealth accumulates and if you want a true meritocracy you need IHT
One test of a policy is whether the other lot will ever reverse it. Do you think a Tory PM in 2029 really would? Would they do compensation as well?
Reverse this? Yes. The next Tory Gvt will do something big on IHT incorporating that, because it will cement a chunk of voters.
The estimate I saw was farms change would affect 70,000 estates (govt thinks less) and raise £2bn/year. Quite a lot of money for not that many votes to gain?
That looks like a number without much meaning. It needs to be how many per annum.
in the UK there are 27,800 Estates affected by IHT per annum, and a total of just over 200k farms.
Paul Johnson @PJTheEconomist · 3m Amazingly new government, new chancellor, same old ridiculousness. Still working to public finance forecasts which assume fuel duty will rise with inflation and "temporary" 5p cut will be reinstated. But if not this year, what chance that will ever really happen?
Zelensky has given the White House both barrels today. Which is rather interesting.
Well, if his claim is true, then it is deserved.
(It seems that the story that Ukraine wanted long-range Tomahawk cruise missiles was a secret part of Big Z's peace plan, told to the USA in confidence, and it soon leaked to the media. Note: Ukraine did not tell the USA about the Kursk offensive, and it worked. Someone in the US is leaking badly.)
Biden has been a disaster for Ukraine from the beginning.
No, he has not been a 'disaster'. He could have done better; but much of what he can do is stifled by.... the GOP.
Your mate Trump will be a disaster for Ukraine. You shill for Trump whilst having a reference to the Ukraine flag as your avatar. You should replace it with the Russian flag, as they're who you want to win in Ukraine.
Milley told lawmakers during closed-door briefings on Feb. 2 and 3 that a full-scale Russian invasion of Ukraine could result in the fall of Kyiv within 72-hours, and could come at a cost of 15,000 Ukrainian troop deaths and 4,000 Russian troop deaths.
Several lawmakers expressed concern that the Biden administration did not respond quickly to provide Ukraine with significant military aid, such as anti-aircraft and rocket launcher systems that would defend against an invasion from Russia.
Biden administration officials at the meetings responded to these concerns by saying that a significant supply of military aid to Ukraine could be used as a reason to invade Ukraine.
And what did Trump do to stop Russia between 2016 and 2020, when they were occupying Crimea and vast areas of the Donbass? Answer: weaken Ukraine by obsessing over a fucking laptop.
Replace your avatar with the Russian flag, you sick shill.
If I may, I think the position is more nuanced than you’d care to admit. Ukraine and Russia are locked in a war of attrition, their side looks like it might have more staying power than ours. And its partners are now providing not just shells but infantry.
Even with a 5-1 attrition ratio, it is not guaranteed that Russia collapses prior to Ukraine. Especially given the Washington consensus (and Berlin) seems to be to place extreme restrictions on Ukraine’s use of arms, for fear of escalation.
We must be realistic about what is politically and operational possible at this point. The democrats could win all three elections and it’s not clear that things next year would be very different to today. What is their plan to end the war? It’s clear they’ve thrown Zelenskys plan back in his face.
That's all very debateable, and is what some people have been saying from the start, from "Kyiv should just give in to Russia", back in February 2022 to "Congress will never allow Ukraine to get more weapons!" earlier in the year. Just to be proved wrong every time.
And if Russia is warning us against 'escalation', then they shouldn't fucking well constantly escalate themselves, whether it's long range weapons from Iran or troops and weapons from North Korea.
But this is irrelevant to Trump, whose only plan for 'peace' is an abject Ukrainian surrender.
If it had been left to Biden, Putin would have taken Kyiv within days. His approach was entirely reactive, and showed much less resolve than Boris Johnson.
We're talking about Trump. What do *you* think Trump will do to help Ukraine?
Hypothetically, if there is an armistice that freezes the current front line, that's not "abject surrender" and it would help Ukraine very much to have time to regroup without dealing with the burden of fighting a war and facing constant missile attacks.
Yes; that's an abject surrender as Russia will just regroup and try again. What's more Ukraine gets f'all out of it, and Russia gets loads. And dangling NATO membership in front of Ukraine does not deter Putin, as he knows your best bud Trump isn't NATO's biggest fan. Ukraine cannot rely on NATO with Trump in charge of the USA.
So I ask again: what do you think Trump will do to help Ukraine?
You're being irrational and driven by emotion. If you think that peace is nothing then you need a reality check.
The point is that what you said above is not a 'peace'; it is a defeat for Ukraine. You want Ukraine defeated - which is why your avatar is so egregious.
So I ask again: what do you think Trump will do to help Ukraine?
It's immoral to expect other people to die to satisfy your need for moral purity.
Isn’t that up to them
It hasn't been left up to them to choose targets in Russia. It's incredibly cynical to cheer them on while making them fight with one hand tied behind their backs.
Zelensky has given the White House both barrels today. Which is rather interesting.
Well, if his claim is true, then it is deserved.
(It seems that the story that Ukraine wanted long-range Tomahawk cruise missiles was a secret part of Big Z's peace plan, told to the USA in confidence, and it soon leaked to the media. Note: Ukraine did not tell the USA about the Kursk offensive, and it worked. Someone in the US is leaking badly.)
Biden has been a disaster for Ukraine from the beginning.
No, he has not been a 'disaster'. He could have done better; but much of what he can do is stifled by.... the GOP.
Your mate Trump will be a disaster for Ukraine. You shill for Trump whilst having a reference to the Ukraine flag as your avatar. You should replace it with the Russian flag, as they're who you want to win in Ukraine.
Milley told lawmakers during closed-door briefings on Feb. 2 and 3 that a full-scale Russian invasion of Ukraine could result in the fall of Kyiv within 72-hours, and could come at a cost of 15,000 Ukrainian troop deaths and 4,000 Russian troop deaths.
Several lawmakers expressed concern that the Biden administration did not respond quickly to provide Ukraine with significant military aid, such as anti-aircraft and rocket launcher systems that would defend against an invasion from Russia.
Biden administration officials at the meetings responded to these concerns by saying that a significant supply of military aid to Ukraine could be used as a reason to invade Ukraine.
And what did Trump do to stop Russia between 2016 and 2020, when they were occupying Crimea and vast areas of the Donbass? Answer: weaken Ukraine by obsessing over a fucking laptop.
Replace your avatar with the Russian flag, you sick shill.
If I may, I think the position is more nuanced than you’d care to admit. Ukraine and Russia are locked in a war of attrition, their side looks like it might have more staying power than ours. And its partners are now providing not just shells but infantry.
Even with a 5-1 attrition ratio, it is not guaranteed that Russia collapses prior to Ukraine. Especially given the Washington consensus (and Berlin) seems to be to place extreme restrictions on Ukraine’s use of arms, for fear of escalation.
We must be realistic about what is politically and operational possible at this point. The democrats could win all three elections and it’s not clear that things next year would be very different to today. What is their plan to end the war? It’s clear they’ve thrown Zelenskys plan back in his face.
That's all very debateable, and is what some people have been saying from the start, from "Kyiv should just give in to Russia", back in February 2022 to "Congress will never allow Ukraine to get more weapons!" earlier in the year. Just to be proved wrong every time.
And if Russia is warning us against 'escalation', then they shouldn't fucking well constantly escalate themselves, whether it's long range weapons from Iran or troops and weapons from North Korea.
But this is irrelevant to Trump, whose only plan for 'peace' is an abject Ukrainian surrender.
If it had been left to Biden, Putin would have taken Kyiv within days. His approach was entirely reactive, and showed much less resolve than Boris Johnson.
We're talking about Trump. What do *you* think Trump will do to help Ukraine?
Hypothetically, if there is an armistice that freezes the current front line, that's not "abject surrender" and it would help Ukraine very much to have time to regroup without dealing with the burden of fighting a war and facing constant missile attacks.
Yes; that's an abject surrender as Russia will just regroup and try again. What's more Ukraine gets f'all out of it, and Russia gets loads. And dangling NATO membership in front of Ukraine does not deter Putin, as he knows your best bud Trump isn't NATO's biggest fan. Ukraine cannot rely on NATO with Trump in charge of the USA.
So I ask again: what do you think Trump will do to help Ukraine?
You're being irrational and driven by emotion. If you think that peace is nothing then you need a reality check.
The point is that what you said above is not a 'peace'; it is a defeat for Ukraine. You want Ukraine defeated - which is why your avatar is so egregious.
So I ask again: what do you think Trump will do to help Ukraine?
It's immoral to expect other people to die to satisfy your need for moral purity.
So you cannot answer the question.
My position is f-all to do with 'moral purity'; just as yours is nothing to do with helping Ukraine.
My position is this: a Russian victory in Ukraine is bad for the world, for a whole host of reasons that have been discussed before. That means for as long as Ukraine wants to fight, we need to support them in that fight, to the best of our abilities.
There we have it. You don't care about the lives of Ukrainians, only 'the world', which is just an abstraction.
One test of a policy is whether the other lot will ever reverse it. Do you think a Tory PM in 2029 really would? Would they do compensation as well?
Reverse this? Yes. The next Tory Gvt will do something big on IHT incorporating that, because it will cement a chunk of voters.
The estimate I saw was farms change would affect 70,000 estates (govt thinks less) and raise £2bn/year. Quite a lot of money for not that many votes to gain?
Narratively it's save family farms, save the rural economy, send away the ambulance chasers and their tax assessment forms etc. There's nothing, absolutely nothing positive about any IHT, it's taxing grief and will always be seen as taxing grief and hence scrapping/reducing is always a vote winner
there is also still a lot of low key deference/respect to local faming land owners in the countryside . People will feel aggrieved on this and view it as an attack on the countryside and on their view of England far beyond farm holders
Agreed. Very Labour policy.
Labour should ask themselves why Clarkson's Farm is so popular on Amazon or indeed Countryfile on the BBC - Its not that viewers are farm obsessives but the buying into the mood culture of a rural romantic England of self reliance - An attack on farmers is a vote loser
Yes, I agree. The attack on the idyll, the ambulance chasing, peering through the windows at your mums crockery, valuing it. Everything about IHT is grim. Puritanical, joyless, concreted over, incessantly nannied and heavily taxed. Starmer's Britain
Bet you’re happy to analyse the cost of each item of an unemployed person’s trip to Tesco though
As somebody who lives on benefits I can safely say I am not
My apologies then. But I hope you understand my point.
I have a nuanced view on inheritance tax. While I acknowledge on a micro level it’s shit but on a macro level wealth accumulates and if you want a true meritocracy you need IHT
I'd prefer a wealth tax on the estates of the living and no IHT at all personally.
Just think, Rishi could have been gearing up for our own election right now if he'd wanted. Anyone think they would have done worse than they ended up managing in July? I'm still unsure.
Nothing fundamental has really changed. Still little to no growth, interest rates haven't come down much, and all the longer term structural issues that piss people off like getting a GP appointment are all there.
Plus the prisoner release thing would have been on Sunak's watch, not Starmer's. We talk about how the winter fuel allowance cut hurt government ratings, but the voters hated prisoners being set free early even more.
I’ve never been a fan of Reeves but genuinely impressed by her delivery earlier.
And can’t argue with the content. A genuinely redistributive budget which will benefit people who need services. Ending the non dom status a big winner for me.
And in other news Ah-nold is just the latest high profile Republican to endorse Harris. So many as to be pretty significant imho.
It didn’t sound to me like she’s ended the NonDom status. It sounded to me like she’s renamed it and plans to tweak some detail.
Rename and tweak, a classic political move.
Right up there with reannouncing something as if it is new money, and taking credit for things that were put in place before you were on the scene.
One test of a policy is whether the other lot will ever reverse it. Do you think a Tory PM in 2029 really would? Would they do compensation as well?
Reverse this? Yes. The next Tory Gvt will do something big on IHT incorporating that, because it will cement a chunk of voters.
The estimate I saw was farms change would affect 70,000 estates (govt thinks less) and raise £2bn/year. Quite a lot of money for not that many votes to gain?
Narratively it's save family farms, save the rural economy, send away the ambulance chasers and their tax assessment forms etc. There's nothing, absolutely nothing positive about any IHT, it's taxing grief and will always be seen as taxing grief and hence scrapping/reducing is always a vote winner
there is also still a lot of low key deference/respect to local faming land owners in the countryside . People will feel aggrieved on this and view it as an attack on the countryside and on their view of England far beyond farm holders
Agreed. Very Labour policy.
Labour should ask themselves why Clarkson's Farm is so popular on Amazon or indeed Countryfile on the BBC - Its not that viewers are farm obsessives but the buying into the mood culture of a rural romantic England of self reliance - An attack on farmers is a vote loser
Yes, I agree. The attack on the idyll, the ambulance chasing, peering through the windows at your mums crockery, valuing it. Everything about IHT is grim. Puritanical, joyless, concreted over, incessantly nannied and heavily taxed. Starmer's Britain
Unlike Japan, when Britain starts to depopulate I thoroughly expect it to be cities to bear the brunt of the decline.
Zelensky has given the White House both barrels today. Which is rather interesting.
Well, if his claim is true, then it is deserved.
(It seems that the story that Ukraine wanted long-range Tomahawk cruise missiles was a secret part of Big Z's peace plan, told to the USA in confidence, and it soon leaked to the media. Note: Ukraine did not tell the USA about the Kursk offensive, and it worked. Someone in the US is leaking badly.)
Biden has been a disaster for Ukraine from the beginning.
No, he has not been a 'disaster'. He could have done better; but much of what he can do is stifled by.... the GOP.
Your mate Trump will be a disaster for Ukraine. You shill for Trump whilst having a reference to the Ukraine flag as your avatar. You should replace it with the Russian flag, as they're who you want to win in Ukraine.
Milley told lawmakers during closed-door briefings on Feb. 2 and 3 that a full-scale Russian invasion of Ukraine could result in the fall of Kyiv within 72-hours, and could come at a cost of 15,000 Ukrainian troop deaths and 4,000 Russian troop deaths.
Several lawmakers expressed concern that the Biden administration did not respond quickly to provide Ukraine with significant military aid, such as anti-aircraft and rocket launcher systems that would defend against an invasion from Russia.
Biden administration officials at the meetings responded to these concerns by saying that a significant supply of military aid to Ukraine could be used as a reason to invade Ukraine.
And what did Trump do to stop Russia between 2016 and 2020, when they were occupying Crimea and vast areas of the Donbass? Answer: weaken Ukraine by obsessing over a fucking laptop.
Replace your avatar with the Russian flag, you sick shill.
If I may, I think the position is more nuanced than you’d care to admit. Ukraine and Russia are locked in a war of attrition, their side looks like it might have more staying power than ours. And its partners are now providing not just shells but infantry.
Even with a 5-1 attrition ratio, it is not guaranteed that Russia collapses prior to Ukraine. Especially given the Washington consensus (and Berlin) seems to be to place extreme restrictions on Ukraine’s use of arms, for fear of escalation.
We must be realistic about what is politically and operational possible at this point. The democrats could win all three elections and it’s not clear that things next year would be very different to today. What is their plan to end the war? It’s clear they’ve thrown Zelenskys plan back in his face.
That's all very debateable, and is what some people have been saying from the start, from "Kyiv should just give in to Russia", back in February 2022 to "Congress will never allow Ukraine to get more weapons!" earlier in the year. Just to be proved wrong every time.
And if Russia is warning us against 'escalation', then they shouldn't fucking well constantly escalate themselves, whether it's long range weapons from Iran or troops and weapons from North Korea.
But this is irrelevant to Trump, whose only plan for 'peace' is an abject Ukrainian surrender.
If it had been left to Biden, Putin would have taken Kyiv within days. His approach was entirely reactive, and showed much less resolve than Boris Johnson.
We're talking about Trump. What do *you* think Trump will do to help Ukraine?
Hypothetically, if there is an armistice that freezes the current front line, that's not "abject surrender" and it would help Ukraine very much to have time to regroup without dealing with the burden of fighting a war and facing constant missile attacks.
Yes; that's an abject surrender as Russia will just regroup and try again. What's more Ukraine gets f'all out of it, and Russia gets loads. And dangling NATO membership in front of Ukraine does not deter Putin, as he knows your best bud Trump isn't NATO's biggest fan. Ukraine cannot rely on NATO with Trump in charge of the USA.
So I ask again: what do you think Trump will do to help Ukraine?
You're being irrational and driven by emotion. If you think that peace is nothing then you need a reality check.
The point is that what you said above is not a 'peace'; it is a defeat for Ukraine. You want Ukraine defeated - which is why your avatar is so egregious.
So I ask again: what do you think Trump will do to help Ukraine?
It's immoral to expect other people to die to satisfy your need for moral purity.
So you cannot answer the question.
My position is f-all to do with 'moral purity'; just as yours is nothing to do with helping Ukraine.
My position is this: a Russian victory in Ukraine is bad for the world, for a whole host of reasons that have been discussed before. That means for as long as Ukraine wants to fight, we need to support them in that fight, to the best of our abilities.
There we have it. You don't care about the lives of Ukrainians, only 'the world', which is just an abstraction.
What the actual fuck? How does your support for Trump help the lives of Ukrainians; many of whom will suddenly find themselves Russian. Have you seen what Russia's done to the population of the territories they have invaded? It ain't good.
But again, you fail to answer the question. So I ask again: what do you think Trump will do to help Ukraine?
I don't want to hear any justifications for the Employer NIC increases from public sector employees; they don't affect your employer's wage bill at all
"£60.1 billion is due to the direct effect of policy changes in this Budget, the largest sustained increase in spending in at least the past 15 years."
OBR report.
The BBC put it this way:
"Budget policies will increase UK borrowing by £19.6bn this year and by an average of £32.3bn over the next five years, according to the OBR"
This is the part of the budget that I am appalled at. We needed more taxes. We absolutely did not need to increase spending like this. We cannot afford it.
I've been pondering the header comment. Just plain wrong @tse. Truss was entirely (and incidently still is) entirely delusional. Reeves actually knows something about what she's doing. (Quite why she's a member of the Labour party escapes me)
This was a pretty good budget in most ways - a bit Robin Hood obviously, but not too bad.
Labour version of Osborne's first is the comparison I suppose - getting the ugly budget out of the way while trying not to scare the horses too much. That rise in the cost of borrowing is more of a tick up in context.
Reeves will hope that the tax rises aren't felt too badly if the economy does OK, the cash for public services staves off immediate crisis, and buys Labour time to let what it believes are good policies and reforms to have some effect. Then hopefully have some room down the line for generosity towards the end of the parliament.
Whether it works or not is another matter.It didn't work out in the end for Osborne, as the growth never really arrived. He later had his 'omnishambles'. But then did win an election, only to be given the finger by the public a year later. Reeves and Labour better hope for a better fate.
But a perfectly sensible approach to what Labour are trying to do - namely keep the public finances relatively sane despite fantastical previous figures, while channelling some money towards a crumbling public realm and boosting investment.
What was wrong with Truss was sequencing and scale. Her's was rather like the Tory version of the Labour one John McDonnell would've given if Corbyn was still leader.
Much of what was wrong with Truss was her being Truss. I think it unlikely that anyone could have sold the fantasy 'it's going to be great' message, but the world's leading political embarrassment wasn't the woman for the job.
I mean technically it was Kwarteng, and easy to forget Truss wasn't quite the joke she became outside of those of us who don't like the Conservative Party very much. I remember hearing nominally serious types saying she'd be a 'problem' for Labour as was a breath of fresh air and Thatcher-like in wanting to be transformative.
Of course that was very much the cosplay, mythical Thatcher rather than the actual one. Who understood sequencing and that some taxes had to go up, the ship be steadied, and calculations tilted before you could get agressive and reshape the country.
Whereas Truss came in at a point when we'd just had to borrow vast sums for Covid and Ukraine, from a weak position to start with due to previous mismanagement, more than a decade of low growth, and big obligations coming down the track that it was and is politically impossible to avoid (hence some of Reeves' unpleasant decisions).
So no one was going to stake you the bet you could slash taxes and pay for it all with boosted growth, when everything pointed to it being both a risky (but not completely implausible) bet, but one that if it didn't come in we were unlikely to be good for.
Zelensky has given the White House both barrels today. Which is rather interesting.
Well, if his claim is true, then it is deserved.
(It seems that the story that Ukraine wanted long-range Tomahawk cruise missiles was a secret part of Big Z's peace plan, told to the USA in confidence, and it soon leaked to the media. Note: Ukraine did not tell the USA about the Kursk offensive, and it worked. Someone in the US is leaking badly.)
Biden has been a disaster for Ukraine from the beginning.
No, he has not been a 'disaster'. He could have done better; but much of what he can do is stifled by.... the GOP.
Your mate Trump will be a disaster for Ukraine. You shill for Trump whilst having a reference to the Ukraine flag as your avatar. You should replace it with the Russian flag, as they're who you want to win in Ukraine.
Milley told lawmakers during closed-door briefings on Feb. 2 and 3 that a full-scale Russian invasion of Ukraine could result in the fall of Kyiv within 72-hours, and could come at a cost of 15,000 Ukrainian troop deaths and 4,000 Russian troop deaths.
Several lawmakers expressed concern that the Biden administration did not respond quickly to provide Ukraine with significant military aid, such as anti-aircraft and rocket launcher systems that would defend against an invasion from Russia.
Biden administration officials at the meetings responded to these concerns by saying that a significant supply of military aid to Ukraine could be used as a reason to invade Ukraine.
And what did Trump do to stop Russia between 2016 and 2020, when they were occupying Crimea and vast areas of the Donbass? Answer: weaken Ukraine by obsessing over a fucking laptop.
Replace your avatar with the Russian flag, you sick shill.
If I may, I think the position is more nuanced than you’d care to admit. Ukraine and Russia are locked in a war of attrition, their side looks like it might have more staying power than ours. And its partners are now providing not just shells but infantry.
Even with a 5-1 attrition ratio, it is not guaranteed that Russia collapses prior to Ukraine. Especially given the Washington consensus (and Berlin) seems to be to place extreme restrictions on Ukraine’s use of arms, for fear of escalation.
We must be realistic about what is politically and operational possible at this point. The democrats could win all three elections and it’s not clear that things next year would be very different to today. What is their plan to end the war? It’s clear they’ve thrown Zelenskys plan back in his face.
That's all very debateable, and is what some people have been saying from the start, from "Kyiv should just give in to Russia", back in February 2022 to "Congress will never allow Ukraine to get more weapons!" earlier in the year. Just to be proved wrong every time.
And if Russia is warning us against 'escalation', then they shouldn't fucking well constantly escalate themselves, whether it's long range weapons from Iran or troops and weapons from North Korea.
But this is irrelevant to Trump, whose only plan for 'peace' is an abject Ukrainian surrender.
If it had been left to Biden, Putin would have taken Kyiv within days. His approach was entirely reactive, and showed much less resolve than Boris Johnson.
We're talking about Trump. What do *you* think Trump will do to help Ukraine?
Hypothetically, if there is an armistice that freezes the current front line, that's not "abject surrender" and it would help Ukraine very much to have time to regroup without dealing with the burden of fighting a war and facing constant missile attacks.
Yes; that's an abject surrender as Russia will just regroup and try again. What's more Ukraine gets f'all out of it, and Russia gets loads. And dangling NATO membership in front of Ukraine does not deter Putin, as he knows your best bud Trump isn't NATO's biggest fan. Ukraine cannot rely on NATO with Trump in charge of the USA.
So I ask again: what do you think Trump will do to help Ukraine?
You're being irrational and driven by emotion. If you think that peace is nothing then you need a reality check.
The point is that what you said above is not a 'peace'; it is a defeat for Ukraine. You want Ukraine defeated - which is why your avatar is so egregious.
So I ask again: what do you think Trump will do to help Ukraine?
It's immoral to expect other people to die to satisfy your need for moral purity.
Isn’t that up to them
We appear to be back at February 2022 arguments in relation to the war, regrettably.
Everyone here is surprisingly casual about the leak that the CIA upped their assessment of nuclear exchange in autumn 2022 to 50%. You can’t just sit there and pretend that didn’t happen. Now you might conclude (with the benefit of far less info than them) that they got it completely wrong. But what you cannot deny is the political impact that assessment has had in the US.
Biden was not going to change his policy of containment and a bloody war of attrition, with the goal of no clear winner. And unless I’ve missed it, Harris has said absolutely nothing to suggest her policy would be different. So should Ukraine broker a fragile peace with sub optimal boundaries now? Or strike a likely fairly similar deal some period down the line, with tens of thousands of additional dead?
I don’t know anyone living in Ukraine but I suspect this is a conversation that is being quietly whispered. A shame Leon is banned, he might have useful insight after his recent visits.
Zelensky has given the White House both barrels today. Which is rather interesting.
Well, if his claim is true, then it is deserved.
(It seems that the story that Ukraine wanted long-range Tomahawk cruise missiles was a secret part of Big Z's peace plan, told to the USA in confidence, and it soon leaked to the media. Note: Ukraine did not tell the USA about the Kursk offensive, and it worked. Someone in the US is leaking badly.)
Biden has been a disaster for Ukraine from the beginning.
No, he has not been a 'disaster'. He could have done better; but much of what he can do is stifled by.... the GOP.
Your mate Trump will be a disaster for Ukraine. You shill for Trump whilst having a reference to the Ukraine flag as your avatar. You should replace it with the Russian flag, as they're who you want to win in Ukraine.
Milley told lawmakers during closed-door briefings on Feb. 2 and 3 that a full-scale Russian invasion of Ukraine could result in the fall of Kyiv within 72-hours, and could come at a cost of 15,000 Ukrainian troop deaths and 4,000 Russian troop deaths.
Several lawmakers expressed concern that the Biden administration did not respond quickly to provide Ukraine with significant military aid, such as anti-aircraft and rocket launcher systems that would defend against an invasion from Russia.
Biden administration officials at the meetings responded to these concerns by saying that a significant supply of military aid to Ukraine could be used as a reason to invade Ukraine.
And what did Trump do to stop Russia between 2016 and 2020, when they were occupying Crimea and vast areas of the Donbass? Answer: weaken Ukraine by obsessing over a fucking laptop.
Replace your avatar with the Russian flag, you sick shill.
If I may, I think the position is more nuanced than you’d care to admit. Ukraine and Russia are locked in a war of attrition, their side looks like it might have more staying power than ours. And its partners are now providing not just shells but infantry.
Even with a 5-1 attrition ratio, it is not guaranteed that Russia collapses prior to Ukraine. Especially given the Washington consensus (and Berlin) seems to be to place extreme restrictions on Ukraine’s use of arms, for fear of escalation.
We must be realistic about what is politically and operational possible at this point. The democrats could win all three elections and it’s not clear that things next year would be very different to today. What is their plan to end the war? It’s clear they’ve thrown Zelenskys plan back in his face.
That's all very debateable, and is what some people have been saying from the start, from "Kyiv should just give in to Russia", back in February 2022 to "Congress will never allow Ukraine to get more weapons!" earlier in the year. Just to be proved wrong every time.
And if Russia is warning us against 'escalation', then they shouldn't fucking well constantly escalate themselves, whether it's long range weapons from Iran or troops and weapons from North Korea.
But this is irrelevant to Trump, whose only plan for 'peace' is an abject Ukrainian surrender.
If it had been left to Biden, Putin would have taken Kyiv within days. His approach was entirely reactive, and showed much less resolve than Boris Johnson.
We're talking about Trump. What do *you* think Trump will do to help Ukraine?
Hypothetically, if there is an armistice that freezes the current front line, that's not "abject surrender" and it would help Ukraine very much to have time to regroup without dealing with the burden of fighting a war and facing constant missile attacks.
Yes; that's an abject surrender as Russia will just regroup and try again. What's more Ukraine gets f'all out of it, and Russia gets loads. And dangling NATO membership in front of Ukraine does not deter Putin, as he knows your best bud Trump isn't NATO's biggest fan. Ukraine cannot rely on NATO with Trump in charge of the USA.
So I ask again: what do you think Trump will do to help Ukraine?
You're being irrational and driven by emotion. If you think that peace is nothing then you need a reality check.
The point is that what you said above is not a 'peace'; it is a defeat for Ukraine. You want Ukraine defeated - which is why your avatar is so egregious.
So I ask again: what do you think Trump will do to help Ukraine?
It's immoral to expect other people to die to satisfy your need for moral purity.
It’s extraordinary how unimpacted our lives have been, while we’ve expected Ukrainians to bleed and die with one hand behind their back, all in the name of depleting Russia’s Soviet stockpiles.
You seem to believe that we are forcing the Ukranians to unwillingly fight to serve our goals. It seems to me that they are desperately fighting to serve their goals: specifically clean water, warm houses, good food, not-raped women and not-murdered children.
Zelensky has given the White House both barrels today. Which is rather interesting.
Well, if his claim is true, then it is deserved.
(It seems that the story that Ukraine wanted long-range Tomahawk cruise missiles was a secret part of Big Z's peace plan, told to the USA in confidence, and it soon leaked to the media. Note: Ukraine did not tell the USA about the Kursk offensive, and it worked. Someone in the US is leaking badly.)
Biden has been a disaster for Ukraine from the beginning.
No, he has not been a 'disaster'. He could have done better; but much of what he can do is stifled by.... the GOP.
Your mate Trump will be a disaster for Ukraine. You shill for Trump whilst having a reference to the Ukraine flag as your avatar. You should replace it with the Russian flag, as they're who you want to win in Ukraine.
Milley told lawmakers during closed-door briefings on Feb. 2 and 3 that a full-scale Russian invasion of Ukraine could result in the fall of Kyiv within 72-hours, and could come at a cost of 15,000 Ukrainian troop deaths and 4,000 Russian troop deaths.
Several lawmakers expressed concern that the Biden administration did not respond quickly to provide Ukraine with significant military aid, such as anti-aircraft and rocket launcher systems that would defend against an invasion from Russia.
Biden administration officials at the meetings responded to these concerns by saying that a significant supply of military aid to Ukraine could be used as a reason to invade Ukraine.
And what did Trump do to stop Russia between 2016 and 2020, when they were occupying Crimea and vast areas of the Donbass? Answer: weaken Ukraine by obsessing over a fucking laptop.
Replace your avatar with the Russian flag, you sick shill.
If I may, I think the position is more nuanced than you’d care to admit. Ukraine and Russia are locked in a war of attrition, their side looks like it might have more staying power than ours. And its partners are now providing not just shells but infantry.
Even with a 5-1 attrition ratio, it is not guaranteed that Russia collapses prior to Ukraine. Especially given the Washington consensus (and Berlin) seems to be to place extreme restrictions on Ukraine’s use of arms, for fear of escalation.
We must be realistic about what is politically and operational possible at this point. The democrats could win all three elections and it’s not clear that things next year would be very different to today. What is their plan to end the war? It’s clear they’ve thrown Zelenskys plan back in his face.
That's all very debateable, and is what some people have been saying from the start, from "Kyiv should just give in to Russia", back in February 2022 to "Congress will never allow Ukraine to get more weapons!" earlier in the year. Just to be proved wrong every time.
And if Russia is warning us against 'escalation', then they shouldn't fucking well constantly escalate themselves, whether it's long range weapons from Iran or troops and weapons from North Korea.
But this is irrelevant to Trump, whose only plan for 'peace' is an abject Ukrainian surrender.
If it had been left to Biden, Putin would have taken Kyiv within days. His approach was entirely reactive, and showed much less resolve than Boris Johnson.
We're talking about Trump. What do *you* think Trump will do to help Ukraine?
Hypothetically, if there is an armistice that freezes the current front line, that's not "abject surrender" and it would help Ukraine very much to have time to regroup without dealing with the burden of fighting a war and facing constant missile attacks.
Yes; that's an abject surrender as Russia will just regroup and try again. What's more Ukraine gets f'all out of it, and Russia gets loads. And dangling NATO membership in front of Ukraine does not deter Putin, as he knows your best bud Trump isn't NATO's biggest fan. Ukraine cannot rely on NATO with Trump in charge of the USA.
So I ask again: what do you think Trump will do to help Ukraine?
You're being irrational and driven by emotion. If you think that peace is nothing then you need a reality check.
The point is that what you said above is not a 'peace'; it is a defeat for Ukraine. You want Ukraine defeated - which is why your avatar is so egregious.
So I ask again: what do you think Trump will do to help Ukraine?
It's immoral to expect other people to die to satisfy your need for moral purity.
So you cannot answer the question.
My position is f-all to do with 'moral purity'; just as yours is nothing to do with helping Ukraine.
My position is this: a Russian victory in Ukraine is bad for the world, for a whole host of reasons that have been discussed before. That means for as long as Ukraine wants to fight, we need to support them in that fight, to the best of our abilities.
There we have it. You don't care about the lives of Ukrainians, only 'the world', which is just an abstraction.
What the actual fuck? How does your support for Trump help the lives of Ukrainians; many of whom will suddenly find themselves Russian. Have you seen what Russia's done to the population of the territories they have invaded? It ain't good.
But again, you fail to answer the question. So I ask again: what do you think Trump will do to help Ukraine?
The fact that you can't see how peace benefits Ukraine says it all. You are completely detached from the reality of the war. If you were somebody who would otherwise have been killed by a missile but instead got to live thanks to a peace deal, I think you'd see the benefit.
Zelensky has given the White House both barrels today. Which is rather interesting.
Well, if his claim is true, then it is deserved.
(It seems that the story that Ukraine wanted long-range Tomahawk cruise missiles was a secret part of Big Z's peace plan, told to the USA in confidence, and it soon leaked to the media. Note: Ukraine did not tell the USA about the Kursk offensive, and it worked. Someone in the US is leaking badly.)
Biden has been a disaster for Ukraine from the beginning.
No, he has not been a 'disaster'. He could have done better; but much of what he can do is stifled by.... the GOP.
Your mate Trump will be a disaster for Ukraine. You shill for Trump whilst having a reference to the Ukraine flag as your avatar. You should replace it with the Russian flag, as they're who you want to win in Ukraine.
Milley told lawmakers during closed-door briefings on Feb. 2 and 3 that a full-scale Russian invasion of Ukraine could result in the fall of Kyiv within 72-hours, and could come at a cost of 15,000 Ukrainian troop deaths and 4,000 Russian troop deaths.
Several lawmakers expressed concern that the Biden administration did not respond quickly to provide Ukraine with significant military aid, such as anti-aircraft and rocket launcher systems that would defend against an invasion from Russia.
Biden administration officials at the meetings responded to these concerns by saying that a significant supply of military aid to Ukraine could be used as a reason to invade Ukraine.
And what did Trump do to stop Russia between 2016 and 2020, when they were occupying Crimea and vast areas of the Donbass? Answer: weaken Ukraine by obsessing over a fucking laptop.
Replace your avatar with the Russian flag, you sick shill.
If I may, I think the position is more nuanced than you’d care to admit. Ukraine and Russia are locked in a war of attrition, their side looks like it might have more staying power than ours. And its partners are now providing not just shells but infantry.
Even with a 5-1 attrition ratio, it is not guaranteed that Russia collapses prior to Ukraine. Especially given the Washington consensus (and Berlin) seems to be to place extreme restrictions on Ukraine’s use of arms, for fear of escalation.
We must be realistic about what is politically and operational possible at this point. The democrats could win all three elections and it’s not clear that things next year would be very different to today. What is their plan to end the war? It’s clear they’ve thrown Zelenskys plan back in his face.
That's all very debateable, and is what some people have been saying from the start, from "Kyiv should just give in to Russia", back in February 2022 to "Congress will never allow Ukraine to get more weapons!" earlier in the year. Just to be proved wrong every time.
And if Russia is warning us against 'escalation', then they shouldn't fucking well constantly escalate themselves, whether it's long range weapons from Iran or troops and weapons from North Korea.
But this is irrelevant to Trump, whose only plan for 'peace' is an abject Ukrainian surrender.
If it had been left to Biden, Putin would have taken Kyiv within days. His approach was entirely reactive, and showed much less resolve than Boris Johnson.
We're talking about Trump. What do *you* think Trump will do to help Ukraine?
Hypothetically, if there is an armistice that freezes the current front line, that's not "abject surrender" and it would help Ukraine very much to have time to regroup without dealing with the burden of fighting a war and facing constant missile attacks.
Yes; that's an abject surrender as Russia will just regroup and try again. What's more Ukraine gets f'all out of it, and Russia gets loads. And dangling NATO membership in front of Ukraine does not deter Putin, as he knows your best bud Trump isn't NATO's biggest fan. Ukraine cannot rely on NATO with Trump in charge of the USA.
So I ask again: what do you think Trump will do to help Ukraine?
You're being irrational and driven by emotion. If you think that peace is nothing then you need a reality check.
The point is that what you said above is not a 'peace'; it is a defeat for Ukraine. You want Ukraine defeated - which is why your avatar is so egregious.
So I ask again: what do you think Trump will do to help Ukraine?
It's immoral to expect other people to die to satisfy your need for moral purity.
So you cannot answer the question.
My position is f-all to do with 'moral purity'; just as yours is nothing to do with helping Ukraine.
My position is this: a Russian victory in Ukraine is bad for the world, for a whole host of reasons that have been discussed before. That means for as long as Ukraine wants to fight, we need to support them in that fight, to the best of our abilities.
There we have it. You don't care about the lives of Ukrainians, only 'the world', which is just an abstraction.
He does care about Ukrainians which is why he wants Ukraine supported and not betrayed.
You having the audacity of a Ukraine flag in your avatar when you want Ukraine betrayed is as two-faced as countries declaring themselves Democratic.
Paul Johnson @PJTheEconomist · 3m Amazingly new government, new chancellor, same old ridiculousness. Still working to public finance forecasts which assume fuel duty will rise with inflation and "temporary" 5p cut will be reinstated. But if not this year, what chance that will ever really happen?
It is a fair point - a landslide majority which won't alter those things in its first year surely won't ever?
Zelensky has given the White House both barrels today. Which is rather interesting.
Well, if his claim is true, then it is deserved.
(It seems that the story that Ukraine wanted long-range Tomahawk cruise missiles was a secret part of Big Z's peace plan, told to the USA in confidence, and it soon leaked to the media. Note: Ukraine did not tell the USA about the Kursk offensive, and it worked. Someone in the US is leaking badly.)
Biden has been a disaster for Ukraine from the beginning.
No, he has not been a 'disaster'. He could have done better; but much of what he can do is stifled by.... the GOP.
Your mate Trump will be a disaster for Ukraine. You shill for Trump whilst having a reference to the Ukraine flag as your avatar. You should replace it with the Russian flag, as they're who you want to win in Ukraine.
Milley told lawmakers during closed-door briefings on Feb. 2 and 3 that a full-scale Russian invasion of Ukraine could result in the fall of Kyiv within 72-hours, and could come at a cost of 15,000 Ukrainian troop deaths and 4,000 Russian troop deaths.
Several lawmakers expressed concern that the Biden administration did not respond quickly to provide Ukraine with significant military aid, such as anti-aircraft and rocket launcher systems that would defend against an invasion from Russia.
Biden administration officials at the meetings responded to these concerns by saying that a significant supply of military aid to Ukraine could be used as a reason to invade Ukraine.
And what did Trump do to stop Russia between 2016 and 2020, when they were occupying Crimea and vast areas of the Donbass? Answer: weaken Ukraine by obsessing over a fucking laptop.
Replace your avatar with the Russian flag, you sick shill.
If I may, I think the position is more nuanced than you’d care to admit. Ukraine and Russia are locked in a war of attrition, their side looks like it might have more staying power than ours. And its partners are now providing not just shells but infantry.
Even with a 5-1 attrition ratio, it is not guaranteed that Russia collapses prior to Ukraine. Especially given the Washington consensus (and Berlin) seems to be to place extreme restrictions on Ukraine’s use of arms, for fear of escalation.
We must be realistic about what is politically and operational possible at this point. The democrats could win all three elections and it’s not clear that things next year would be very different to today. What is their plan to end the war? It’s clear they’ve thrown Zelenskys plan back in his face.
That's all very debateable, and is what some people have been saying from the start, from "Kyiv should just give in to Russia", back in February 2022 to "Congress will never allow Ukraine to get more weapons!" earlier in the year. Just to be proved wrong every time.
And if Russia is warning us against 'escalation', then they shouldn't fucking well constantly escalate themselves, whether it's long range weapons from Iran or troops and weapons from North Korea.
But this is irrelevant to Trump, whose only plan for 'peace' is an abject Ukrainian surrender.
If it had been left to Biden, Putin would have taken Kyiv within days. His approach was entirely reactive, and showed much less resolve than Boris Johnson.
We're talking about Trump. What do *you* think Trump will do to help Ukraine?
Hypothetically, if there is an armistice that freezes the current front line, that's not "abject surrender" and it would help Ukraine very much to have time to regroup without dealing with the burden of fighting a war and facing constant missile attacks.
Yes; that's an abject surrender as Russia will just regroup and try again. What's more Ukraine gets f'all out of it, and Russia gets loads. And dangling NATO membership in front of Ukraine does not deter Putin, as he knows your best bud Trump isn't NATO's biggest fan. Ukraine cannot rely on NATO with Trump in charge of the USA.
So I ask again: what do you think Trump will do to help Ukraine?
You're being irrational and driven by emotion. If you think that peace is nothing then you need a reality check.
The point is that what you said above is not a 'peace'; it is a defeat for Ukraine. You want Ukraine defeated - which is why your avatar is so egregious.
So I ask again: what do you think Trump will do to help Ukraine?
It's immoral to expect other people to die to satisfy your need for moral purity.
So you cannot answer the question.
My position is f-all to do with 'moral purity'; just as yours is nothing to do with helping Ukraine.
My position is this: a Russian victory in Ukraine is bad for the world, for a whole host of reasons that have been discussed before. That means for as long as Ukraine wants to fight, we need to support them in that fight, to the best of our abilities.
There we have it. You don't care about the lives of Ukrainians, only 'the world', which is just an abstraction.
What the actual fuck? How does your support for Trump help the lives of Ukrainians; many of whom will suddenly find themselves Russian. Have you seen what Russia's done to the population of the territories they have invaded? It ain't good.
But again, you fail to answer the question. So I ask again: what do you think Trump will do to help Ukraine?
The fact that you can't see how peace benefits Ukraine says it all. You are completely detached from the reality of the war. If you were somebody who would otherwise have been killed by a missile but instead got to live thanks to a peace deal, I think you'd see the benefit.
But on that basis why not force agreement on a peace deal in the first week of the war? Lots of people have been killed since then on both sides after all.
I don't want to hear any justifications for the Employer NIC increases from public sector employees; they don't affect your employer's wage bill at all
Thats simply not true, all employers pay NICS, public and private.
The employers NIC rise will impact all public sector budgets, from binmen to High Court judges. It will be quite a cost pressure on my Trust.
Zelensky has given the White House both barrels today. Which is rather interesting.
Well, if his claim is true, then it is deserved.
(It seems that the story that Ukraine wanted long-range Tomahawk cruise missiles was a secret part of Big Z's peace plan, told to the USA in confidence, and it soon leaked to the media. Note: Ukraine did not tell the USA about the Kursk offensive, and it worked. Someone in the US is leaking badly.)
Biden has been a disaster for Ukraine from the beginning.
No, he has not been a 'disaster'. He could have done better; but much of what he can do is stifled by.... the GOP.
Your mate Trump will be a disaster for Ukraine. You shill for Trump whilst having a reference to the Ukraine flag as your avatar. You should replace it with the Russian flag, as they're who you want to win in Ukraine.
Milley told lawmakers during closed-door briefings on Feb. 2 and 3 that a full-scale Russian invasion of Ukraine could result in the fall of Kyiv within 72-hours, and could come at a cost of 15,000 Ukrainian troop deaths and 4,000 Russian troop deaths.
Several lawmakers expressed concern that the Biden administration did not respond quickly to provide Ukraine with significant military aid, such as anti-aircraft and rocket launcher systems that would defend against an invasion from Russia.
Biden administration officials at the meetings responded to these concerns by saying that a significant supply of military aid to Ukraine could be used as a reason to invade Ukraine.
And what did Trump do to stop Russia between 2016 and 2020, when they were occupying Crimea and vast areas of the Donbass? Answer: weaken Ukraine by obsessing over a fucking laptop.
Replace your avatar with the Russian flag, you sick shill.
If I may, I think the position is more nuanced than you’d care to admit. Ukraine and Russia are locked in a war of attrition, their side looks like it might have more staying power than ours. And its partners are now providing not just shells but infantry.
Even with a 5-1 attrition ratio, it is not guaranteed that Russia collapses prior to Ukraine. Especially given the Washington consensus (and Berlin) seems to be to place extreme restrictions on Ukraine’s use of arms, for fear of escalation.
We must be realistic about what is politically and operational possible at this point. The democrats could win all three elections and it’s not clear that things next year would be very different to today. What is their plan to end the war? It’s clear they’ve thrown Zelenskys plan back in his face.
That's all very debateable, and is what some people have been saying from the start, from "Kyiv should just give in to Russia", back in February 2022 to "Congress will never allow Ukraine to get more weapons!" earlier in the year. Just to be proved wrong every time.
And if Russia is warning us against 'escalation', then they shouldn't fucking well constantly escalate themselves, whether it's long range weapons from Iran or troops and weapons from North Korea.
But this is irrelevant to Trump, whose only plan for 'peace' is an abject Ukrainian surrender.
If it had been left to Biden, Putin would have taken Kyiv within days. His approach was entirely reactive, and showed much less resolve than Boris Johnson.
We're talking about Trump. What do *you* think Trump will do to help Ukraine?
Hypothetically, if there is an armistice that freezes the current front line, that's not "abject surrender" and it would help Ukraine very much to have time to regroup without dealing with the burden of fighting a war and facing constant missile attacks.
Yes; that's an abject surrender as Russia will just regroup and try again. What's more Ukraine gets f'all out of it, and Russia gets loads. And dangling NATO membership in front of Ukraine does not deter Putin, as he knows your best bud Trump isn't NATO's biggest fan. Ukraine cannot rely on NATO with Trump in charge of the USA.
So I ask again: what do you think Trump will do to help Ukraine?
You're being irrational and driven by emotion. If you think that peace is nothing then you need a reality check.
The point is that what you said above is not a 'peace'; it is a defeat for Ukraine. You want Ukraine defeated - which is why your avatar is so egregious.
So I ask again: what do you think Trump will do to help Ukraine?
It's immoral to expect other people to die to satisfy your need for moral purity.
So you cannot answer the question.
My position is f-all to do with 'moral purity'; just as yours is nothing to do with helping Ukraine.
My position is this: a Russian victory in Ukraine is bad for the world, for a whole host of reasons that have been discussed before. That means for as long as Ukraine wants to fight, we need to support them in that fight, to the best of our abilities.
There we have it. You don't care about the lives of Ukrainians, only 'the world', which is just an abstraction.
What the actual fuck? How does your support for Trump help the lives of Ukrainians; many of whom will suddenly find themselves Russian. Have you seen what Russia's done to the population of the territories they have invaded? It ain't good.
But again, you fail to answer the question. So I ask again: what do you think Trump will do to help Ukraine?
The fact that you can't see how peace benefits Ukraine says it all. You are completely detached from the reality of the war. If you were somebody who would otherwise have been killed by a missile but instead got to live thanks to a peace deal, I think you'd see the benefit.
But on that basis why not force agreement on a peace deal in the first week of the war? Lots of people have been killed since then on both sides after all.
Given that Biden has consistently slow-walked military aid, that's a good question. Did he ever have any serious intention of helping Ukraine defend the borders it had at the beginning of his presidency?
Paul Johnson @PJTheEconomist · 3m Amazingly new government, new chancellor, same old ridiculousness. Still working to public finance forecasts which assume fuel duty will rise with inflation and "temporary" 5p cut will be reinstated. But if not this year, what chance that will ever really happen?
It is a fair point - a landslide majority which won't alter those things in its first year surely won't ever?
Indeed. She has basically said the duty rise is dead as a dodo for rest of this parliament. I suppose if oil prices totally crater they could slip it in without any howling from all sides.
Zelensky has given the White House both barrels today. Which is rather interesting.
Well, if his claim is true, then it is deserved.
(It seems that the story that Ukraine wanted long-range Tomahawk cruise missiles was a secret part of Big Z's peace plan, told to the USA in confidence, and it soon leaked to the media. Note: Ukraine did not tell the USA about the Kursk offensive, and it worked. Someone in the US is leaking badly.)
Biden has been a disaster for Ukraine from the beginning.
No, he has not been a 'disaster'. He could have done better; but much of what he can do is stifled by.... the GOP.
Your mate Trump will be a disaster for Ukraine. You shill for Trump whilst having a reference to the Ukraine flag as your avatar. You should replace it with the Russian flag, as they're who you want to win in Ukraine.
Milley told lawmakers during closed-door briefings on Feb. 2 and 3 that a full-scale Russian invasion of Ukraine could result in the fall of Kyiv within 72-hours, and could come at a cost of 15,000 Ukrainian troop deaths and 4,000 Russian troop deaths.
Several lawmakers expressed concern that the Biden administration did not respond quickly to provide Ukraine with significant military aid, such as anti-aircraft and rocket launcher systems that would defend against an invasion from Russia.
Biden administration officials at the meetings responded to these concerns by saying that a significant supply of military aid to Ukraine could be used as a reason to invade Ukraine.
And what did Trump do to stop Russia between 2016 and 2020, when they were occupying Crimea and vast areas of the Donbass? Answer: weaken Ukraine by obsessing over a fucking laptop.
Replace your avatar with the Russian flag, you sick shill.
If I may, I think the position is more nuanced than you’d care to admit. Ukraine and Russia are locked in a war of attrition, their side looks like it might have more staying power than ours. And its partners are now providing not just shells but infantry.
Even with a 5-1 attrition ratio, it is not guaranteed that Russia collapses prior to Ukraine. Especially given the Washington consensus (and Berlin) seems to be to place extreme restrictions on Ukraine’s use of arms, for fear of escalation.
We must be realistic about what is politically and operational possible at this point. The democrats could win all three elections and it’s not clear that things next year would be very different to today. What is their plan to end the war? It’s clear they’ve thrown Zelenskys plan back in his face.
That's all very debateable, and is what some people have been saying from the start, from "Kyiv should just give in to Russia", back in February 2022 to "Congress will never allow Ukraine to get more weapons!" earlier in the year. Just to be proved wrong every time.
And if Russia is warning us against 'escalation', then they shouldn't fucking well constantly escalate themselves, whether it's long range weapons from Iran or troops and weapons from North Korea.
But this is irrelevant to Trump, whose only plan for 'peace' is an abject Ukrainian surrender.
If it had been left to Biden, Putin would have taken Kyiv within days. His approach was entirely reactive, and showed much less resolve than Boris Johnson.
We're talking about Trump. What do *you* think Trump will do to help Ukraine?
Hypothetically, if there is an armistice that freezes the current front line, that's not "abject surrender" and it would help Ukraine very much to have time to regroup without dealing with the burden of fighting a war and facing constant missile attacks.
Yes; that's an abject surrender as Russia will just regroup and try again. What's more Ukraine gets f'all out of it, and Russia gets loads. And dangling NATO membership in front of Ukraine does not deter Putin, as he knows your best bud Trump isn't NATO's biggest fan. Ukraine cannot rely on NATO with Trump in charge of the USA.
So I ask again: what do you think Trump will do to help Ukraine?
You're being irrational and driven by emotion. If you think that peace is nothing then you need a reality check.
The point is that what you said above is not a 'peace'; it is a defeat for Ukraine. You want Ukraine defeated - which is why your avatar is so egregious.
So I ask again: what do you think Trump will do to help Ukraine?
It's immoral to expect other people to die to satisfy your need for moral purity.
Isn’t that up to them
We appear to be back at February 2022 arguments in relation to the war, regrettably.
Everyone here is surprisingly casual about the leak that the CIA upped their assessment of nuclear exchange in autumn 2022 to 50%. You can’t just sit there and pretend that didn’t happen. Now you might conclude (with the benefit of far less info than them) that they got it completely wrong. But what you cannot deny is the political impact that assessment has had in the US.
Biden was not going to change his policy of containment and a bloody war of attrition, with the goal of no clear winner. And unless I’ve missed it, Harris has said absolutely nothing to suggest her policy would be different. So should Ukraine broker a fragile peace with sub optimal boundaries now? Or strike a likely fairly similar deal some period down the line, with tens of thousands of additional dead?
I don’t know anyone living in Ukraine but I suspect this is a conversation that is being quietly whispered. A shame Leon is banned, he might have useful insight after his recent visits.
Zelensky has given the White House both barrels today. Which is rather interesting.
Well, if his claim is true, then it is deserved.
(It seems that the story that Ukraine wanted long-range Tomahawk cruise missiles was a secret part of Big Z's peace plan, told to the USA in confidence, and it soon leaked to the media. Note: Ukraine did not tell the USA about the Kursk offensive, and it worked. Someone in the US is leaking badly.)
Biden has been a disaster for Ukraine from the beginning.
No, he has not been a 'disaster'. He could have done better; but much of what he can do is stifled by.... the GOP.
Your mate Trump will be a disaster for Ukraine. You shill for Trump whilst having a reference to the Ukraine flag as your avatar. You should replace it with the Russian flag, as they're who you want to win in Ukraine.
Milley told lawmakers during closed-door briefings on Feb. 2 and 3 that a full-scale Russian invasion of Ukraine could result in the fall of Kyiv within 72-hours, and could come at a cost of 15,000 Ukrainian troop deaths and 4,000 Russian troop deaths.
Several lawmakers expressed concern that the Biden administration did not respond quickly to provide Ukraine with significant military aid, such as anti-aircraft and rocket launcher systems that would defend against an invasion from Russia.
Biden administration officials at the meetings responded to these concerns by saying that a significant supply of military aid to Ukraine could be used as a reason to invade Ukraine.
And what did Trump do to stop Russia between 2016 and 2020, when they were occupying Crimea and vast areas of the Donbass? Answer: weaken Ukraine by obsessing over a fucking laptop.
Replace your avatar with the Russian flag, you sick shill.
If I may, I think the position is more nuanced than you’d care to admit. Ukraine and Russia are locked in a war of attrition, their side looks like it might have more staying power than ours. And its partners are now providing not just shells but infantry.
Even with a 5-1 attrition ratio, it is not guaranteed that Russia collapses prior to Ukraine. Especially given the Washington consensus (and Berlin) seems to be to place extreme restrictions on Ukraine’s use of arms, for fear of escalation.
We must be realistic about what is politically and operational possible at this point. The democrats could win all three elections and it’s not clear that things next year would be very different to today. What is their plan to end the war? It’s clear they’ve thrown Zelenskys plan back in his face.
That's all very debateable, and is what some people have been saying from the start, from "Kyiv should just give in to Russia", back in February 2022 to "Congress will never allow Ukraine to get more weapons!" earlier in the year. Just to be proved wrong every time.
And if Russia is warning us against 'escalation', then they shouldn't fucking well constantly escalate themselves, whether it's long range weapons from Iran or troops and weapons from North Korea.
But this is irrelevant to Trump, whose only plan for 'peace' is an abject Ukrainian surrender.
If it had been left to Biden, Putin would have taken Kyiv within days. His approach was entirely reactive, and showed much less resolve than Boris Johnson.
We're talking about Trump. What do *you* think Trump will do to help Ukraine?
Hypothetically, if there is an armistice that freezes the current front line, that's not "abject surrender" and it would help Ukraine very much to have time to regroup without dealing with the burden of fighting a war and facing constant missile attacks.
Yes; that's an abject surrender as Russia will just regroup and try again. What's more Ukraine gets f'all out of it, and Russia gets loads. And dangling NATO membership in front of Ukraine does not deter Putin, as he knows your best bud Trump isn't NATO's biggest fan. Ukraine cannot rely on NATO with Trump in charge of the USA.
So I ask again: what do you think Trump will do to help Ukraine?
You're being irrational and driven by emotion. If you think that peace is nothing then you need a reality check.
The point is that what you said above is not a 'peace'; it is a defeat for Ukraine. You want Ukraine defeated - which is why your avatar is so egregious.
So I ask again: what do you think Trump will do to help Ukraine?
It's immoral to expect other people to die to satisfy your need for moral purity.
So you cannot answer the question.
My position is f-all to do with 'moral purity'; just as yours is nothing to do with helping Ukraine.
My position is this: a Russian victory in Ukraine is bad for the world, for a whole host of reasons that have been discussed before. That means for as long as Ukraine wants to fight, we need to support them in that fight, to the best of our abilities.
There we have it. You don't care about the lives of Ukrainians, only 'the world', which is just an abstraction.
What the actual fuck? How does your support for Trump help the lives of Ukrainians; many of whom will suddenly find themselves Russian. Have you seen what Russia's done to the population of the territories they have invaded? It ain't good.
But again, you fail to answer the question. So I ask again: what do you think Trump will do to help Ukraine?
The fact that you can't see how peace benefits Ukraine says it all. You are completely detached from the reality of the war. If you were somebody who would otherwise have been killed by a missile but instead got to live thanks to a peace deal, I think you'd see the benefit.
Because it wouldn't be a 'peace'. And because it would widen conflict.
Zelensky has given the White House both barrels today. Which is rather interesting.
Well, if his claim is true, then it is deserved.
(It seems that the story that Ukraine wanted long-range Tomahawk cruise missiles was a secret part of Big Z's peace plan, told to the USA in confidence, and it soon leaked to the media. Note: Ukraine did not tell the USA about the Kursk offensive, and it worked. Someone in the US is leaking badly.)
Biden has been a disaster for Ukraine from the beginning.
No, he has not been a 'disaster'. He could have done better; but much of what he can do is stifled by.... the GOP.
Your mate Trump will be a disaster for Ukraine. You shill for Trump whilst having a reference to the Ukraine flag as your avatar. You should replace it with the Russian flag, as they're who you want to win in Ukraine.
Milley told lawmakers during closed-door briefings on Feb. 2 and 3 that a full-scale Russian invasion of Ukraine could result in the fall of Kyiv within 72-hours, and could come at a cost of 15,000 Ukrainian troop deaths and 4,000 Russian troop deaths.
Several lawmakers expressed concern that the Biden administration did not respond quickly to provide Ukraine with significant military aid, such as anti-aircraft and rocket launcher systems that would defend against an invasion from Russia.
Biden administration officials at the meetings responded to these concerns by saying that a significant supply of military aid to Ukraine could be used as a reason to invade Ukraine.
And what did Trump do to stop Russia between 2016 and 2020, when they were occupying Crimea and vast areas of the Donbass? Answer: weaken Ukraine by obsessing over a fucking laptop.
Replace your avatar with the Russian flag, you sick shill.
If I may, I think the position is more nuanced than you’d care to admit. Ukraine and Russia are locked in a war of attrition, their side looks like it might have more staying power than ours. And its partners are now providing not just shells but infantry.
Even with a 5-1 attrition ratio, it is not guaranteed that Russia collapses prior to Ukraine. Especially given the Washington consensus (and Berlin) seems to be to place extreme restrictions on Ukraine’s use of arms, for fear of escalation.
We must be realistic about what is politically and operational possible at this point. The democrats could win all three elections and it’s not clear that things next year would be very different to today. What is their plan to end the war? It’s clear they’ve thrown Zelenskys plan back in his face.
That's all very debateable, and is what some people have been saying from the start, from "Kyiv should just give in to Russia", back in February 2022 to "Congress will never allow Ukraine to get more weapons!" earlier in the year. Just to be proved wrong every time.
And if Russia is warning us against 'escalation', then they shouldn't fucking well constantly escalate themselves, whether it's long range weapons from Iran or troops and weapons from North Korea.
But this is irrelevant to Trump, whose only plan for 'peace' is an abject Ukrainian surrender.
If it had been left to Biden, Putin would have taken Kyiv within days. His approach was entirely reactive, and showed much less resolve than Boris Johnson.
We're talking about Trump. What do *you* think Trump will do to help Ukraine?
Hypothetically, if there is an armistice that freezes the current front line, that's not "abject surrender" and it would help Ukraine very much to have time to regroup without dealing with the burden of fighting a war and facing constant missile attacks.
Yes; that's an abject surrender as Russia will just regroup and try again. What's more Ukraine gets f'all out of it, and Russia gets loads. And dangling NATO membership in front of Ukraine does not deter Putin, as he knows your best bud Trump isn't NATO's biggest fan. Ukraine cannot rely on NATO with Trump in charge of the USA.
So I ask again: what do you think Trump will do to help Ukraine?
You're being irrational and driven by emotion. If you think that peace is nothing then you need a reality check.
The point is that what you said above is not a 'peace'; it is a defeat for Ukraine. You want Ukraine defeated - which is why your avatar is so egregious.
So I ask again: what do you think Trump will do to help Ukraine?
It's immoral to expect other people to die to satisfy your need for moral purity.
So you cannot answer the question.
My position is f-all to do with 'moral purity'; just as yours is nothing to do with helping Ukraine.
My position is this: a Russian victory in Ukraine is bad for the world, for a whole host of reasons that have been discussed before. That means for as long as Ukraine wants to fight, we need to support them in that fight, to the best of our abilities.
There we have it. You don't care about the lives of Ukrainians, only 'the world', which is just an abstraction.
What the actual fuck? How does your support for Trump help the lives of Ukrainians; many of whom will suddenly find themselves Russian. Have you seen what Russia's done to the population of the territories they have invaded? It ain't good.
But again, you fail to answer the question. So I ask again: what do you think Trump will do to help Ukraine?
The fact that you can't see how peace benefits Ukraine says it all. You are completely detached from the reality of the war. If you were somebody who would otherwise have been killed by a missile but instead got to live thanks to a peace deal, I think you'd see the benefit.
But on that basis why not force agreement on a peace deal in the first week of the war? Lots of people have been killed since then on both sides after all.
Given that Biden has consistently slow-walked military aid, that's a good question. Did he ever have any serious intention of helping Ukraine defend the borders it had at the beginning of his presidency?
Biden has not slow walked military aid, the GOP in Congress at the urging of Trump has.
Zelensky has given the White House both barrels today. Which is rather interesting.
Well, if his claim is true, then it is deserved.
(It seems that the story that Ukraine wanted long-range Tomahawk cruise missiles was a secret part of Big Z's peace plan, told to the USA in confidence, and it soon leaked to the media. Note: Ukraine did not tell the USA about the Kursk offensive, and it worked. Someone in the US is leaking badly.)
Biden has been a disaster for Ukraine from the beginning.
No, he has not been a 'disaster'. He could have done better; but much of what he can do is stifled by.... the GOP.
Your mate Trump will be a disaster for Ukraine. You shill for Trump whilst having a reference to the Ukraine flag as your avatar. You should replace it with the Russian flag, as they're who you want to win in Ukraine.
Milley told lawmakers during closed-door briefings on Feb. 2 and 3 that a full-scale Russian invasion of Ukraine could result in the fall of Kyiv within 72-hours, and could come at a cost of 15,000 Ukrainian troop deaths and 4,000 Russian troop deaths.
Several lawmakers expressed concern that the Biden administration did not respond quickly to provide Ukraine with significant military aid, such as anti-aircraft and rocket launcher systems that would defend against an invasion from Russia.
Biden administration officials at the meetings responded to these concerns by saying that a significant supply of military aid to Ukraine could be used as a reason to invade Ukraine.
And what did Trump do to stop Russia between 2016 and 2020, when they were occupying Crimea and vast areas of the Donbass? Answer: weaken Ukraine by obsessing over a fucking laptop.
Replace your avatar with the Russian flag, you sick shill.
If I may, I think the position is more nuanced than you’d care to admit. Ukraine and Russia are locked in a war of attrition, their side looks like it might have more staying power than ours. And its partners are now providing not just shells but infantry.
Even with a 5-1 attrition ratio, it is not guaranteed that Russia collapses prior to Ukraine. Especially given the Washington consensus (and Berlin) seems to be to place extreme restrictions on Ukraine’s use of arms, for fear of escalation.
We must be realistic about what is politically and operational possible at this point. The democrats could win all three elections and it’s not clear that things next year would be very different to today. What is their plan to end the war? It’s clear they’ve thrown Zelenskys plan back in his face.
That's all very debateable, and is what some people have been saying from the start, from "Kyiv should just give in to Russia", back in February 2022 to "Congress will never allow Ukraine to get more weapons!" earlier in the year. Just to be proved wrong every time.
And if Russia is warning us against 'escalation', then they shouldn't fucking well constantly escalate themselves, whether it's long range weapons from Iran or troops and weapons from North Korea.
But this is irrelevant to Trump, whose only plan for 'peace' is an abject Ukrainian surrender.
If it had been left to Biden, Putin would have taken Kyiv within days. His approach was entirely reactive, and showed much less resolve than Boris Johnson.
We're talking about Trump. What do *you* think Trump will do to help Ukraine?
Hypothetically, if there is an armistice that freezes the current front line, that's not "abject surrender" and it would help Ukraine very much to have time to regroup without dealing with the burden of fighting a war and facing constant missile attacks.
Yes; that's an abject surrender as Russia will just regroup and try again. What's more Ukraine gets f'all out of it, and Russia gets loads. And dangling NATO membership in front of Ukraine does not deter Putin, as he knows your best bud Trump isn't NATO's biggest fan. Ukraine cannot rely on NATO with Trump in charge of the USA.
So I ask again: what do you think Trump will do to help Ukraine?
You're being irrational and driven by emotion. If you think that peace is nothing then you need a reality check.
The point is that what you said above is not a 'peace'; it is a defeat for Ukraine. You want Ukraine defeated - which is why your avatar is so egregious.
So I ask again: what do you think Trump will do to help Ukraine?
It's immoral to expect other people to die to satisfy your need for moral purity.
Isn’t that up to them
We appear to be back at February 2022 arguments in relation to the war, regrettably.
Everyone here is surprisingly casual about the leak that the CIA upped their assessment of nuclear exchange in autumn 2022 to 50%. You can’t just sit there and pretend that didn’t happen. Now you might conclude (with the benefit of far less info than them) that they got it completely wrong. But what you cannot deny is the political impact that assessment has had in the US.
Biden was not going to change his policy of containment and a bloody war of attrition, with the goal of no clear winner. And unless I’ve missed it, Harris has said absolutely nothing to suggest her policy would be different. So should Ukraine broker a fragile peace with sub optimal boundaries now? Or strike a likely fairly similar deal some period down the line, with tens of thousands of additional dead?
I don’t know anyone living in Ukraine but I suspect this is a conversation that is being quietly whispered. A shame Leon is banned, he might have useful insight after his recent visits.
I think a deal is quite likely at some point, I don't think Ukraine was ever going to get Crimea or large chunks of the Donbas back, but that doesn't make an argument such is being made about the inherent benefits of peace over war make much sense, when that logic suggests no one should have supported Ukraine resisting as much as they did in the first place, since that has meant a lot of fighting that would not otherwise take place.
If the argument is a colder one about Ukraine's position being unlikely to improve to reach a better settlement than they might get if they sue for peace now, many will disagree, but it is a different argument entirely to blanket statements, as are being made, that arguing against a deal 'now' is expecting others to die for moral purity or that peace will prevent deaths, which, yes, clearly, and that has to be weighed up by those actually involved in the decisions, but it's not the 'only' factor Ukraine or its various supporters will consider.
All of which is still secondary to idea to whether immediate cessation of support, as is implied by Trump in saying he will end the war very quickly, is better for Ukraine and others than a grinding quagmire. And that is hardly being argued honestly, since some argue instead that people should ignore what Trump says, because he wouldn't really do it, which is even less analytical than people ignoring potential escalation risks.
Zelensky has given the White House both barrels today. Which is rather interesting.
Well, if his claim is true, then it is deserved.
(It seems that the story that Ukraine wanted long-range Tomahawk cruise missiles was a secret part of Big Z's peace plan, told to the USA in confidence, and it soon leaked to the media. Note: Ukraine did not tell the USA about the Kursk offensive, and it worked. Someone in the US is leaking badly.)
Biden has been a disaster for Ukraine from the beginning.
No, he has not been a 'disaster'. He could have done better; but much of what he can do is stifled by.... the GOP.
Your mate Trump will be a disaster for Ukraine. You shill for Trump whilst having a reference to the Ukraine flag as your avatar. You should replace it with the Russian flag, as they're who you want to win in Ukraine.
Milley told lawmakers during closed-door briefings on Feb. 2 and 3 that a full-scale Russian invasion of Ukraine could result in the fall of Kyiv within 72-hours, and could come at a cost of 15,000 Ukrainian troop deaths and 4,000 Russian troop deaths.
Several lawmakers expressed concern that the Biden administration did not respond quickly to provide Ukraine with significant military aid, such as anti-aircraft and rocket launcher systems that would defend against an invasion from Russia.
Biden administration officials at the meetings responded to these concerns by saying that a significant supply of military aid to Ukraine could be used as a reason to invade Ukraine.
And what did Trump do to stop Russia between 2016 and 2020, when they were occupying Crimea and vast areas of the Donbass? Answer: weaken Ukraine by obsessing over a fucking laptop.
Replace your avatar with the Russian flag, you sick shill.
If I may, I think the position is more nuanced than you’d care to admit. Ukraine and Russia are locked in a war of attrition, their side looks like it might have more staying power than ours. And its partners are now providing not just shells but infantry.
Even with a 5-1 attrition ratio, it is not guaranteed that Russia collapses prior to Ukraine. Especially given the Washington consensus (and Berlin) seems to be to place extreme restrictions on Ukraine’s use of arms, for fear of escalation.
We must be realistic about what is politically and operational possible at this point. The democrats could win all three elections and it’s not clear that things next year would be very different to today. What is their plan to end the war? It’s clear they’ve thrown Zelenskys plan back in his face.
That's all very debateable, and is what some people have been saying from the start, from "Kyiv should just give in to Russia", back in February 2022 to "Congress will never allow Ukraine to get more weapons!" earlier in the year. Just to be proved wrong every time.
And if Russia is warning us against 'escalation', then they shouldn't fucking well constantly escalate themselves, whether it's long range weapons from Iran or troops and weapons from North Korea.
But this is irrelevant to Trump, whose only plan for 'peace' is an abject Ukrainian surrender.
If it had been left to Biden, Putin would have taken Kyiv within days. His approach was entirely reactive, and showed much less resolve than Boris Johnson.
We're talking about Trump. What do *you* think Trump will do to help Ukraine?
Hypothetically, if there is an armistice that freezes the current front line, that's not "abject surrender" and it would help Ukraine very much to have time to regroup without dealing with the burden of fighting a war and facing constant missile attacks.
Yes; that's an abject surrender as Russia will just regroup and try again. What's more Ukraine gets f'all out of it, and Russia gets loads. And dangling NATO membership in front of Ukraine does not deter Putin, as he knows your best bud Trump isn't NATO's biggest fan. Ukraine cannot rely on NATO with Trump in charge of the USA.
So I ask again: what do you think Trump will do to help Ukraine?
You're being irrational and driven by emotion. If you think that peace is nothing then you need a reality check.
The point is that what you said above is not a 'peace'; it is a defeat for Ukraine. You want Ukraine defeated - which is why your avatar is so egregious.
So I ask again: what do you think Trump will do to help Ukraine?
It's immoral to expect other people to die to satisfy your need for moral purity.
So you cannot answer the question.
My position is f-all to do with 'moral purity'; just as yours is nothing to do with helping Ukraine.
My position is this: a Russian victory in Ukraine is bad for the world, for a whole host of reasons that have been discussed before. That means for as long as Ukraine wants to fight, we need to support them in that fight, to the best of our abilities.
There we have it. You don't care about the lives of Ukrainians, only 'the world', which is just an abstraction.
What the actual fuck? How does your support for Trump help the lives of Ukrainians; many of whom will suddenly find themselves Russian. Have you seen what Russia's done to the population of the territories they have invaded? It ain't good.
But again, you fail to answer the question. So I ask again: what do you think Trump will do to help Ukraine?
The fact that you can't see how peace benefits Ukraine says it all. You are completely detached from the reality of the war. If you were somebody who would otherwise have been killed by a missile but instead got to live thanks to a peace deal, I think you'd see the benefit.
But on that basis why not force agreement on a peace deal in the first week of the war? Lots of people have been killed since then on both sides after all.
Given that Biden has consistently slow-walked military aid, that's a good question. Did he ever have any serious intention of helping Ukraine defend the borders it had at the beginning of his presidency?
There has been massive US Aid to Ukraine. Thats what Trump has been moaning about and planning to stop.
I don't want to hear any justifications for the Employer NIC increases from public sector employees; they don't affect your employer's wage bill at all
Thats simply not true, all employers pay NICS, public and private.
The employers NIC rise will impact all public sector budgets, from binmen to High Court judges. It will be quite a cost pressure on my Trust.
The state pays their wages; the state gets all of the tax increase directly back
I don't want to hear any justifications for the Employer NIC increases from public sector employees; they don't affect your employer's wage bill at all
Thats simply not true, all employers pay NICS, public and private.
The employers NIC rise will impact all public sector budgets, from binmen to High Court judges. It will be quite a cost pressure on my Trust.
A cost pressure on your Trust budget but not on the govt budget as the money is recycled. So the government is choosing to put pay restraint on the trust. We can argue this one either way without it being wrong, it is a matter of perspective and exactly whose budget is considered.
Zelensky has given the White House both barrels today. Which is rather interesting.
Well, if his claim is true, then it is deserved.
(It seems that the story that Ukraine wanted long-range Tomahawk cruise missiles was a secret part of Big Z's peace plan, told to the USA in confidence, and it soon leaked to the media. Note: Ukraine did not tell the USA about the Kursk offensive, and it worked. Someone in the US is leaking badly.)
Biden has been a disaster for Ukraine from the beginning.
No, he has not been a 'disaster'. He could have done better; but much of what he can do is stifled by.... the GOP.
Your mate Trump will be a disaster for Ukraine. You shill for Trump whilst having a reference to the Ukraine flag as your avatar. You should replace it with the Russian flag, as they're who you want to win in Ukraine.
Milley told lawmakers during closed-door briefings on Feb. 2 and 3 that a full-scale Russian invasion of Ukraine could result in the fall of Kyiv within 72-hours, and could come at a cost of 15,000 Ukrainian troop deaths and 4,000 Russian troop deaths.
Several lawmakers expressed concern that the Biden administration did not respond quickly to provide Ukraine with significant military aid, such as anti-aircraft and rocket launcher systems that would defend against an invasion from Russia.
Biden administration officials at the meetings responded to these concerns by saying that a significant supply of military aid to Ukraine could be used as a reason to invade Ukraine.
And what did Trump do to stop Russia between 2016 and 2020, when they were occupying Crimea and vast areas of the Donbass? Answer: weaken Ukraine by obsessing over a fucking laptop.
Replace your avatar with the Russian flag, you sick shill.
If I may, I think the position is more nuanced than you’d care to admit. Ukraine and Russia are locked in a war of attrition, their side looks like it might have more staying power than ours. And its partners are now providing not just shells but infantry.
Even with a 5-1 attrition ratio, it is not guaranteed that Russia collapses prior to Ukraine. Especially given the Washington consensus (and Berlin) seems to be to place extreme restrictions on Ukraine’s use of arms, for fear of escalation.
We must be realistic about what is politically and operational possible at this point. The democrats could win all three elections and it’s not clear that things next year would be very different to today. What is their plan to end the war? It’s clear they’ve thrown Zelenskys plan back in his face.
That's all very debateable, and is what some people have been saying from the start, from "Kyiv should just give in to Russia", back in February 2022 to "Congress will never allow Ukraine to get more weapons!" earlier in the year. Just to be proved wrong every time.
And if Russia is warning us against 'escalation', then they shouldn't fucking well constantly escalate themselves, whether it's long range weapons from Iran or troops and weapons from North Korea.
But this is irrelevant to Trump, whose only plan for 'peace' is an abject Ukrainian surrender.
If it had been left to Biden, Putin would have taken Kyiv within days. His approach was entirely reactive, and showed much less resolve than Boris Johnson.
We're talking about Trump. What do *you* think Trump will do to help Ukraine?
Hypothetically, if there is an armistice that freezes the current front line, that's not "abject surrender" and it would help Ukraine very much to have time to regroup without dealing with the burden of fighting a war and facing constant missile attacks.
Yes; that's an abject surrender as Russia will just regroup and try again. What's more Ukraine gets f'all out of it, and Russia gets loads. And dangling NATO membership in front of Ukraine does not deter Putin, as he knows your best bud Trump isn't NATO's biggest fan. Ukraine cannot rely on NATO with Trump in charge of the USA.
So I ask again: what do you think Trump will do to help Ukraine?
You're being irrational and driven by emotion. If you think that peace is nothing then you need a reality check.
The point is that what you said above is not a 'peace'; it is a defeat for Ukraine. You want Ukraine defeated - which is why your avatar is so egregious.
So I ask again: what do you think Trump will do to help Ukraine?
It's immoral to expect other people to die to satisfy your need for moral purity.
It’s extraordinary how unimpacted our lives have been, while we’ve expected Ukrainians to bleed and die with one hand behind their back, all in the name of depleting Russia’s Soviet stockpiles.
You seem to believe that we are forcing the Ukranians to unwillingly fight to serve our goals. It seems to me that they are desperately fighting to serve their goals: specifically clean water, warm houses, good food, not-raped women and not-murdered children.
We are forcing them to fight without the means to achieve their goals, but with the requirement to achieve ours. Namely the slow attrition of Soviet stockpiles and harm to Russian demographics, at the cost of thousands upon thousands of non-NATO lives. I’m amazed how many here can’t see this. Western startegy in this war has been the ultimate in real politik for some time now.
I don't want to hear any justifications for the Employer NIC increases from public sector employees; they don't affect your employer's wage bill at all
Thats simply not true, all employers pay NICS, public and private.
The employers NIC rise will impact all public sector budgets, from binmen to High Court judges. It will be quite a cost pressure on my Trust.
The state pays their wages; the state gets all of the tax increase directly back
But it does come out of the budget of the relevant department. Of course, there will be a corresponding increase in revenue at the exchequer.
Zelensky has given the White House both barrels today. Which is rather interesting.
Well, if his claim is true, then it is deserved.
(It seems that the story that Ukraine wanted long-range Tomahawk cruise missiles was a secret part of Big Z's peace plan, told to the USA in confidence, and it soon leaked to the media. Note: Ukraine did not tell the USA about the Kursk offensive, and it worked. Someone in the US is leaking badly.)
Biden has been a disaster for Ukraine from the beginning.
No, he has not been a 'disaster'. He could have done better; but much of what he can do is stifled by.... the GOP.
Your mate Trump will be a disaster for Ukraine. You shill for Trump whilst having a reference to the Ukraine flag as your avatar. You should replace it with the Russian flag, as they're who you want to win in Ukraine.
Milley told lawmakers during closed-door briefings on Feb. 2 and 3 that a full-scale Russian invasion of Ukraine could result in the fall of Kyiv within 72-hours, and could come at a cost of 15,000 Ukrainian troop deaths and 4,000 Russian troop deaths.
Several lawmakers expressed concern that the Biden administration did not respond quickly to provide Ukraine with significant military aid, such as anti-aircraft and rocket launcher systems that would defend against an invasion from Russia.
Biden administration officials at the meetings responded to these concerns by saying that a significant supply of military aid to Ukraine could be used as a reason to invade Ukraine.
And what did Trump do to stop Russia between 2016 and 2020, when they were occupying Crimea and vast areas of the Donbass? Answer: weaken Ukraine by obsessing over a fucking laptop.
Replace your avatar with the Russian flag, you sick shill.
If I may, I think the position is more nuanced than you’d care to admit. Ukraine and Russia are locked in a war of attrition, their side looks like it might have more staying power than ours. And its partners are now providing not just shells but infantry.
Even with a 5-1 attrition ratio, it is not guaranteed that Russia collapses prior to Ukraine. Especially given the Washington consensus (and Berlin) seems to be to place extreme restrictions on Ukraine’s use of arms, for fear of escalation.
We must be realistic about what is politically and operational possible at this point. The democrats could win all three elections and it’s not clear that things next year would be very different to today. What is their plan to end the war? It’s clear they’ve thrown Zelenskys plan back in his face.
That's all very debateable, and is what some people have been saying from the start, from "Kyiv should just give in to Russia", back in February 2022 to "Congress will never allow Ukraine to get more weapons!" earlier in the year. Just to be proved wrong every time.
And if Russia is warning us against 'escalation', then they shouldn't fucking well constantly escalate themselves, whether it's long range weapons from Iran or troops and weapons from North Korea.
But this is irrelevant to Trump, whose only plan for 'peace' is an abject Ukrainian surrender.
If it had been left to Biden, Putin would have taken Kyiv within days. His approach was entirely reactive, and showed much less resolve than Boris Johnson.
We're talking about Trump. What do *you* think Trump will do to help Ukraine?
Hypothetically, if there is an armistice that freezes the current front line, that's not "abject surrender" and it would help Ukraine very much to have time to regroup without dealing with the burden of fighting a war and facing constant missile attacks.
Yes; that's an abject surrender as Russia will just regroup and try again. What's more Ukraine gets f'all out of it, and Russia gets loads. And dangling NATO membership in front of Ukraine does not deter Putin, as he knows your best bud Trump isn't NATO's biggest fan. Ukraine cannot rely on NATO with Trump in charge of the USA.
So I ask again: what do you think Trump will do to help Ukraine?
You're being irrational and driven by emotion. If you think that peace is nothing then you need a reality check.
The point is that what you said above is not a 'peace'; it is a defeat for Ukraine. You want Ukraine defeated - which is why your avatar is so egregious.
So I ask again: what do you think Trump will do to help Ukraine?
It's immoral to expect other people to die to satisfy your need for moral purity.
So you cannot answer the question.
My position is f-all to do with 'moral purity'; just as yours is nothing to do with helping Ukraine.
My position is this: a Russian victory in Ukraine is bad for the world, for a whole host of reasons that have been discussed before. That means for as long as Ukraine wants to fight, we need to support them in that fight, to the best of our abilities.
There we have it. You don't care about the lives of Ukrainians, only 'the world', which is just an abstraction.
What the actual fuck? How does your support for Trump help the lives of Ukrainians; many of whom will suddenly find themselves Russian. Have you seen what Russia's done to the population of the territories they have invaded? It ain't good.
But again, you fail to answer the question. So I ask again: what do you think Trump will do to help Ukraine?
The fact that you can't see how peace benefits Ukraine says it all. You are completely detached from the reality of the war. If you were somebody who would otherwise have been killed by a missile but instead got to live thanks to a peace deal, I think you'd see the benefit.
But on that basis why not force agreement on a peace deal in the first week of the war? Lots of people have been killed since then on both sides after all.
Given that Biden has consistently slow-walked military aid, that's a good question. Did he ever have any serious intention of helping Ukraine defend the borders it had at the beginning of his presidency?
Biden has not slow walked military aid, the GOP in Congress at the urging of Trump has.
You have zero integrity.
This is simply not true. Both in terms of the supply of weapons and in placing constraints on how weapons are used, the Biden adminstration has limited Ukraine's ability to fight.
I don't want to hear any justifications for the Employer NIC increases from public sector employees; they don't affect your employer's wage bill at all
Thats simply not true, all employers pay NICS, public and private.
The employers NIC rise will impact all public sector budgets, from binmen to High Court judges. It will be quite a cost pressure on my Trust.
The state pays their wages; the state gets all of the tax increase directly back
yes, but that tax does not come back to my Council, unless the budget also goes up.
Zelensky has given the White House both barrels today. Which is rather interesting.
Well, if his claim is true, then it is deserved.
(It seems that the story that Ukraine wanted long-range Tomahawk cruise missiles was a secret part of Big Z's peace plan, told to the USA in confidence, and it soon leaked to the media. Note: Ukraine did not tell the USA about the Kursk offensive, and it worked. Someone in the US is leaking badly.)
Biden has been a disaster for Ukraine from the beginning.
No, he has not been a 'disaster'. He could have done better; but much of what he can do is stifled by.... the GOP.
Your mate Trump will be a disaster for Ukraine. You shill for Trump whilst having a reference to the Ukraine flag as your avatar. You should replace it with the Russian flag, as they're who you want to win in Ukraine.
Milley told lawmakers during closed-door briefings on Feb. 2 and 3 that a full-scale Russian invasion of Ukraine could result in the fall of Kyiv within 72-hours, and could come at a cost of 15,000 Ukrainian troop deaths and 4,000 Russian troop deaths.
Several lawmakers expressed concern that the Biden administration did not respond quickly to provide Ukraine with significant military aid, such as anti-aircraft and rocket launcher systems that would defend against an invasion from Russia.
Biden administration officials at the meetings responded to these concerns by saying that a significant supply of military aid to Ukraine could be used as a reason to invade Ukraine.
And what did Trump do to stop Russia between 2016 and 2020, when they were occupying Crimea and vast areas of the Donbass? Answer: weaken Ukraine by obsessing over a fucking laptop.
Replace your avatar with the Russian flag, you sick shill.
If I may, I think the position is more nuanced than you’d care to admit. Ukraine and Russia are locked in a war of attrition, their side looks like it might have more staying power than ours. And its partners are now providing not just shells but infantry.
Even with a 5-1 attrition ratio, it is not guaranteed that Russia collapses prior to Ukraine. Especially given the Washington consensus (and Berlin) seems to be to place extreme restrictions on Ukraine’s use of arms, for fear of escalation.
We must be realistic about what is politically and operational possible at this point. The democrats could win all three elections and it’s not clear that things next year would be very different to today. What is their plan to end the war? It’s clear they’ve thrown Zelenskys plan back in his face.
That's all very debateable, and is what some people have been saying from the start, from "Kyiv should just give in to Russia", back in February 2022 to "Congress will never allow Ukraine to get more weapons!" earlier in the year. Just to be proved wrong every time.
And if Russia is warning us against 'escalation', then they shouldn't fucking well constantly escalate themselves, whether it's long range weapons from Iran or troops and weapons from North Korea.
But this is irrelevant to Trump, whose only plan for 'peace' is an abject Ukrainian surrender.
If it had been left to Biden, Putin would have taken Kyiv within days. His approach was entirely reactive, and showed much less resolve than Boris Johnson.
We're talking about Trump. What do *you* think Trump will do to help Ukraine?
Hypothetically, if there is an armistice that freezes the current front line, that's not "abject surrender" and it would help Ukraine very much to have time to regroup without dealing with the burden of fighting a war and facing constant missile attacks.
Yes; that's an abject surrender as Russia will just regroup and try again. What's more Ukraine gets f'all out of it, and Russia gets loads. And dangling NATO membership in front of Ukraine does not deter Putin, as he knows your best bud Trump isn't NATO's biggest fan. Ukraine cannot rely on NATO with Trump in charge of the USA.
So I ask again: what do you think Trump will do to help Ukraine?
You're being irrational and driven by emotion. If you think that peace is nothing then you need a reality check.
The point is that what you said above is not a 'peace'; it is a defeat for Ukraine. You want Ukraine defeated - which is why your avatar is so egregious.
So I ask again: what do you think Trump will do to help Ukraine?
It's immoral to expect other people to die to satisfy your need for moral purity.
So you cannot answer the question.
My position is f-all to do with 'moral purity'; just as yours is nothing to do with helping Ukraine.
My position is this: a Russian victory in Ukraine is bad for the world, for a whole host of reasons that have been discussed before. That means for as long as Ukraine wants to fight, we need to support them in that fight, to the best of our abilities.
There we have it. You don't care about the lives of Ukrainians, only 'the world', which is just an abstraction.
What the actual fuck? How does your support for Trump help the lives of Ukrainians; many of whom will suddenly find themselves Russian. Have you seen what Russia's done to the population of the territories they have invaded? It ain't good.
But again, you fail to answer the question. So I ask again: what do you think Trump will do to help Ukraine?
The fact that you can't see how peace benefits Ukraine says it all. You are completely detached from the reality of the war. If you were somebody who would otherwise have been killed by a missile but instead got to live thanks to a peace deal, I think you'd see the benefit.
But on that basis why not force agreement on a peace deal in the first week of the war? Lots of people have been killed since then on both sides after all.
Given that Biden has consistently slow-walked military aid, that's a good question. Did he ever have any serious intention of helping Ukraine defend the borders it had at the beginning of his presidency?
Biden has not slow walked military aid, the GOP in Congress at the urging of Trump has.
You have zero integrity.
This is simply not true. Both in terms of the supply of weapons and in placing constraints on how weapons are used, the Biden adminstration has limited Ukraine's ability to fight.
Zelensky has given the White House both barrels today. Which is rather interesting.
Well, if his claim is true, then it is deserved.
(It seems that the story that Ukraine wanted long-range Tomahawk cruise missiles was a secret part of Big Z's peace plan, told to the USA in confidence, and it soon leaked to the media. Note: Ukraine did not tell the USA about the Kursk offensive, and it worked. Someone in the US is leaking badly.)
Biden has been a disaster for Ukraine from the beginning.
No, he has not been a 'disaster'. He could have done better; but much of what he can do is stifled by.... the GOP.
Your mate Trump will be a disaster for Ukraine. You shill for Trump whilst having a reference to the Ukraine flag as your avatar. You should replace it with the Russian flag, as they're who you want to win in Ukraine.
Milley told lawmakers during closed-door briefings on Feb. 2 and 3 that a full-scale Russian invasion of Ukraine could result in the fall of Kyiv within 72-hours, and could come at a cost of 15,000 Ukrainian troop deaths and 4,000 Russian troop deaths.
Several lawmakers expressed concern that the Biden administration did not respond quickly to provide Ukraine with significant military aid, such as anti-aircraft and rocket launcher systems that would defend against an invasion from Russia.
Biden administration officials at the meetings responded to these concerns by saying that a significant supply of military aid to Ukraine could be used as a reason to invade Ukraine.
And what did Trump do to stop Russia between 2016 and 2020, when they were occupying Crimea and vast areas of the Donbass? Answer: weaken Ukraine by obsessing over a fucking laptop.
Replace your avatar with the Russian flag, you sick shill.
If I may, I think the position is more nuanced than you’d care to admit. Ukraine and Russia are locked in a war of attrition, their side looks like it might have more staying power than ours. And its partners are now providing not just shells but infantry.
Even with a 5-1 attrition ratio, it is not guaranteed that Russia collapses prior to Ukraine. Especially given the Washington consensus (and Berlin) seems to be to place extreme restrictions on Ukraine’s use of arms, for fear of escalation.
We must be realistic about what is politically and operational possible at this point. The democrats could win all three elections and it’s not clear that things next year would be very different to today. What is their plan to end the war? It’s clear they’ve thrown Zelenskys plan back in his face.
That's all very debateable, and is what some people have been saying from the start, from "Kyiv should just give in to Russia", back in February 2022 to "Congress will never allow Ukraine to get more weapons!" earlier in the year. Just to be proved wrong every time.
And if Russia is warning us against 'escalation', then they shouldn't fucking well constantly escalate themselves, whether it's long range weapons from Iran or troops and weapons from North Korea.
But this is irrelevant to Trump, whose only plan for 'peace' is an abject Ukrainian surrender.
If it had been left to Biden, Putin would have taken Kyiv within days. His approach was entirely reactive, and showed much less resolve than Boris Johnson.
We're talking about Trump. What do *you* think Trump will do to help Ukraine?
Hypothetically, if there is an armistice that freezes the current front line, that's not "abject surrender" and it would help Ukraine very much to have time to regroup without dealing with the burden of fighting a war and facing constant missile attacks.
If Ukraine thought they’d do well out of an armistice on the current front line, they’d be negotiating for that. They’re not. I think the Ukrainians know what’s good for them better than you do.
Trump means the withdrawal of all US aid and diplomatic support.
I don't want to hear any justifications for the Employer NIC increases from public sector employees; they don't affect your employer's wage bill at all
Thats simply not true, all employers pay NICS, public and private.
The employers NIC rise will impact all public sector budgets, from binmen to High Court judges. It will be quite a cost pressure on my Trust.
The state pays their wages; the state gets all of the tax increase directly back
But it does come out of the budget of the relevant department. Of course, there will be a corresponding increase in revenue at the exchequer.
And they've been doling out massive wage hikes to public sector employees, before announcing that they're cancelling them for the private sector
Zelensky has given the White House both barrels today. Which is rather interesting.
Well, if his claim is true, then it is deserved.
(It seems that the story that Ukraine wanted long-range Tomahawk cruise missiles was a secret part of Big Z's peace plan, told to the USA in confidence, and it soon leaked to the media. Note: Ukraine did not tell the USA about the Kursk offensive, and it worked. Someone in the US is leaking badly.)
Biden has been a disaster for Ukraine from the beginning.
No, he has not been a 'disaster'. He could have done better; but much of what he can do is stifled by.... the GOP.
Your mate Trump will be a disaster for Ukraine. You shill for Trump whilst having a reference to the Ukraine flag as your avatar. You should replace it with the Russian flag, as they're who you want to win in Ukraine.
Milley told lawmakers during closed-door briefings on Feb. 2 and 3 that a full-scale Russian invasion of Ukraine could result in the fall of Kyiv within 72-hours, and could come at a cost of 15,000 Ukrainian troop deaths and 4,000 Russian troop deaths.
Several lawmakers expressed concern that the Biden administration did not respond quickly to provide Ukraine with significant military aid, such as anti-aircraft and rocket launcher systems that would defend against an invasion from Russia.
Biden administration officials at the meetings responded to these concerns by saying that a significant supply of military aid to Ukraine could be used as a reason to invade Ukraine.
And what did Trump do to stop Russia between 2016 and 2020, when they were occupying Crimea and vast areas of the Donbass? Answer: weaken Ukraine by obsessing over a fucking laptop.
Replace your avatar with the Russian flag, you sick shill.
If I may, I think the position is more nuanced than you’d care to admit. Ukraine and Russia are locked in a war of attrition, their side looks like it might have more staying power than ours. And its partners are now providing not just shells but infantry.
Even with a 5-1 attrition ratio, it is not guaranteed that Russia collapses prior to Ukraine. Especially given the Washington consensus (and Berlin) seems to be to place extreme restrictions on Ukraine’s use of arms, for fear of escalation.
We must be realistic about what is politically and operational possible at this point. The democrats could win all three elections and it’s not clear that things next year would be very different to today. What is their plan to end the war? It’s clear they’ve thrown Zelenskys plan back in his face.
That's all very debateable, and is what some people have been saying from the start, from "Kyiv should just give in to Russia", back in February 2022 to "Congress will never allow Ukraine to get more weapons!" earlier in the year. Just to be proved wrong every time.
And if Russia is warning us against 'escalation', then they shouldn't fucking well constantly escalate themselves, whether it's long range weapons from Iran or troops and weapons from North Korea.
But this is irrelevant to Trump, whose only plan for 'peace' is an abject Ukrainian surrender.
If it had been left to Biden, Putin would have taken Kyiv within days. His approach was entirely reactive, and showed much less resolve than Boris Johnson.
We're talking about Trump. What do *you* think Trump will do to help Ukraine?
Hypothetically, if there is an armistice that freezes the current front line, that's not "abject surrender" and it would help Ukraine very much to have time to regroup without dealing with the burden of fighting a war and facing constant missile attacks.
Yes; that's an abject surrender as Russia will just regroup and try again. What's more Ukraine gets f'all out of it, and Russia gets loads. And dangling NATO membership in front of Ukraine does not deter Putin, as he knows your best bud Trump isn't NATO's biggest fan. Ukraine cannot rely on NATO with Trump in charge of the USA.
So I ask again: what do you think Trump will do to help Ukraine?
You're being irrational and driven by emotion. If you think that peace is nothing then you need a reality check.
The point is that what you said above is not a 'peace'; it is a defeat for Ukraine. You want Ukraine defeated - which is why your avatar is so egregious.
So I ask again: what do you think Trump will do to help Ukraine?
It's immoral to expect other people to die to satisfy your need for moral purity.
So you cannot answer the question.
My position is f-all to do with 'moral purity'; just as yours is nothing to do with helping Ukraine.
My position is this: a Russian victory in Ukraine is bad for the world, for a whole host of reasons that have been discussed before. That means for as long as Ukraine wants to fight, we need to support them in that fight, to the best of our abilities.
There we have it. You don't care about the lives of Ukrainians, only 'the world', which is just an abstraction.
What the actual fuck? How does your support for Trump help the lives of Ukrainians; many of whom will suddenly find themselves Russian. Have you seen what Russia's done to the population of the territories they have invaded? It ain't good.
But again, you fail to answer the question. So I ask again: what do you think Trump will do to help Ukraine?
The fact that you can't see how peace benefits Ukraine says it all. You are completely detached from the reality of the war. If you were somebody who would otherwise have been killed by a missile but instead got to live thanks to a peace deal, I think you'd see the benefit.
But on that basis why not force agreement on a peace deal in the first week of the war? Lots of people have been killed since then on both sides after all.
Given that Biden has consistently slow-walked military aid, that's a good question. Did he ever have any serious intention of helping Ukraine defend the borders it had at the beginning of his presidency?
Biden has not slow walked military aid, the GOP in Congress at the urging of Trump has.
You have zero integrity.
You are having a great 24hrs on PB, imo Barty. Explaining why fuel duty freeze was made on grounds of how regressive it is to put it up petrol cost hitting the poorest and those most struggling. also how you smartly cluster bombed all the Britain First muddleheaded racism seeping into the threads last night. 👍🏻
Zelensky has given the White House both barrels today. Which is rather interesting.
Well, if his claim is true, then it is deserved.
(It seems that the story that Ukraine wanted long-range Tomahawk cruise missiles was a secret part of Big Z's peace plan, told to the USA in confidence, and it soon leaked to the media. Note: Ukraine did not tell the USA about the Kursk offensive, and it worked. Someone in the US is leaking badly.)
Biden has been a disaster for Ukraine from the beginning.
No, he has not been a 'disaster'. He could have done better; but much of what he can do is stifled by.... the GOP.
Your mate Trump will be a disaster for Ukraine. You shill for Trump whilst having a reference to the Ukraine flag as your avatar. You should replace it with the Russian flag, as they're who you want to win in Ukraine.
Milley told lawmakers during closed-door briefings on Feb. 2 and 3 that a full-scale Russian invasion of Ukraine could result in the fall of Kyiv within 72-hours, and could come at a cost of 15,000 Ukrainian troop deaths and 4,000 Russian troop deaths.
Several lawmakers expressed concern that the Biden administration did not respond quickly to provide Ukraine with significant military aid, such as anti-aircraft and rocket launcher systems that would defend against an invasion from Russia.
Biden administration officials at the meetings responded to these concerns by saying that a significant supply of military aid to Ukraine could be used as a reason to invade Ukraine.
And what did Trump do to stop Russia between 2016 and 2020, when they were occupying Crimea and vast areas of the Donbass? Answer: weaken Ukraine by obsessing over a fucking laptop.
Replace your avatar with the Russian flag, you sick shill.
If I may, I think the position is more nuanced than you’d care to admit. Ukraine and Russia are locked in a war of attrition, their side looks like it might have more staying power than ours. And its partners are now providing not just shells but infantry.
Even with a 5-1 attrition ratio, it is not guaranteed that Russia collapses prior to Ukraine. Especially given the Washington consensus (and Berlin) seems to be to place extreme restrictions on Ukraine’s use of arms, for fear of escalation.
We must be realistic about what is politically and operational possible at this point. The democrats could win all three elections and it’s not clear that things next year would be very different to today. What is their plan to end the war? It’s clear they’ve thrown Zelenskys plan back in his face.
That's all very debateable, and is what some people have been saying from the start, from "Kyiv should just give in to Russia", back in February 2022 to "Congress will never allow Ukraine to get more weapons!" earlier in the year. Just to be proved wrong every time.
And if Russia is warning us against 'escalation', then they shouldn't fucking well constantly escalate themselves, whether it's long range weapons from Iran or troops and weapons from North Korea.
But this is irrelevant to Trump, whose only plan for 'peace' is an abject Ukrainian surrender.
If it had been left to Biden, Putin would have taken Kyiv within days. His approach was entirely reactive, and showed much less resolve than Boris Johnson.
We're talking about Trump. What do *you* think Trump will do to help Ukraine?
Hypothetically, if there is an armistice that freezes the current front line, that's not "abject surrender" and it would help Ukraine very much to have time to regroup without dealing with the burden of fighting a war and facing constant missile attacks.
Yes; that's an abject surrender as Russia will just regroup and try again. What's more Ukraine gets f'all out of it, and Russia gets loads. And dangling NATO membership in front of Ukraine does not deter Putin, as he knows your best bud Trump isn't NATO's biggest fan. Ukraine cannot rely on NATO with Trump in charge of the USA.
So I ask again: what do you think Trump will do to help Ukraine?
You're being irrational and driven by emotion. If you think that peace is nothing then you need a reality check.
The point is that what you said above is not a 'peace'; it is a defeat for Ukraine. You want Ukraine defeated - which is why your avatar is so egregious.
So I ask again: what do you think Trump will do to help Ukraine?
It's immoral to expect other people to die to satisfy your need for moral purity.
So you cannot answer the question.
My position is f-all to do with 'moral purity'; just as yours is nothing to do with helping Ukraine.
My position is this: a Russian victory in Ukraine is bad for the world, for a whole host of reasons that have been discussed before. That means for as long as Ukraine wants to fight, we need to support them in that fight, to the best of our abilities.
There we have it. You don't care about the lives of Ukrainians, only 'the world', which is just an abstraction.
What the actual fuck? How does your support for Trump help the lives of Ukrainians; many of whom will suddenly find themselves Russian. Have you seen what Russia's done to the population of the territories they have invaded? It ain't good.
But again, you fail to answer the question. So I ask again: what do you think Trump will do to help Ukraine?
The fact that you can't see how peace benefits Ukraine says it all. You are completely detached from the reality of the war. If you were somebody who would otherwise have been killed by a missile but instead got to live thanks to a peace deal, I think you'd see the benefit.
But on that basis why not force agreement on a peace deal in the first week of the war? Lots of people have been killed since then on both sides after all.
Given that Biden has consistently slow-walked military aid, that's a good question. Did he ever have any serious intention of helping Ukraine defend the borders it had at the beginning of his presidency?
Biden has not slow walked military aid, the GOP in Congress at the urging of Trump has.
You have zero integrity.
This is simply not true. Both in terms of the supply of weapons and in placing constraints on how weapons are used, the Biden adminstration has limited Ukraine's ability to fight.
Bullshit.
Do you really believe that? Why did Biden veto British weapons being used to hit Russian targets? Are you happy about that?
Zelensky has given the White House both barrels today. Which is rather interesting.
Well, if his claim is true, then it is deserved.
(It seems that the story that Ukraine wanted long-range Tomahawk cruise missiles was a secret part of Big Z's peace plan, told to the USA in confidence, and it soon leaked to the media. Note: Ukraine did not tell the USA about the Kursk offensive, and it worked. Someone in the US is leaking badly.)
Biden has been a disaster for Ukraine from the beginning.
No, he has not been a 'disaster'. He could have done better; but much of what he can do is stifled by.... the GOP.
Your mate Trump will be a disaster for Ukraine. You shill for Trump whilst having a reference to the Ukraine flag as your avatar. You should replace it with the Russian flag, as they're who you want to win in Ukraine.
Milley told lawmakers during closed-door briefings on Feb. 2 and 3 that a full-scale Russian invasion of Ukraine could result in the fall of Kyiv within 72-hours, and could come at a cost of 15,000 Ukrainian troop deaths and 4,000 Russian troop deaths.
Several lawmakers expressed concern that the Biden administration did not respond quickly to provide Ukraine with significant military aid, such as anti-aircraft and rocket launcher systems that would defend against an invasion from Russia.
Biden administration officials at the meetings responded to these concerns by saying that a significant supply of military aid to Ukraine could be used as a reason to invade Ukraine.
And what did Trump do to stop Russia between 2016 and 2020, when they were occupying Crimea and vast areas of the Donbass? Answer: weaken Ukraine by obsessing over a fucking laptop.
Replace your avatar with the Russian flag, you sick shill.
If I may, I think the position is more nuanced than you’d care to admit. Ukraine and Russia are locked in a war of attrition, their side looks like it might have more staying power than ours. And its partners are now providing not just shells but infantry.
Even with a 5-1 attrition ratio, it is not guaranteed that Russia collapses prior to Ukraine. Especially given the Washington consensus (and Berlin) seems to be to place extreme restrictions on Ukraine’s use of arms, for fear of escalation.
We must be realistic about what is politically and operational possible at this point. The democrats could win all three elections and it’s not clear that things next year would be very different to today. What is their plan to end the war? It’s clear they’ve thrown Zelenskys plan back in his face.
That's all very debateable, and is what some people have been saying from the start, from "Kyiv should just give in to Russia", back in February 2022 to "Congress will never allow Ukraine to get more weapons!" earlier in the year. Just to be proved wrong every time.
And if Russia is warning us against 'escalation', then they shouldn't fucking well constantly escalate themselves, whether it's long range weapons from Iran or troops and weapons from North Korea.
But this is irrelevant to Trump, whose only plan for 'peace' is an abject Ukrainian surrender.
If it had been left to Biden, Putin would have taken Kyiv within days. His approach was entirely reactive, and showed much less resolve than Boris Johnson.
We're talking about Trump. What do *you* think Trump will do to help Ukraine?
Hypothetically, if there is an armistice that freezes the current front line, that's not "abject surrender" and it would help Ukraine very much to have time to regroup without dealing with the burden of fighting a war and facing constant missile attacks.
Yes; that's an abject surrender as Russia will just regroup and try again. What's more Ukraine gets f'all out of it, and Russia gets loads. And dangling NATO membership in front of Ukraine does not deter Putin, as he knows your best bud Trump isn't NATO's biggest fan. Ukraine cannot rely on NATO with Trump in charge of the USA.
So I ask again: what do you think Trump will do to help Ukraine?
You're being irrational and driven by emotion. If you think that peace is nothing then you need a reality check.
The point is that what you said above is not a 'peace'; it is a defeat for Ukraine. You want Ukraine defeated - which is why your avatar is so egregious.
So I ask again: what do you think Trump will do to help Ukraine?
It's immoral to expect other people to die to satisfy your need for moral purity.
So you cannot answer the question.
My position is f-all to do with 'moral purity'; just as yours is nothing to do with helping Ukraine.
My position is this: a Russian victory in Ukraine is bad for the world, for a whole host of reasons that have been discussed before. That means for as long as Ukraine wants to fight, we need to support them in that fight, to the best of our abilities.
There we have it. You don't care about the lives of Ukrainians, only 'the world', which is just an abstraction.
What the actual fuck? How does your support for Trump help the lives of Ukrainians; many of whom will suddenly find themselves Russian. Have you seen what Russia's done to the population of the territories they have invaded? It ain't good.
But again, you fail to answer the question. So I ask again: what do you think Trump will do to help Ukraine?
The fact that you can't see how peace benefits Ukraine says it all. You are completely detached from the reality of the war. If you were somebody who would otherwise have been killed by a missile but instead got to live thanks to a peace deal, I think you'd see the benefit.
But on that basis why not force agreement on a peace deal in the first week of the war? Lots of people have been killed since then on both sides after all.
Given that Biden has consistently slow-walked military aid, that's a good question. Did he ever have any serious intention of helping Ukraine defend the borders it had at the beginning of his presidency?
Biden has not slow walked military aid, the GOP in Congress at the urging of Trump has.
You have zero integrity.
Sorry but that view is utterly counter to reality. Listen to the words of Zelensky, only today.
I actually think without Boris Johnson, there’s a high chance Kyev would indeed have fallen in those early weeks, so calamitous has Biden’s policy stance been. But it’s not trendy to given Boris Johnson credit for anything.
This isn’t a growth growth growth budget. Not even a growth budget. It’s a tax and throw the grabbed money at public services budget.
They probably wrote the budget they wanted to do 18 months or more ago, but have to readjust some ideas due to prevailing winds. Like, if inflationary pressures and high interest rates still in system, a growth growth growth budgets will hit inflation and interest rates and mortgage deals. Another example is to keep close eye on size of borrowing and costs on that borrowing - personally I find one in every ten pound UK government spends just pays off our loan bills is wrongheaded waste. Yuk.
So to not just do everything you want, your supporters and voters and party donors want, taper it to what situation allows, is probably quite sensible really. Looking at political history, previous incoming governments, especially in growth chasing boom and bust sixties and seventies, were not as smart and cautious - I’m looking at how Labour started 1974-1979 as being witless architects of their own pain. In fact, Lady Thatchers government 1979-1983 is a better example of today’s budget - Lady Thatcher promising tax cuts, but in fact putting up taxes instead, including windfall tax on industry and business, because it was simply the right thing to do at the time.
Another consideration for us, are those considerations the OBR just can’t make in their forcasts. The OBR have to say what growth will be on facts and stats at their fingertips - known knowns - the OBR can’t tell us growth in 2029 will be insane overheating 5%, due to Starmer as promised climbing on a bulldozer and destroying all sorts of laws and restrictions, becuase he hasn’t done it, and might never do it as advertised. Doesn’t mean to say though, future budgets this parliament won’t get creative to boost growth. If prevailing winds allow.
Zelensky has given the White House both barrels today. Which is rather interesting.
Well, if his claim is true, then it is deserved.
(It seems that the story that Ukraine wanted long-range Tomahawk cruise missiles was a secret part of Big Z's peace plan, told to the USA in confidence, and it soon leaked to the media. Note: Ukraine did not tell the USA about the Kursk offensive, and it worked. Someone in the US is leaking badly.)
Biden has been a disaster for Ukraine from the beginning.
No, he has not been a 'disaster'. He could have done better; but much of what he can do is stifled by.... the GOP.
Your mate Trump will be a disaster for Ukraine. You shill for Trump whilst having a reference to the Ukraine flag as your avatar. You should replace it with the Russian flag, as they're who you want to win in Ukraine.
Milley told lawmakers during closed-door briefings on Feb. 2 and 3 that a full-scale Russian invasion of Ukraine could result in the fall of Kyiv within 72-hours, and could come at a cost of 15,000 Ukrainian troop deaths and 4,000 Russian troop deaths.
Several lawmakers expressed concern that the Biden administration did not respond quickly to provide Ukraine with significant military aid, such as anti-aircraft and rocket launcher systems that would defend against an invasion from Russia.
Biden administration officials at the meetings responded to these concerns by saying that a significant supply of military aid to Ukraine could be used as a reason to invade Ukraine.
And what did Trump do to stop Russia between 2016 and 2020, when they were occupying Crimea and vast areas of the Donbass? Answer: weaken Ukraine by obsessing over a fucking laptop.
Replace your avatar with the Russian flag, you sick shill.
If I may, I think the position is more nuanced than you’d care to admit. Ukraine and Russia are locked in a war of attrition, their side looks like it might have more staying power than ours. And its partners are now providing not just shells but infantry.
Even with a 5-1 attrition ratio, it is not guaranteed that Russia collapses prior to Ukraine. Especially given the Washington consensus (and Berlin) seems to be to place extreme restrictions on Ukraine’s use of arms, for fear of escalation.
We must be realistic about what is politically and operational possible at this point. The democrats could win all three elections and it’s not clear that things next year would be very different to today. What is their plan to end the war? It’s clear they’ve thrown Zelenskys plan back in his face.
That's all very debateable, and is what some people have been saying from the start, from "Kyiv should just give in to Russia", back in February 2022 to "Congress will never allow Ukraine to get more weapons!" earlier in the year. Just to be proved wrong every time.
And if Russia is warning us against 'escalation', then they shouldn't fucking well constantly escalate themselves, whether it's long range weapons from Iran or troops and weapons from North Korea.
But this is irrelevant to Trump, whose only plan for 'peace' is an abject Ukrainian surrender.
If it had been left to Biden, Putin would have taken Kyiv within days. His approach was entirely reactive, and showed much less resolve than Boris Johnson.
We're talking about Trump. What do *you* think Trump will do to help Ukraine?
Hypothetically, if there is an armistice that freezes the current front line, that's not "abject surrender" and it would help Ukraine very much to have time to regroup without dealing with the burden of fighting a war and facing constant missile attacks.
Yes; that's an abject surrender as Russia will just regroup and try again. What's more Ukraine gets f'all out of it, and Russia gets loads. And dangling NATO membership in front of Ukraine does not deter Putin, as he knows your best bud Trump isn't NATO's biggest fan. Ukraine cannot rely on NATO with Trump in charge of the USA.
So I ask again: what do you think Trump will do to help Ukraine?
You're being irrational and driven by emotion. If you think that peace is nothing then you need a reality check.
The point is that what you said above is not a 'peace'; it is a defeat for Ukraine. You want Ukraine defeated - which is why your avatar is so egregious.
So I ask again: what do you think Trump will do to help Ukraine?
It's immoral to expect other people to die to satisfy your need for moral purity.
So you cannot answer the question.
My position is f-all to do with 'moral purity'; just as yours is nothing to do with helping Ukraine.
My position is this: a Russian victory in Ukraine is bad for the world, for a whole host of reasons that have been discussed before. That means for as long as Ukraine wants to fight, we need to support them in that fight, to the best of our abilities.
There we have it. You don't care about the lives of Ukrainians, only 'the world', which is just an abstraction.
What the actual fuck? How does your support for Trump help the lives of Ukrainians; many of whom will suddenly find themselves Russian. Have you seen what Russia's done to the population of the territories they have invaded? It ain't good.
But again, you fail to answer the question. So I ask again: what do you think Trump will do to help Ukraine?
The fact that you can't see how peace benefits Ukraine says it all. You are completely detached from the reality of the war. If you were somebody who would otherwise have been killed by a missile but instead got to live thanks to a peace deal, I think you'd see the benefit.
But on that basis why not force agreement on a peace deal in the first week of the war? Lots of people have been killed since then on both sides after all.
Given that Biden has consistently slow-walked military aid, that's a good question. Did he ever have any serious intention of helping Ukraine defend the borders it had at the beginning of his presidency?
There has been massive US Aid to Ukraine. Thats what Trump has been moaning about and planning to stop.
Yes, many people will have argued Biden has not done enough, or as much as they would like, and there's an argument to be had about what the USA is aiming for and how far it thinks it can push Russia and how that informs the support they provide to Ukraine (eg on things like striking targets within Russia, the lengthy time to decide on longer range missles etc).
All of which might be true, I'm not a geopolitical analyst, but even if it is true, could people think that is superior to Trump and Vance looking actively hostile at more support to Ukraine? I'd say people definitely could, and it doesn't mean those people don't care about people suffering and dying in a war because they don't agree that hastening a deal at this time would be the best for anybody.
I complete the purchase of a 5 bedroom bungalow next Monday.
Because it needs adaptions for Mrs BJs disabilities we have to stay in our current property for about 3 months so had to pay the 3% additional SDLT. as we have 2 residences temporally
I see that goes up to 5% at midnight (an extra £12k)
However we exchanged contracts a week ago in case the bastard in no11 did precisely what she has done.
Wise decision.
The principle of higher transaction fees for multiple property owners isn't bad, though there should probably be allowances made for these kinds of situations. If anything it should be an additional 5% per property owned, that would have been bold.
The current system of stamp duty makes the market less liquid and discourages trading down. It therefore worsens the shortage of housing.
If you want to discourage second home ownership, then charge a 200% premium on council tax for properties that are lived in less than (say) 26 weeks a year. That would make people really think about whether they needed that place they barely live in. (It would be very expensive for me as I have a London flat I don't spend 26 weeks a year in. But it would be good for housing availability, because it would discourage people from owning assets they don't use.)
A 200% premium on empty property isn't going to solve the issue of private renting having an economically deleterious effect. Private renting results in money flowing in the wrong direction, from workers to asset holders so using the tax system to penalise such behaviour is not something I'm greatly bothered by.
There are multiple issues, not just one.
Now, personally, I am very happy to rent. If the choice is between having $1m invested in my business and me renting, and $1m invested in a house, I'll choose the former every time. And people should be allowed to make that choice.
What I think is most important to address is the fact that the housing market is inefficient. People live in houses that are too big for them, because trading down is so expensive because of stamp duty. And there are homes that are barely used.
The tax system should be encouraging the efficient allocation of scarce resources. Everything the government does in the housing market should be framed around that question, and raising stamp duty does the opposite. It makes the market less liquid, and discourages efficient allocation.
That's true, but relative to other countries, the UK isn't particularly afflicted by people occupying more property than they need so focusing on this might be a kind of displacement activity. The real problem is population growth relative to the housing stock.
Firstly, isn't that the Silver Bullet fallacy? Just because something doesn't solve the whole problem we shouldn't do anything. Easing up on stamp duty but increasing council tax is probably the single easiest way to both trade down when they no longer need the additional space and to encourage people to not own homes they don't use.
Secondly, the UK's second house "problem" is much worse than you think. In Spain or Portugal, the second homes are in places where tourists want to live. Indeed, they were built to attract moderately wealthy Brits and Germans and Swedes. In the UK, the biggest concentration of unused second homes is in Central London.
It's more the law of diminishing returns than the Silver Bullet fallacy. We've already squeezed the existing housing stock to the point that we have one of the lowest rates of vacant property in Europe.
Similarly for central London, there are much more obvious misallocations of resources than pied-à-terres not being lived in year-round.
Where are you getting your numbers from?
In London, the number of unoccupied homes - as derived from Council Tax receipts - has increased 75% since 2016 to just under 100,000.
At 2.5 people per property, that's the equivalent of four parliamentary constituencies of empty homes in London.
Is that the long-term empties number, which is the important one?
Well, there are three (maybe four) important numbers:
(1) the number used as short term lets (mostly for AirBnB) (2) the number that are long-term empty (3) the number that are furnished but empty (4) the number that are second homes
In one London borough, the combination of (2) and (4) alone accounts for a quarter of all properties!
It is true that the UK does not have large numbers of empty homes built on the coast for tourists. But we do definitely have a problem in London of underutilized housing. And imposing a proper council tax surcharge on people like me who own places but inhabit it rarely can only be good for housing availability.
Zelensky has given the White House both barrels today. Which is rather interesting.
Well, if his claim is true, then it is deserved.
(It seems that the story that Ukraine wanted long-range Tomahawk cruise missiles was a secret part of Big Z's peace plan, told to the USA in confidence, and it soon leaked to the media. Note: Ukraine did not tell the USA about the Kursk offensive, and it worked. Someone in the US is leaking badly.)
Biden has been a disaster for Ukraine from the beginning.
No, he has not been a 'disaster'. He could have done better; but much of what he can do is stifled by.... the GOP.
Your mate Trump will be a disaster for Ukraine. You shill for Trump whilst having a reference to the Ukraine flag as your avatar. You should replace it with the Russian flag, as they're who you want to win in Ukraine.
Milley told lawmakers during closed-door briefings on Feb. 2 and 3 that a full-scale Russian invasion of Ukraine could result in the fall of Kyiv within 72-hours, and could come at a cost of 15,000 Ukrainian troop deaths and 4,000 Russian troop deaths.
Several lawmakers expressed concern that the Biden administration did not respond quickly to provide Ukraine with significant military aid, such as anti-aircraft and rocket launcher systems that would defend against an invasion from Russia.
Biden administration officials at the meetings responded to these concerns by saying that a significant supply of military aid to Ukraine could be used as a reason to invade Ukraine.
And what did Trump do to stop Russia between 2016 and 2020, when they were occupying Crimea and vast areas of the Donbass? Answer: weaken Ukraine by obsessing over a fucking laptop.
Replace your avatar with the Russian flag, you sick shill.
If I may, I think the position is more nuanced than you’d care to admit. Ukraine and Russia are locked in a war of attrition, their side looks like it might have more staying power than ours. And its partners are now providing not just shells but infantry.
Even with a 5-1 attrition ratio, it is not guaranteed that Russia collapses prior to Ukraine. Especially given the Washington consensus (and Berlin) seems to be to place extreme restrictions on Ukraine’s use of arms, for fear of escalation.
We must be realistic about what is politically and operational possible at this point. The democrats could win all three elections and it’s not clear that things next year would be very different to today. What is their plan to end the war? It’s clear they’ve thrown Zelenskys plan back in his face.
That's all very debateable, and is what some people have been saying from the start, from "Kyiv should just give in to Russia", back in February 2022 to "Congress will never allow Ukraine to get more weapons!" earlier in the year. Just to be proved wrong every time.
And if Russia is warning us against 'escalation', then they shouldn't fucking well constantly escalate themselves, whether it's long range weapons from Iran or troops and weapons from North Korea.
But this is irrelevant to Trump, whose only plan for 'peace' is an abject Ukrainian surrender.
If it had been left to Biden, Putin would have taken Kyiv within days. His approach was entirely reactive, and showed much less resolve than Boris Johnson.
We're talking about Trump. What do *you* think Trump will do to help Ukraine?
Hypothetically, if there is an armistice that freezes the current front line, that's not "abject surrender" and it would help Ukraine very much to have time to regroup without dealing with the burden of fighting a war and facing constant missile attacks.
Yes; that's an abject surrender as Russia will just regroup and try again. What's more Ukraine gets f'all out of it, and Russia gets loads. And dangling NATO membership in front of Ukraine does not deter Putin, as he knows your best bud Trump isn't NATO's biggest fan. Ukraine cannot rely on NATO with Trump in charge of the USA.
So I ask again: what do you think Trump will do to help Ukraine?
You're being irrational and driven by emotion. If you think that peace is nothing then you need a reality check.
The point is that what you said above is not a 'peace'; it is a defeat for Ukraine. You want Ukraine defeated - which is why your avatar is so egregious.
So I ask again: what do you think Trump will do to help Ukraine?
It's immoral to expect other people to die to satisfy your need for moral purity.
It’s extraordinary how unimpacted our lives have been, while we’ve expected Ukrainians to bleed and die with one hand behind their back, all in the name of depleting Russia’s Soviet stockpiles.
We don’t support Ukraine in order to deplete Russia’s stockpiles. We support Ukraine because it’s morally right to stand up to illegal aggression. We give Ukraine agency. We don’t make them do anything: we supply them with support and they choose themselves what to do.
Zelensky has given the White House both barrels today. Which is rather interesting.
Well, if his claim is true, then it is deserved.
(It seems that the story that Ukraine wanted long-range Tomahawk cruise missiles was a secret part of Big Z's peace plan, told to the USA in confidence, and it soon leaked to the media. Note: Ukraine did not tell the USA about the Kursk offensive, and it worked. Someone in the US is leaking badly.)
Biden has been a disaster for Ukraine from the beginning.
No, he has not been a 'disaster'. He could have done better; but much of what he can do is stifled by.... the GOP.
Your mate Trump will be a disaster for Ukraine. You shill for Trump whilst having a reference to the Ukraine flag as your avatar. You should replace it with the Russian flag, as they're who you want to win in Ukraine.
Milley told lawmakers during closed-door briefings on Feb. 2 and 3 that a full-scale Russian invasion of Ukraine could result in the fall of Kyiv within 72-hours, and could come at a cost of 15,000 Ukrainian troop deaths and 4,000 Russian troop deaths.
Several lawmakers expressed concern that the Biden administration did not respond quickly to provide Ukraine with significant military aid, such as anti-aircraft and rocket launcher systems that would defend against an invasion from Russia.
Biden administration officials at the meetings responded to these concerns by saying that a significant supply of military aid to Ukraine could be used as a reason to invade Ukraine.
And what did Trump do to stop Russia between 2016 and 2020, when they were occupying Crimea and vast areas of the Donbass? Answer: weaken Ukraine by obsessing over a fucking laptop.
Replace your avatar with the Russian flag, you sick shill.
If I may, I think the position is more nuanced than you’d care to admit. Ukraine and Russia are locked in a war of attrition, their side looks like it might have more staying power than ours. And its partners are now providing not just shells but infantry.
Even with a 5-1 attrition ratio, it is not guaranteed that Russia collapses prior to Ukraine. Especially given the Washington consensus (and Berlin) seems to be to place extreme restrictions on Ukraine’s use of arms, for fear of escalation.
We must be realistic about what is politically and operational possible at this point. The democrats could win all three elections and it’s not clear that things next year would be very different to today. What is their plan to end the war? It’s clear they’ve thrown Zelenskys plan back in his face.
That's all very debateable, and is what some people have been saying from the start, from "Kyiv should just give in to Russia", back in February 2022 to "Congress will never allow Ukraine to get more weapons!" earlier in the year. Just to be proved wrong every time.
And if Russia is warning us against 'escalation', then they shouldn't fucking well constantly escalate themselves, whether it's long range weapons from Iran or troops and weapons from North Korea.
But this is irrelevant to Trump, whose only plan for 'peace' is an abject Ukrainian surrender.
If it had been left to Biden, Putin would have taken Kyiv within days. His approach was entirely reactive, and showed much less resolve than Boris Johnson.
We're talking about Trump. What do *you* think Trump will do to help Ukraine?
Hypothetically, if there is an armistice that freezes the current front line, that's not "abject surrender" and it would help Ukraine very much to have time to regroup without dealing with the burden of fighting a war and facing constant missile attacks.
Yes; that's an abject surrender as Russia will just regroup and try again. What's more Ukraine gets f'all out of it, and Russia gets loads. And dangling NATO membership in front of Ukraine does not deter Putin, as he knows your best bud Trump isn't NATO's biggest fan. Ukraine cannot rely on NATO with Trump in charge of the USA.
So I ask again: what do you think Trump will do to help Ukraine?
You're being irrational and driven by emotion. If you think that peace is nothing then you need a reality check.
The point is that what you said above is not a 'peace'; it is a defeat for Ukraine. You want Ukraine defeated - which is why your avatar is so egregious.
So I ask again: what do you think Trump will do to help Ukraine?
It's immoral to expect other people to die to satisfy your need for moral purity.
So you cannot answer the question.
My position is f-all to do with 'moral purity'; just as yours is nothing to do with helping Ukraine.
My position is this: a Russian victory in Ukraine is bad for the world, for a whole host of reasons that have been discussed before. That means for as long as Ukraine wants to fight, we need to support them in that fight, to the best of our abilities.
There we have it. You don't care about the lives of Ukrainians, only 'the world', which is just an abstraction.
What the actual fuck? How does your support for Trump help the lives of Ukrainians; many of whom will suddenly find themselves Russian. Have you seen what Russia's done to the population of the territories they have invaded? It ain't good.
But again, you fail to answer the question. So I ask again: what do you think Trump will do to help Ukraine?
The fact that you can't see how peace benefits Ukraine says it all. You are completely detached from the reality of the war. If you were somebody who would otherwise have been killed by a missile but instead got to live thanks to a peace deal, I think you'd see the benefit.
But on that basis why not force agreement on a peace deal in the first week of the war? Lots of people have been killed since then on both sides after all.
Given that Biden has consistently slow-walked military aid, that's a good question. Did he ever have any serious intention of helping Ukraine defend the borders it had at the beginning of his presidency?
Biden has not slow walked military aid, the GOP in Congress at the urging of Trump has.
You have zero integrity.
This is simply not true. Both in terms of the supply of weapons and in placing constraints on how weapons are used, the Biden adminstration has limited Ukraine's ability to fight.
Bullshit.
Do you really believe that? Why did Biden veto British weapons being used to hit Russian targets? Are you happy about that?
Yes I really believe that.
Biden is constrained by what Congress will approve and it is the GOP who have been the ones he's struggled to carry.
Trump wants even less support to go to Ukraine and he's explicit on that.
Zelensky has given the White House both barrels today. Which is rather interesting.
Well, if his claim is true, then it is deserved.
(It seems that the story that Ukraine wanted long-range Tomahawk cruise missiles was a secret part of Big Z's peace plan, told to the USA in confidence, and it soon leaked to the media. Note: Ukraine did not tell the USA about the Kursk offensive, and it worked. Someone in the US is leaking badly.)
Biden has been a disaster for Ukraine from the beginning.
No, he has not been a 'disaster'. He could have done better; but much of what he can do is stifled by.... the GOP.
Your mate Trump will be a disaster for Ukraine. You shill for Trump whilst having a reference to the Ukraine flag as your avatar. You should replace it with the Russian flag, as they're who you want to win in Ukraine.
Milley told lawmakers during closed-door briefings on Feb. 2 and 3 that a full-scale Russian invasion of Ukraine could result in the fall of Kyiv within 72-hours, and could come at a cost of 15,000 Ukrainian troop deaths and 4,000 Russian troop deaths.
Several lawmakers expressed concern that the Biden administration did not respond quickly to provide Ukraine with significant military aid, such as anti-aircraft and rocket launcher systems that would defend against an invasion from Russia.
Biden administration officials at the meetings responded to these concerns by saying that a significant supply of military aid to Ukraine could be used as a reason to invade Ukraine.
And what did Trump do to stop Russia between 2016 and 2020, when they were occupying Crimea and vast areas of the Donbass? Answer: weaken Ukraine by obsessing over a fucking laptop.
Replace your avatar with the Russian flag, you sick shill.
If I may, I think the position is more nuanced than you’d care to admit. Ukraine and Russia are locked in a war of attrition, their side looks like it might have more staying power than ours. And its partners are now providing not just shells but infantry.
Even with a 5-1 attrition ratio, it is not guaranteed that Russia collapses prior to Ukraine. Especially given the Washington consensus (and Berlin) seems to be to place extreme restrictions on Ukraine’s use of arms, for fear of escalation.
We must be realistic about what is politically and operational possible at this point. The democrats could win all three elections and it’s not clear that things next year would be very different to today. What is their plan to end the war? It’s clear they’ve thrown Zelenskys plan back in his face.
That's all very debateable, and is what some people have been saying from the start, from "Kyiv should just give in to Russia", back in February 2022 to "Congress will never allow Ukraine to get more weapons!" earlier in the year. Just to be proved wrong every time.
And if Russia is warning us against 'escalation', then they shouldn't fucking well constantly escalate themselves, whether it's long range weapons from Iran or troops and weapons from North Korea.
But this is irrelevant to Trump, whose only plan for 'peace' is an abject Ukrainian surrender.
If it had been left to Biden, Putin would have taken Kyiv within days. His approach was entirely reactive, and showed much less resolve than Boris Johnson.
We're talking about Trump. What do *you* think Trump will do to help Ukraine?
Hypothetically, if there is an armistice that freezes the current front line, that's not "abject surrender" and it would help Ukraine very much to have time to regroup without dealing with the burden of fighting a war and facing constant missile attacks.
Yes; that's an abject surrender as Russia will just regroup and try again. What's more Ukraine gets f'all out of it, and Russia gets loads. And dangling NATO membership in front of Ukraine does not deter Putin, as he knows your best bud Trump isn't NATO's biggest fan. Ukraine cannot rely on NATO with Trump in charge of the USA.
So I ask again: what do you think Trump will do to help Ukraine?
You're being irrational and driven by emotion. If you think that peace is nothing then you need a reality check.
The point is that what you said above is not a 'peace'; it is a defeat for Ukraine. You want Ukraine defeated - which is why your avatar is so egregious.
So I ask again: what do you think Trump will do to help Ukraine?
It's immoral to expect other people to die to satisfy your need for moral purity.
Isn’t that up to them
We appear to be back at February 2022 arguments in relation to the war, regrettably.
Everyone here is surprisingly casual about the leak that the CIA upped their assessment of nuclear exchange in autumn 2022 to 50%. You can’t just sit there and pretend that didn’t happen. Now you might conclude (with the benefit of far less info than them) that they got it completely wrong. But what you cannot deny is the political impact that assessment has had in the US.
Biden was not going to change his policy of containment and a bloody war of attrition, with the goal of no clear winner. And unless I’ve missed it, Harris has said absolutely nothing to suggest her policy would be different. So should Ukraine broker a fragile peace with sub optimal boundaries now? Or strike a likely fairly similar deal some period down the line, with tens of thousands of additional dead?
I don’t know anyone living in Ukraine but I suspect this is a conversation that is being quietly whispered. A shame Leon is banned, he might have useful insight after his recent visits.
You’re getting this arse about face.
Ukraine is not the aggressor, here. Ukraine is not waging war against a Russia that seeks peace.
Russia could have had peace, at any point in the past two years and nine months. Ergo, Russia is not seeking peace.
Did I hear correctly...."9 out of 10 people in the country would benefit from this budget to the tune of £600 a year"
BBC 6.00 News
Is the government spin....the independent number crunchers say otherwise....no real term increase in wages or household disposal income for the foreseeable future (and that is optimistic) as companies pass on the increase in NI. Plus higher interest rates, inflation and mortgage rates are forecast.
It was said by the announcer not a government stooge. The tone from the BBC via Vox Pops is very positive....
Who knows it might crash and burn as the experts sleep on it but it doesn't seem that way.
The announcer is just recycling what the govt is saying.
Like you say, it may crash and burn but it may not.
We will see.
Already the many budget scares from the Telegraph and Mail are in tatters. They were wrong on pension lump sums and ISAS being taxed, wrong on personal allowances being frozen, wrong on fuel duty hikes etc etc
All the government have done is shifted into several massive tax rises and huge borrowing rather salami slice it.
The alternative is shitter public services and further decline
The only real solution is growth and better productivity....the bean counters say todays budget has reduced growth and not really tackled the productivity issue.
Better healthcare, better education, better policing, better justice, and better transport will help fix those in the long term - the long term being something tories seem unable to fathom
Shame the budget didn't actually tackle any of those betters you quoted
This is a pretty big story from the world of finance.
Car dealerships in chaos as shock ruling leaves market at risk of collapse
Lenders pause vehicle loans as forecourts face dramatic rethink of sales practices
Britain’s biggest banks and lenders are scrambling to avoid a collapse in the car sales market after a shock court judgement prompted chaos at forecourts across the country.
A ruling from the Court of Appeal on commissions paid to car salesmen has forced several lenders to pause loans, and dealerships to urgently revise their sales practices to avoid a paralysis in the market.
Lloyds Bank, one of the UK’s largest motor financiers through its Black Horse arm, became the latest lender to revamp its practices by abolishing bonuses paid to car dealers.
The bank has introduced a “no commission” contract, meaning no fees will be paid to dealerships.
William Chalmers, Lloyds’s chief of finance, held an urgent call with investors last night to explain the situation, saying it wanted to stand by its customers and the UK economy to carry on lending.
Car finance is the biggest source of funding used by drivers to buy new vehicles, with nine in every 10 cars bought by motorists relying on a loan, according to Autotrader.
There are fears a loan famine would effectively freeze up the market – damaging the already under-fire sector.
Zelensky has given the White House both barrels today. Which is rather interesting.
Well, if his claim is true, then it is deserved.
(It seems that the story that Ukraine wanted long-range Tomahawk cruise missiles was a secret part of Big Z's peace plan, told to the USA in confidence, and it soon leaked to the media. Note: Ukraine did not tell the USA about the Kursk offensive, and it worked. Someone in the US is leaking badly.)
Biden has been a disaster for Ukraine from the beginning.
No, he has not been a 'disaster'. He could have done better; but much of what he can do is stifled by.... the GOP.
Your mate Trump will be a disaster for Ukraine. You shill for Trump whilst having a reference to the Ukraine flag as your avatar. You should replace it with the Russian flag, as they're who you want to win in Ukraine.
Milley told lawmakers during closed-door briefings on Feb. 2 and 3 that a full-scale Russian invasion of Ukraine could result in the fall of Kyiv within 72-hours, and could come at a cost of 15,000 Ukrainian troop deaths and 4,000 Russian troop deaths.
Several lawmakers expressed concern that the Biden administration did not respond quickly to provide Ukraine with significant military aid, such as anti-aircraft and rocket launcher systems that would defend against an invasion from Russia.
Biden administration officials at the meetings responded to these concerns by saying that a significant supply of military aid to Ukraine could be used as a reason to invade Ukraine.
And what did Trump do to stop Russia between 2016 and 2020, when they were occupying Crimea and vast areas of the Donbass? Answer: weaken Ukraine by obsessing over a fucking laptop.
Replace your avatar with the Russian flag, you sick shill.
If I may, I think the position is more nuanced than you’d care to admit. Ukraine and Russia are locked in a war of attrition, their side looks like it might have more staying power than ours. And its partners are now providing not just shells but infantry.
Even with a 5-1 attrition ratio, it is not guaranteed that Russia collapses prior to Ukraine. Especially given the Washington consensus (and Berlin) seems to be to place extreme restrictions on Ukraine’s use of arms, for fear of escalation.
We must be realistic about what is politically and operational possible at this point. The democrats could win all three elections and it’s not clear that things next year would be very different to today. What is their plan to end the war? It’s clear they’ve thrown Zelenskys plan back in his face.
That's all very debateable, and is what some people have been saying from the start, from "Kyiv should just give in to Russia", back in February 2022 to "Congress will never allow Ukraine to get more weapons!" earlier in the year. Just to be proved wrong every time.
And if Russia is warning us against 'escalation', then they shouldn't fucking well constantly escalate themselves, whether it's long range weapons from Iran or troops and weapons from North Korea.
But this is irrelevant to Trump, whose only plan for 'peace' is an abject Ukrainian surrender.
If it had been left to Biden, Putin would have taken Kyiv within days. His approach was entirely reactive, and showed much less resolve than Boris Johnson.
We're talking about Trump. What do *you* think Trump will do to help Ukraine?
Hypothetically, if there is an armistice that freezes the current front line, that's not "abject surrender" and it would help Ukraine very much to have time to regroup without dealing with the burden of fighting a war and facing constant missile attacks.
Yes; that's an abject surrender as Russia will just regroup and try again. What's more Ukraine gets f'all out of it, and Russia gets loads. And dangling NATO membership in front of Ukraine does not deter Putin, as he knows your best bud Trump isn't NATO's biggest fan. Ukraine cannot rely on NATO with Trump in charge of the USA.
So I ask again: what do you think Trump will do to help Ukraine?
You're being irrational and driven by emotion. If you think that peace is nothing then you need a reality check.
The point is that what you said above is not a 'peace'; it is a defeat for Ukraine. You want Ukraine defeated - which is why your avatar is so egregious.
So I ask again: what do you think Trump will do to help Ukraine?
It's immoral to expect other people to die to satisfy your need for moral purity.
So you cannot answer the question.
My position is f-all to do with 'moral purity'; just as yours is nothing to do with helping Ukraine.
My position is this: a Russian victory in Ukraine is bad for the world, for a whole host of reasons that have been discussed before. That means for as long as Ukraine wants to fight, we need to support them in that fight, to the best of our abilities.
There we have it. You don't care about the lives of Ukrainians, only 'the world', which is just an abstraction.
What the actual fuck? How does your support for Trump help the lives of Ukrainians; many of whom will suddenly find themselves Russian. Have you seen what Russia's done to the population of the territories they have invaded? It ain't good.
But again, you fail to answer the question. So I ask again: what do you think Trump will do to help Ukraine?
The fact that you can't see how peace benefits Ukraine says it all. You are completely detached from the reality of the war. If you were somebody who would otherwise have been killed by a missile but instead got to live thanks to a peace deal, I think you'd see the benefit.
But on that basis why not force agreement on a peace deal in the first week of the war? Lots of people have been killed since then on both sides after all.
Given that Biden has consistently slow-walked military aid, that's a good question. Did he ever have any serious intention of helping Ukraine defend the borders it had at the beginning of his presidency?
Biden has not slow walked military aid, the GOP in Congress at the urging of Trump has.
You have zero integrity.
This is simply not true. Both in terms of the supply of weapons and in placing constraints on how weapons are used, the Biden adminstration has limited Ukraine's ability to fight.
Bullshit.
Do you really believe that? Why did Biden veto British weapons being used to hit Russian targets? Are you happy about that?
Yes I really believe that.
Biden is constrained by what Congress will approve and it is the GOP who have been the ones he's struggled to carry.
Trump wants even less support to go to Ukraine and he's explicit on that.
Britain is not constrained by Congress. When Starmer went to him to ask for permission for British weapons to be used against Russian targets, Biden said no. How do you square that with your belief that he is being held back by the GOP?
I don't want to hear any justifications for the Employer NIC increases from public sector employees; they don't affect your employer's wage bill at all
Thats simply not true, all employers pay NICS, public and private.
The employers NIC rise will impact all public sector budgets, from binmen to High Court judges. It will be quite a cost pressure on my Trust.
The state pays their wages; the state gets all of the tax increase directly back
But it does come out of the budget of the relevant department. Of course, there will be a corresponding increase in revenue at the exchequer.
And they've been doling out massive wage hikes to public sector employees, before announcing that they're cancelling them for the private sector
Titbits: stronger Govt funding for the BBC World Service is a good, inexpensive intervention and a lot of bang for the buck.
At most that will be 10s of millions extra per annum, which is not a lot for a weekly audience of 300m+.
In 2024/25 the government contributed £104m towards the £366m cost of the BBC’s World Service, but the BBC said it was increasingly unable to fund services. In March, the BBC Director General Tim Davie said: "We cannot keep asking UK Licence Fee payers to invest in (the World Service) when we face cuts to UK services.
"We will need to discuss a long-term funding solution for the World Service that comes from central government budgets.”
Funding of the BBC World Service was for most of its history fully funded by the British government until it was announced in 2010 that the cost would be passed onto the BBC.
In 2016, the Government awarded the BBC a grant of £291m to cover the years 2020 to 2024 to help with the World Service’s modernisation and made further contributions in the years after.
Zelensky has given the White House both barrels today. Which is rather interesting.
Well, if his claim is true, then it is deserved.
(It seems that the story that Ukraine wanted long-range Tomahawk cruise missiles was a secret part of Big Z's peace plan, told to the USA in confidence, and it soon leaked to the media. Note: Ukraine did not tell the USA about the Kursk offensive, and it worked. Someone in the US is leaking badly.)
Biden has been a disaster for Ukraine from the beginning.
No, he has not been a 'disaster'. He could have done better; but much of what he can do is stifled by.... the GOP.
Your mate Trump will be a disaster for Ukraine. You shill for Trump whilst having a reference to the Ukraine flag as your avatar. You should replace it with the Russian flag, as they're who you want to win in Ukraine.
Milley told lawmakers during closed-door briefings on Feb. 2 and 3 that a full-scale Russian invasion of Ukraine could result in the fall of Kyiv within 72-hours, and could come at a cost of 15,000 Ukrainian troop deaths and 4,000 Russian troop deaths.
Several lawmakers expressed concern that the Biden administration did not respond quickly to provide Ukraine with significant military aid, such as anti-aircraft and rocket launcher systems that would defend against an invasion from Russia.
Biden administration officials at the meetings responded to these concerns by saying that a significant supply of military aid to Ukraine could be used as a reason to invade Ukraine.
And what did Trump do to stop Russia between 2016 and 2020, when they were occupying Crimea and vast areas of the Donbass? Answer: weaken Ukraine by obsessing over a fucking laptop.
Replace your avatar with the Russian flag, you sick shill.
If I may, I think the position is more nuanced than you’d care to admit. Ukraine and Russia are locked in a war of attrition, their side looks like it might have more staying power than ours. And its partners are now providing not just shells but infantry.
Even with a 5-1 attrition ratio, it is not guaranteed that Russia collapses prior to Ukraine. Especially given the Washington consensus (and Berlin) seems to be to place extreme restrictions on Ukraine’s use of arms, for fear of escalation.
We must be realistic about what is politically and operational possible at this point. The democrats could win all three elections and it’s not clear that things next year would be very different to today. What is their plan to end the war? It’s clear they’ve thrown Zelenskys plan back in his face.
That's all very debateable, and is what some people have been saying from the start, from "Kyiv should just give in to Russia", back in February 2022 to "Congress will never allow Ukraine to get more weapons!" earlier in the year. Just to be proved wrong every time.
And if Russia is warning us against 'escalation', then they shouldn't fucking well constantly escalate themselves, whether it's long range weapons from Iran or troops and weapons from North Korea.
But this is irrelevant to Trump, whose only plan for 'peace' is an abject Ukrainian surrender.
If it had been left to Biden, Putin would have taken Kyiv within days. His approach was entirely reactive, and showed much less resolve than Boris Johnson.
We're talking about Trump. What do *you* think Trump will do to help Ukraine?
Hypothetically, if there is an armistice that freezes the current front line, that's not "abject surrender" and it would help Ukraine very much to have time to regroup without dealing with the burden of fighting a war and facing constant missile attacks.
Yes; that's an abject surrender as Russia will just regroup and try again. What's more Ukraine gets f'all out of it, and Russia gets loads. And dangling NATO membership in front of Ukraine does not deter Putin, as he knows your best bud Trump isn't NATO's biggest fan. Ukraine cannot rely on NATO with Trump in charge of the USA.
So I ask again: what do you think Trump will do to help Ukraine?
You're being irrational and driven by emotion. If you think that peace is nothing then you need a reality check.
The point is that what you said above is not a 'peace'; it is a defeat for Ukraine. You want Ukraine defeated - which is why your avatar is so egregious.
So I ask again: what do you think Trump will do to help Ukraine?
It's immoral to expect other people to die to satisfy your need for moral purity.
So you cannot answer the question.
My position is f-all to do with 'moral purity'; just as yours is nothing to do with helping Ukraine.
My position is this: a Russian victory in Ukraine is bad for the world, for a whole host of reasons that have been discussed before. That means for as long as Ukraine wants to fight, we need to support them in that fight, to the best of our abilities.
There we have it. You don't care about the lives of Ukrainians, only 'the world', which is just an abstraction.
What the actual fuck? How does your support for Trump help the lives of Ukrainians; many of whom will suddenly find themselves Russian. Have you seen what Russia's done to the population of the territories they have invaded? It ain't good.
But again, you fail to answer the question. So I ask again: what do you think Trump will do to help Ukraine?
The fact that you can't see how peace benefits Ukraine says it all. You are completely detached from the reality of the war. If you were somebody who would otherwise have been killed by a missile but instead got to live thanks to a peace deal, I think you'd see the benefit.
But on that basis why not force agreement on a peace deal in the first week of the war? Lots of people have been killed since then on both sides after all.
Given that Biden has consistently slow-walked military aid, that's a good question. Did he ever have any serious intention of helping Ukraine defend the borders it had at the beginning of his presidency?
Biden has not slow walked military aid, the GOP in Congress at the urging of Trump has.
You have zero integrity.
This is simply not true. Both in terms of the supply of weapons and in placing constraints on how weapons are used, the Biden adminstration has limited Ukraine's ability to fight.
Biden has given weapons to Ukraine. In a small number of cases, there have been limits on how those weapons are used, but having a weapon with caveats attached is still giving you more ability to fight that not being given that weapon at all.
Trump, Vance and MAGA favour not giving weapons to Ukraine at all.
This is a pretty big story from the world of finance.
Car dealerships in chaos as shock ruling leaves market at risk of collapse
Lenders pause vehicle loans as forecourts face dramatic rethink of sales practices
Britain’s biggest banks and lenders are scrambling to avoid a collapse in the car sales market after a shock court judgement prompted chaos at forecourts across the country.
A ruling from the Court of Appeal on commissions paid to car salesmen has forced several lenders to pause loans, and dealerships to urgently revise their sales practices to avoid a paralysis in the market.
Lloyds Bank, one of the UK’s largest motor financiers through its Black Horse arm, became the latest lender to revamp its practices by abolishing bonuses paid to car dealers.
The bank has introduced a “no commission” contract, meaning no fees will be paid to dealerships.
William Chalmers, Lloyds’s chief of finance, held an urgent call with investors last night to explain the situation, saying it wanted to stand by its customers and the UK economy to carry on lending.
Car finance is the biggest source of funding used by drivers to buy new vehicles, with nine in every 10 cars bought by motorists relying on a loan, according to Autotrader.
There are fears a loan famine would effectively freeze up the market – damaging the already under-fire sector.
What will happen is that Black Horse will take out advertising at car dealerships: i.e. pay for their promotional material to be on display. And the amount they pay for this advertising will bear a remarkable similarity to the amount they used to pay in commission.
This isn’t a growth growth growth budget. Not even a growth budget. It’s a tax and throw the grabbed money at public services budget.
They probably wrote the budget they wanted to do 18 months or more ago, but have to readjust some ideas due to prevailing winds. Like, if inflationary pressures and high interest rates still in system, a growth growth growth budgets will hit inflation and interest rates and mortgage deals. Another example is to keep close eye on size of borrowing and costs on that borrowing - personally I find one in every ten pound UK government spends just pays off our loan bills is wrongheaded waste. Yuk.
So to not just do everything you want, your supporters and voters and party donors want, taper it to what situation allows, is probably quite sensible really. Looking at political history, previous incoming governments, especially in growth chasing boom and bust sixties and seventies, were not as smart and cautious - I’m looking at how Labour started 1974-1979 as being witless architects of their own pain. In fact, Lady Thatchers government 1979-1983 is a better example of today’s budget - Lady Thatcher promising tax cuts, but in fact putting up taxes instead, including windfall tax on industry and business, because it was simply the right thing to do at the time.
Another consideration for us, are those considerations the OBR just can’t make in their forcasts. The OBR have to say what growth will be on facts and stats at their fingertips - known knowns - the OBR can’t tell us growth in 2029 will be insane overheating 5%, due to Starmer as promised climbing on a bulldozer and destroying all sorts of laws and restrictions, becuase he hasn’t done it, and might never do it as advertised. Doesn’t mean to say though, future budgets this parliament won’t get creative to boost growth. If prevailing winds allow.
That’s because the public services budget needs some money being thrown at it. It benefits the country if the NHS, the Courts, the police etc. are properly funded and can actually do what they’re meant to do.
Zelensky has given the White House both barrels today. Which is rather interesting.
Well, if his claim is true, then it is deserved.
(It seems that the story that Ukraine wanted long-range Tomahawk cruise missiles was a secret part of Big Z's peace plan, told to the USA in confidence, and it soon leaked to the media. Note: Ukraine did not tell the USA about the Kursk offensive, and it worked. Someone in the US is leaking badly.)
Biden has been a disaster for Ukraine from the beginning.
No, he has not been a 'disaster'. He could have done better; but much of what he can do is stifled by.... the GOP.
Your mate Trump will be a disaster for Ukraine. You shill for Trump whilst having a reference to the Ukraine flag as your avatar. You should replace it with the Russian flag, as they're who you want to win in Ukraine.
Milley told lawmakers during closed-door briefings on Feb. 2 and 3 that a full-scale Russian invasion of Ukraine could result in the fall of Kyiv within 72-hours, and could come at a cost of 15,000 Ukrainian troop deaths and 4,000 Russian troop deaths.
Several lawmakers expressed concern that the Biden administration did not respond quickly to provide Ukraine with significant military aid, such as anti-aircraft and rocket launcher systems that would defend against an invasion from Russia.
Biden administration officials at the meetings responded to these concerns by saying that a significant supply of military aid to Ukraine could be used as a reason to invade Ukraine.
And what did Trump do to stop Russia between 2016 and 2020, when they were occupying Crimea and vast areas of the Donbass? Answer: weaken Ukraine by obsessing over a fucking laptop.
Replace your avatar with the Russian flag, you sick shill.
If I may, I think the position is more nuanced than you’d care to admit. Ukraine and Russia are locked in a war of attrition, their side looks like it might have more staying power than ours. And its partners are now providing not just shells but infantry.
Even with a 5-1 attrition ratio, it is not guaranteed that Russia collapses prior to Ukraine. Especially given the Washington consensus (and Berlin) seems to be to place extreme restrictions on Ukraine’s use of arms, for fear of escalation.
We must be realistic about what is politically and operational possible at this point. The democrats could win all three elections and it’s not clear that things next year would be very different to today. What is their plan to end the war? It’s clear they’ve thrown Zelenskys plan back in his face.
That's all very debateable, and is what some people have been saying from the start, from "Kyiv should just give in to Russia", back in February 2022 to "Congress will never allow Ukraine to get more weapons!" earlier in the year. Just to be proved wrong every time.
And if Russia is warning us against 'escalation', then they shouldn't fucking well constantly escalate themselves, whether it's long range weapons from Iran or troops and weapons from North Korea.
But this is irrelevant to Trump, whose only plan for 'peace' is an abject Ukrainian surrender.
If it had been left to Biden, Putin would have taken Kyiv within days. His approach was entirely reactive, and showed much less resolve than Boris Johnson.
We're talking about Trump. What do *you* think Trump will do to help Ukraine?
Hypothetically, if there is an armistice that freezes the current front line, that's not "abject surrender" and it would help Ukraine very much to have time to regroup without dealing with the burden of fighting a war and facing constant missile attacks.
Yes; that's an abject surrender as Russia will just regroup and try again. What's more Ukraine gets f'all out of it, and Russia gets loads. And dangling NATO membership in front of Ukraine does not deter Putin, as he knows your best bud Trump isn't NATO's biggest fan. Ukraine cannot rely on NATO with Trump in charge of the USA.
So I ask again: what do you think Trump will do to help Ukraine?
You're being irrational and driven by emotion. If you think that peace is nothing then you need a reality check.
The point is that what you said above is not a 'peace'; it is a defeat for Ukraine. You want Ukraine defeated - which is why your avatar is so egregious.
So I ask again: what do you think Trump will do to help Ukraine?
It's immoral to expect other people to die to satisfy your need for moral purity.
It’s extraordinary how unimpacted our lives have been, while we’ve expected Ukrainians to bleed and die with one hand behind their back, all in the name of depleting Russia’s Soviet stockpiles.
You seem to believe that we are forcing the Ukranians to unwillingly fight to serve our goals. It seems to me that they are desperately fighting to serve their goals: specifically clean water, warm houses, good food, not-raped women and not-murdered children.
'Expecting the Ukrainians to bleed and die' as if they are forced into it has been a pernicious line from the very beginning.
Will there come a point they cannot as a nation keep bearing the cost, even with the horrendous alternative of abandoning people to rule by Moscow? Maybe. Is there a point where supporting nations do not feel able to support Ukraine to avoid such an outcome as long and as much as they can because of wider costs and concerns? Unfortunately.
Is that time now? It doesn't have to be, and personally I don't think the calculation allies are making towards Ukraine are as simplistic as peace=good, even if the preferred outcome - Russia out of Ukraine completely - is probably not realistic or even a US goal.
I feel like that is relatively nuanced enough.
And as noted that some people don't believe what Trump is saying make the argument to the contrary trickier, since is enforcing a 'peace' good or not, if we might not believe the person pushing that position the hardest?
This is a pretty big story from the world of finance.
Car dealerships in chaos as shock ruling leaves market at risk of collapse
Lenders pause vehicle loans as forecourts face dramatic rethink of sales practices
Britain’s biggest banks and lenders are scrambling to avoid a collapse in the car sales market after a shock court judgement prompted chaos at forecourts across the country.
A ruling from the Court of Appeal on commissions paid to car salesmen has forced several lenders to pause loans, and dealerships to urgently revise their sales practices to avoid a paralysis in the market.
Lloyds Bank, one of the UK’s largest motor financiers through its Black Horse arm, became the latest lender to revamp its practices by abolishing bonuses paid to car dealers.
The bank has introduced a “no commission” contract, meaning no fees will be paid to dealerships.
William Chalmers, Lloyds’s chief of finance, held an urgent call with investors last night to explain the situation, saying it wanted to stand by its customers and the UK economy to carry on lending.
Car finance is the biggest source of funding used by drivers to buy new vehicles, with nine in every 10 cars bought by motorists relying on a loan, according to Autotrader.
There are fears a loan famine would effectively freeze up the market – damaging the already under-fire sector.
I’ve never been a fan of Reeves but genuinely impressed by her delivery earlier.
And can’t argue with the content. A genuinely redistributive budget which will benefit people who need services. Ending the non dom status a big winner for me.
And in other news Ah-nold is just the latest high profile Republican to endorse Harris. So many as to be pretty significant imho.
It didn’t sound to me like she’s ended the NonDom status. It sounded to me like she’s renamed it and plans to tweak some detail.
@Monksfield if this was redistributive you should be able to point at the ones redistrubuted too I don't see any of the needy getting it just public sector fatcats
Zelensky has given the White House both barrels today. Which is rather interesting.
Well, if his claim is true, then it is deserved.
(It seems that the story that Ukraine wanted long-range Tomahawk cruise missiles was a secret part of Big Z's peace plan, told to the USA in confidence, and it soon leaked to the media. Note: Ukraine did not tell the USA about the Kursk offensive, and it worked. Someone in the US is leaking badly.)
Biden has been a disaster for Ukraine from the beginning.
No, he has not been a 'disaster'. He could have done better; but much of what he can do is stifled by.... the GOP.
Your mate Trump will be a disaster for Ukraine. You shill for Trump whilst having a reference to the Ukraine flag as your avatar. You should replace it with the Russian flag, as they're who you want to win in Ukraine.
Milley told lawmakers during closed-door briefings on Feb. 2 and 3 that a full-scale Russian invasion of Ukraine could result in the fall of Kyiv within 72-hours, and could come at a cost of 15,000 Ukrainian troop deaths and 4,000 Russian troop deaths.
Several lawmakers expressed concern that the Biden administration did not respond quickly to provide Ukraine with significant military aid, such as anti-aircraft and rocket launcher systems that would defend against an invasion from Russia.
Biden administration officials at the meetings responded to these concerns by saying that a significant supply of military aid to Ukraine could be used as a reason to invade Ukraine.
And what did Trump do to stop Russia between 2016 and 2020, when they were occupying Crimea and vast areas of the Donbass? Answer: weaken Ukraine by obsessing over a fucking laptop.
Replace your avatar with the Russian flag, you sick shill.
If I may, I think the position is more nuanced than you’d care to admit. Ukraine and Russia are locked in a war of attrition, their side looks like it might have more staying power than ours. And its partners are now providing not just shells but infantry.
Even with a 5-1 attrition ratio, it is not guaranteed that Russia collapses prior to Ukraine. Especially given the Washington consensus (and Berlin) seems to be to place extreme restrictions on Ukraine’s use of arms, for fear of escalation.
We must be realistic about what is politically and operational possible at this point. The democrats could win all three elections and it’s not clear that things next year would be very different to today. What is their plan to end the war? It’s clear they’ve thrown Zelenskys plan back in his face.
That's all very debateable, and is what some people have been saying from the start, from "Kyiv should just give in to Russia", back in February 2022 to "Congress will never allow Ukraine to get more weapons!" earlier in the year. Just to be proved wrong every time.
And if Russia is warning us against 'escalation', then they shouldn't fucking well constantly escalate themselves, whether it's long range weapons from Iran or troops and weapons from North Korea.
But this is irrelevant to Trump, whose only plan for 'peace' is an abject Ukrainian surrender.
If it had been left to Biden, Putin would have taken Kyiv within days. His approach was entirely reactive, and showed much less resolve than Boris Johnson.
We're talking about Trump. What do *you* think Trump will do to help Ukraine?
Hypothetically, if there is an armistice that freezes the current front line, that's not "abject surrender" and it would help Ukraine very much to have time to regroup without dealing with the burden of fighting a war and facing constant missile attacks.
Yes; that's an abject surrender as Russia will just regroup and try again. What's more Ukraine gets f'all out of it, and Russia gets loads. And dangling NATO membership in front of Ukraine does not deter Putin, as he knows your best bud Trump isn't NATO's biggest fan. Ukraine cannot rely on NATO with Trump in charge of the USA.
So I ask again: what do you think Trump will do to help Ukraine?
You're being irrational and driven by emotion. If you think that peace is nothing then you need a reality check.
The point is that what you said above is not a 'peace'; it is a defeat for Ukraine. You want Ukraine defeated - which is why your avatar is so egregious.
So I ask again: what do you think Trump will do to help Ukraine?
It's immoral to expect other people to die to satisfy your need for moral purity.
Isn’t that up to them
We appear to be back at February 2022 arguments in relation to the war, regrettably.
Everyone here is surprisingly casual about the leak that the CIA upped their assessment of nuclear exchange in autumn 2022 to 50%. You can’t just sit there and pretend that didn’t happen. Now you might conclude (with the benefit of far less info than them) that they got it completely wrong. But what you cannot deny is the political impact that assessment has had in the US.
Biden was not going to change his policy of containment and a bloody war of attrition, with the goal of no clear winner. And unless I’ve missed it, Harris has said absolutely nothing to suggest her policy would be different. So should Ukraine broker a fragile peace with sub optimal boundaries now? Or strike a likely fairly similar deal some period down the line, with tens of thousands of additional dead?
I don’t know anyone living in Ukraine but I suspect this is a conversation that is being quietly whispered. A shame Leon is banned, he might have useful insight after his recent visits.
You’re getting this arse about face.
Ukraine is not the aggressor, here. Ukraine is not waging war against a Russia that seeks peace.
Russia could have had peace, at any point in the past two years and nine months. Ergo, Russia is not seeking peace.
Yes I think we can all agree that the country that invaded and has committed daily acts of genocide has not sought peace. The point rather is that they have not been compelled into seeking a peace, because the economic and military response from the west (principally the office of the US president but not them alone) has not been strong enough.
Savanta snap poll 41 27 good vs bad for the budget Big support for Minimum wage, NHS funding Neutral on NI Firmly against bus fare cap increase
Initial verdict a relief for no 10 but no narrative changer yet
This is what they will have been banking on.
The NHS is a more tangible public priority than growth, but they can't l leave it too long.
Getting waiting lists down to what they were in 2010 was a key promise and cannot be done overnight. If they fail to do that by the next election then they will lose tons of seats. Its a deal-breaker for their voters.
This is a pretty big story from the world of finance.
Car dealerships in chaos as shock ruling leaves market at risk of collapse
Lenders pause vehicle loans as forecourts face dramatic rethink of sales practices
Britain’s biggest banks and lenders are scrambling to avoid a collapse in the car sales market after a shock court judgement prompted chaos at forecourts across the country.
A ruling from the Court of Appeal on commissions paid to car salesmen has forced several lenders to pause loans, and dealerships to urgently revise their sales practices to avoid a paralysis in the market.
Lloyds Bank, one of the UK’s largest motor financiers through its Black Horse arm, became the latest lender to revamp its practices by abolishing bonuses paid to car dealers.
The bank has introduced a “no commission” contract, meaning no fees will be paid to dealerships.
William Chalmers, Lloyds’s chief of finance, held an urgent call with investors last night to explain the situation, saying it wanted to stand by its customers and the UK economy to carry on lending.
Car finance is the biggest source of funding used by drivers to buy new vehicles, with nine in every 10 cars bought by motorists relying on a loan, according to Autotrader.
There are fears a loan famine would effectively freeze up the market – damaging the already under-fire sector.
Zelensky has given the White House both barrels today. Which is rather interesting.
Well, if his claim is true, then it is deserved.
(It seems that the story that Ukraine wanted long-range Tomahawk cruise missiles was a secret part of Big Z's peace plan, told to the USA in confidence, and it soon leaked to the media. Note: Ukraine did not tell the USA about the Kursk offensive, and it worked. Someone in the US is leaking badly.)
Biden has been a disaster for Ukraine from the beginning.
No, he has not been a 'disaster'. He could have done better; but much of what he can do is stifled by.... the GOP.
Your mate Trump will be a disaster for Ukraine. You shill for Trump whilst having a reference to the Ukraine flag as your avatar. You should replace it with the Russian flag, as they're who you want to win in Ukraine.
Milley told lawmakers during closed-door briefings on Feb. 2 and 3 that a full-scale Russian invasion of Ukraine could result in the fall of Kyiv within 72-hours, and could come at a cost of 15,000 Ukrainian troop deaths and 4,000 Russian troop deaths.
Several lawmakers expressed concern that the Biden administration did not respond quickly to provide Ukraine with significant military aid, such as anti-aircraft and rocket launcher systems that would defend against an invasion from Russia.
Biden administration officials at the meetings responded to these concerns by saying that a significant supply of military aid to Ukraine could be used as a reason to invade Ukraine.
And what did Trump do to stop Russia between 2016 and 2020, when they were occupying Crimea and vast areas of the Donbass? Answer: weaken Ukraine by obsessing over a fucking laptop.
Replace your avatar with the Russian flag, you sick shill.
If I may, I think the position is more nuanced than you’d care to admit. Ukraine and Russia are locked in a war of attrition, their side looks like it might have more staying power than ours. And its partners are now providing not just shells but infantry.
Even with a 5-1 attrition ratio, it is not guaranteed that Russia collapses prior to Ukraine. Especially given the Washington consensus (and Berlin) seems to be to place extreme restrictions on Ukraine’s use of arms, for fear of escalation.
We must be realistic about what is politically and operational possible at this point. The democrats could win all three elections and it’s not clear that things next year would be very different to today. What is their plan to end the war? It’s clear they’ve thrown Zelenskys plan back in his face.
That's all very debateable, and is what some people have been saying from the start, from "Kyiv should just give in to Russia", back in February 2022 to "Congress will never allow Ukraine to get more weapons!" earlier in the year. Just to be proved wrong every time.
And if Russia is warning us against 'escalation', then they shouldn't fucking well constantly escalate themselves, whether it's long range weapons from Iran or troops and weapons from North Korea.
But this is irrelevant to Trump, whose only plan for 'peace' is an abject Ukrainian surrender.
If it had been left to Biden, Putin would have taken Kyiv within days. His approach was entirely reactive, and showed much less resolve than Boris Johnson.
We're talking about Trump. What do *you* think Trump will do to help Ukraine?
Hypothetically, if there is an armistice that freezes the current front line, that's not "abject surrender" and it would help Ukraine very much to have time to regroup without dealing with the burden of fighting a war and facing constant missile attacks.
Yes; that's an abject surrender as Russia will just regroup and try again. What's more Ukraine gets f'all out of it, and Russia gets loads. And dangling NATO membership in front of Ukraine does not deter Putin, as he knows your best bud Trump isn't NATO's biggest fan. Ukraine cannot rely on NATO with Trump in charge of the USA.
So I ask again: what do you think Trump will do to help Ukraine?
You're being irrational and driven by emotion. If you think that peace is nothing then you need a reality check.
The point is that what you said above is not a 'peace'; it is a defeat for Ukraine. You want Ukraine defeated - which is why your avatar is so egregious.
So I ask again: what do you think Trump will do to help Ukraine?
It's immoral to expect other people to die to satisfy your need for moral purity.
Isn’t that up to them
We appear to be back at February 2022 arguments in relation to the war, regrettably.
Everyone here is surprisingly casual about the leak that the CIA upped their assessment of nuclear exchange in autumn 2022 to 50%. You can’t just sit there and pretend that didn’t happen. Now you might conclude (with the benefit of far less info than them) that they got it completely wrong. But what you cannot deny is the political impact that assessment has had in the US.
Biden was not going to change his policy of containment and a bloody war of attrition, with the goal of no clear winner. And unless I’ve missed it, Harris has said absolutely nothing to suggest her policy would be different. So should Ukraine broker a fragile peace with sub optimal boundaries now? Or strike a likely fairly similar deal some period down the line, with tens of thousands of additional dead?
I don’t know anyone living in Ukraine but I suspect this is a conversation that is being quietly whispered. A shame Leon is banned, he might have useful insight after his recent visits.
You’re getting this arse about face.
Ukraine is not the aggressor, here. Ukraine is not waging war against a Russia that seeks peace.
Russia could have had peace, at any point in the past two years and nine months. Ergo, Russia is not seeking peace.
Yes I think we can all agree that the country that invaded and has committed daily acts of genocide has not sought peace. The point rather is that they have not been compelled into seeking a peace, because the economic and military response from the west (principally the office of the US president but not them alone) has not been strong enough.
Perhaps the response from the West hasn’t been strong enough. The solution to that is not to pick a new US President who wants to do less.
This is a pretty big story from the world of finance.
Car dealerships in chaos as shock ruling leaves market at risk of collapse
Lenders pause vehicle loans as forecourts face dramatic rethink of sales practices
Britain’s biggest banks and lenders are scrambling to avoid a collapse in the car sales market after a shock court judgement prompted chaos at forecourts across the country.
A ruling from the Court of Appeal on commissions paid to car salesmen has forced several lenders to pause loans, and dealerships to urgently revise their sales practices to avoid a paralysis in the market.
Lloyds Bank, one of the UK’s largest motor financiers through its Black Horse arm, became the latest lender to revamp its practices by abolishing bonuses paid to car dealers.
The bank has introduced a “no commission” contract, meaning no fees will be paid to dealerships.
William Chalmers, Lloyds’s chief of finance, held an urgent call with investors last night to explain the situation, saying it wanted to stand by its customers and the UK economy to carry on lending.
Car finance is the biggest source of funding used by drivers to buy new vehicles, with nine in every 10 cars bought by motorists relying on a loan, according to Autotrader.
There are fears a loan famine would effectively freeze up the market – damaging the already under-fire sector.
Already got my claim in with Black Horse. It's been suggested I might get back all the interest I paid at 9.99%, minus the "best possible" interest rate of 2.5% (which I could never have got in my circumstances), with this initial amount compounded at 8% from the date of loan until today. I mean, I'll take it, but it seems absurdly generous.
I would be surprised if Russia accepted a ceasefire on the current frontline. The North Koreans are about to join the war on the battlefield on their behalf. US support might be drawing to a close. There's no sign of Britain or France, or the rest of Europe rushing to fill the gap.
Why wouldn't Russia keep grinding forward in Donetsk in the hope that they will exhaust Ukraine's ability to resist? They might reasonably hope to demolish Kharkiv and occupy the ruins of that city too. It's a grotesque fallacy that Ukraine, or its western supporters, are prolonging the war.
Russia is only going to stop if we provide the Ukrainians with the weapons they need to fight the war effectively, by destroying Russian equipment and soldiers behind the front lines.
One penny off a pint of beer was really taking the piss
I'm glad it didn't go up, even though I don't often drink in pubs, but one penny off?
What's the fucking point?
while it is a token decrease, the interesting bit is that duty went up for non-draught beer, so there will be an increasing tax diferrential in favour of draught, and hence pubs over supermarkets.
Zelensky has given the White House both barrels today. Which is rather interesting.
Well, if his claim is true, then it is deserved.
(It seems that the story that Ukraine wanted long-range Tomahawk cruise missiles was a secret part of Big Z's peace plan, told to the USA in confidence, and it soon leaked to the media. Note: Ukraine did not tell the USA about the Kursk offensive, and it worked. Someone in the US is leaking badly.)
Biden has been a disaster for Ukraine from the beginning.
No, he has not been a 'disaster'. He could have done better; but much of what he can do is stifled by.... the GOP.
Your mate Trump will be a disaster for Ukraine. You shill for Trump whilst having a reference to the Ukraine flag as your avatar. You should replace it with the Russian flag, as they're who you want to win in Ukraine.
Milley told lawmakers during closed-door briefings on Feb. 2 and 3 that a full-scale Russian invasion of Ukraine could result in the fall of Kyiv within 72-hours, and could come at a cost of 15,000 Ukrainian troop deaths and 4,000 Russian troop deaths.
Several lawmakers expressed concern that the Biden administration did not respond quickly to provide Ukraine with significant military aid, such as anti-aircraft and rocket launcher systems that would defend against an invasion from Russia.
Biden administration officials at the meetings responded to these concerns by saying that a significant supply of military aid to Ukraine could be used as a reason to invade Ukraine.
And what did Trump do to stop Russia between 2016 and 2020, when they were occupying Crimea and vast areas of the Donbass? Answer: weaken Ukraine by obsessing over a fucking laptop.
Replace your avatar with the Russian flag, you sick shill.
If I may, I think the position is more nuanced than you’d care to admit. Ukraine and Russia are locked in a war of attrition, their side looks like it might have more staying power than ours. And its partners are now providing not just shells but infantry.
Even with a 5-1 attrition ratio, it is not guaranteed that Russia collapses prior to Ukraine. Especially given the Washington consensus (and Berlin) seems to be to place extreme restrictions on Ukraine’s use of arms, for fear of escalation.
We must be realistic about what is politically and operational possible at this point. The democrats could win all three elections and it’s not clear that things next year would be very different to today. What is their plan to end the war? It’s clear they’ve thrown Zelenskys plan back in his face.
That's all very debateable, and is what some people have been saying from the start, from "Kyiv should just give in to Russia", back in February 2022 to "Congress will never allow Ukraine to get more weapons!" earlier in the year. Just to be proved wrong every time.
And if Russia is warning us against 'escalation', then they shouldn't fucking well constantly escalate themselves, whether it's long range weapons from Iran or troops and weapons from North Korea.
But this is irrelevant to Trump, whose only plan for 'peace' is an abject Ukrainian surrender.
If it had been left to Biden, Putin would have taken Kyiv within days. His approach was entirely reactive, and showed much less resolve than Boris Johnson.
We're talking about Trump. What do *you* think Trump will do to help Ukraine?
Hypothetically, if there is an armistice that freezes the current front line, that's not "abject surrender" and it would help Ukraine very much to have time to regroup without dealing with the burden of fighting a war and facing constant missile attacks.
Yes; that's an abject surrender as Russia will just regroup and try again. What's more Ukraine gets f'all out of it, and Russia gets loads. And dangling NATO membership in front of Ukraine does not deter Putin, as he knows your best bud Trump isn't NATO's biggest fan. Ukraine cannot rely on NATO with Trump in charge of the USA.
So I ask again: what do you think Trump will do to help Ukraine?
You're being irrational and driven by emotion. If you think that peace is nothing then you need a reality check.
The point is that what you said above is not a 'peace'; it is a defeat for Ukraine. You want Ukraine defeated - which is why your avatar is so egregious.
So I ask again: what do you think Trump will do to help Ukraine?
It's immoral to expect other people to die to satisfy your need for moral purity.
So you cannot answer the question.
My position is f-all to do with 'moral purity'; just as yours is nothing to do with helping Ukraine.
My position is this: a Russian victory in Ukraine is bad for the world, for a whole host of reasons that have been discussed before. That means for as long as Ukraine wants to fight, we need to support them in that fight, to the best of our abilities.
There we have it. You don't care about the lives of Ukrainians, only 'the world', which is just an abstraction.
What the actual fuck? How does your support for Trump help the lives of Ukrainians; many of whom will suddenly find themselves Russian. Have you seen what Russia's done to the population of the territories they have invaded? It ain't good.
But again, you fail to answer the question. So I ask again: what do you think Trump will do to help Ukraine?
The fact that you can't see how peace benefits Ukraine says it all. You are completely detached from the reality of the war. If you were somebody who would otherwise have been killed by a missile but instead got to live thanks to a peace deal, I think you'd see the benefit.
But on that basis why not force agreement on a peace deal in the first week of the war? Lots of people have been killed since then on both sides after all.
Given that Biden has consistently slow-walked military aid, that's a good question. Did he ever have any serious intention of helping Ukraine defend the borders it had at the beginning of his presidency?
Biden has not slow walked military aid, the GOP in Congress at the urging of Trump has.
You have zero integrity.
This is simply not true. Both in terms of the supply of weapons and in placing constraints on how weapons are used, the Biden adminstration has limited Ukraine's ability to fight.
Bullshit.
Do you really believe that? Why did Biden veto British weapons being used to hit Russian targets? Are you happy about that?
Yes I really believe that.
Biden is constrained by what Congress will approve and it is the GOP who have been the ones he's struggled to carry.
Trump wants even less support to go to Ukraine and he's explicit on that.
Britain is not constrained by Congress. When Starmer went to him to ask for permission for British weapons to be used against Russian targets, Biden said no. How do you square that with your belief that he is being held back by the GOP?
Because Britain is weak, and how much it will do without american permission is limited, though Boris did seem to do a good job being a booster for Ukraine, I wish he had spent more time doing so after his ousting.
Zelensky has given the White House both barrels today. Which is rather interesting.
Well, if his claim is true, then it is deserved.
(It seems that the story that Ukraine wanted long-range Tomahawk cruise missiles was a secret part of Big Z's peace plan, told to the USA in confidence, and it soon leaked to the media. Note: Ukraine did not tell the USA about the Kursk offensive, and it worked. Someone in the US is leaking badly.)
Biden has been a disaster for Ukraine from the beginning.
No, he has not been a 'disaster'. He could have done better; but much of what he can do is stifled by.... the GOP.
Your mate Trump will be a disaster for Ukraine. You shill for Trump whilst having a reference to the Ukraine flag as your avatar. You should replace it with the Russian flag, as they're who you want to win in Ukraine.
Milley told lawmakers during closed-door briefings on Feb. 2 and 3 that a full-scale Russian invasion of Ukraine could result in the fall of Kyiv within 72-hours, and could come at a cost of 15,000 Ukrainian troop deaths and 4,000 Russian troop deaths.
Several lawmakers expressed concern that the Biden administration did not respond quickly to provide Ukraine with significant military aid, such as anti-aircraft and rocket launcher systems that would defend against an invasion from Russia.
Biden administration officials at the meetings responded to these concerns by saying that a significant supply of military aid to Ukraine could be used as a reason to invade Ukraine.
And what did Trump do to stop Russia between 2016 and 2020, when they were occupying Crimea and vast areas of the Donbass? Answer: weaken Ukraine by obsessing over a fucking laptop.
Replace your avatar with the Russian flag, you sick shill.
If I may, I think the position is more nuanced than you’d care to admit. Ukraine and Russia are locked in a war of attrition, their side looks like it might have more staying power than ours. And its partners are now providing not just shells but infantry.
Even with a 5-1 attrition ratio, it is not guaranteed that Russia collapses prior to Ukraine. Especially given the Washington consensus (and Berlin) seems to be to place extreme restrictions on Ukraine’s use of arms, for fear of escalation.
We must be realistic about what is politically and operational possible at this point. The democrats could win all three elections and it’s not clear that things next year would be very different to today. What is their plan to end the war? It’s clear they’ve thrown Zelenskys plan back in his face.
That's all very debateable, and is what some people have been saying from the start, from "Kyiv should just give in to Russia", back in February 2022 to "Congress will never allow Ukraine to get more weapons!" earlier in the year. Just to be proved wrong every time.
And if Russia is warning us against 'escalation', then they shouldn't fucking well constantly escalate themselves, whether it's long range weapons from Iran or troops and weapons from North Korea.
But this is irrelevant to Trump, whose only plan for 'peace' is an abject Ukrainian surrender.
If it had been left to Biden, Putin would have taken Kyiv within days. His approach was entirely reactive, and showed much less resolve than Boris Johnson.
We're talking about Trump. What do *you* think Trump will do to help Ukraine?
Hypothetically, if there is an armistice that freezes the current front line, that's not "abject surrender" and it would help Ukraine very much to have time to regroup without dealing with the burden of fighting a war and facing constant missile attacks.
Yes; that's an abject surrender as Russia will just regroup and try again. What's more Ukraine gets f'all out of it, and Russia gets loads. And dangling NATO membership in front of Ukraine does not deter Putin, as he knows your best bud Trump isn't NATO's biggest fan. Ukraine cannot rely on NATO with Trump in charge of the USA.
So I ask again: what do you think Trump will do to help Ukraine?
You're being irrational and driven by emotion. If you think that peace is nothing then you need a reality check.
The point is that what you said above is not a 'peace'; it is a defeat for Ukraine. You want Ukraine defeated - which is why your avatar is so egregious.
So I ask again: what do you think Trump will do to help Ukraine?
It's immoral to expect other people to die to satisfy your need for moral purity.
Isn’t that up to them
We appear to be back at February 2022 arguments in relation to the war, regrettably.
Everyone here is surprisingly casual about the leak that the CIA upped their assessment of nuclear exchange in autumn 2022 to 50%. You can’t just sit there and pretend that didn’t happen. Now you might conclude (with the benefit of far less info than them) that they got it completely wrong. But what you cannot deny is the political impact that assessment has had in the US.
Biden was not going to change his policy of containment and a bloody war of attrition, with the goal of no clear winner. And unless I’ve missed it, Harris has said absolutely nothing to suggest her policy would be different. So should Ukraine broker a fragile peace with sub optimal boundaries now? Or strike a likely fairly similar deal some period down the line, with tens of thousands of additional dead?
I don’t know anyone living in Ukraine but I suspect this is a conversation that is being quietly whispered. A shame Leon is banned, he might have useful insight after his recent visits.
You’re getting this arse about face.
Ukraine is not the aggressor, here. Ukraine is not waging war against a Russia that seeks peace.
Russia could have had peace, at any point in the past two years and nine months. Ergo, Russia is not seeking peace.
Yes I think we can all agree that the country that invaded and has committed daily acts of genocide has not sought peace. The point rather is that they have not been compelled into seeking a peace, because the economic and military response from the west (principally the office of the US president but not them alone) has not been strong enough.
This discussion started because idiots are backing Trump over Ukraine whist pretending to support Ukraine. A Trump victory would mean support for Ukraine would be far weaker, and probably even non-existent.
So yes, Biden hasn't been as strong on Ukraine as he could have been, for bad and good reasons. But the idea that Trump would be better is delusional.
I would be surprised if Russia accepted a ceasefire on the current frontline. The North Koreans are about to join the war on the battlefield on their behalf. US support might be drawing to a close. There's no sign of Britain or France, or the rest of Europe rushing to fill the gap.
Why wouldn't Russia keep grinding forward in Donetsk in the hope that they will exhaust Ukraine's ability to resist? They might reasonably hope to demolish Kharkiv and occupy the ruins of that city too. It's a grotesque fallacy that Ukraine, or its western supporters, are prolonging the war.
Russia is only going to stop if we provide the Ukrainians with the weapons they need to fight the war effectively, by destroying Russian equipment and soldiers behind the front lines.
Yes, it would seem quite surprising if Russia felt (at the moment) it could not get at least some more out of a deal, and pay less of a price to get the small part of their own territory back.
One penny off a pint of beer was really taking the piss
I'm glad it didn't go up, even though I don't often drink in pubs, but one penny off?
What's the fucking point?
while it is a token decrease, the interesting bit is that duty went up for non-draught beer, so there will be an increasing tax diferrential in favour of draught, and hence pubs over supermarkets.
One penny off a pint of beer was really taking the piss
I'm glad it didn't go up, even though I don't often drink in pubs, but one penny off?
What's the fucking point?
while it is a token decrease, the interesting bit is that duty went up for non-draught beer, so there will be an increasing tax diferrential in favour of draught, and hence pubs over supermarkets.
Anecdotal Musk effect. Was thinking of buying a new car last year and was quite intrigued by Tesla. Actually buying a car this year and didn't even give Tesla a minutes thought. Can't be alone.
There are multiple reasons why I wouldn't purchase a Tesla
Elon is one, the fact you can't open a door manually in an emergency is another..
A brief look online suggests there is an emergency release mechanism.
Well, someone didn't like Schwarzenegger endorsing Harris.
Andrew Tate replying to @Scwarzenegger The worst thing about going from nothing to super rich and famous as I have is realising all your heros are sellouts.
You meet these people you once loved, and trust me, youre dissapointed.
So sad.
Being serious, given his past comments about January 6th it's not like it would have surprised anyone which way Arnold was learning.
Anecdotal Musk effect. Was thinking of buying a new car last year and was quite intrigued by Tesla. Actually buying a car this year and didn't even give Tesla a minutes thought. Can't be alone.
There are multiple reasons why I wouldn't purchase a Tesla
Elon is one, the fact you can't open a door manually in an emergency is another..
A brief look online suggests there is an emergency release mechanism.
Good luck trying to remember how to find and trigger it in an actual emergency..
Zelensky has given the White House both barrels today. Which is rather interesting.
Well, if his claim is true, then it is deserved.
(It seems that the story that Ukraine wanted long-range Tomahawk cruise missiles was a secret part of Big Z's peace plan, told to the USA in confidence, and it soon leaked to the media. Note: Ukraine did not tell the USA about the Kursk offensive, and it worked. Someone in the US is leaking badly.)
Biden has been a disaster for Ukraine from the beginning.
No, he has not been a 'disaster'. He could have done better; but much of what he can do is stifled by.... the GOP.
Your mate Trump will be a disaster for Ukraine. You shill for Trump whilst having a reference to the Ukraine flag as your avatar. You should replace it with the Russian flag, as they're who you want to win in Ukraine.
Milley told lawmakers during closed-door briefings on Feb. 2 and 3 that a full-scale Russian invasion of Ukraine could result in the fall of Kyiv within 72-hours, and could come at a cost of 15,000 Ukrainian troop deaths and 4,000 Russian troop deaths.
Several lawmakers expressed concern that the Biden administration did not respond quickly to provide Ukraine with significant military aid, such as anti-aircraft and rocket launcher systems that would defend against an invasion from Russia.
Biden administration officials at the meetings responded to these concerns by saying that a significant supply of military aid to Ukraine could be used as a reason to invade Ukraine.
And what did Trump do to stop Russia between 2016 and 2020, when they were occupying Crimea and vast areas of the Donbass? Answer: weaken Ukraine by obsessing over a fucking laptop.
Replace your avatar with the Russian flag, you sick shill.
If I may, I think the position is more nuanced than you’d care to admit. Ukraine and Russia are locked in a war of attrition, their side looks like it might have more staying power than ours. And its partners are now providing not just shells but infantry.
Even with a 5-1 attrition ratio, it is not guaranteed that Russia collapses prior to Ukraine. Especially given the Washington consensus (and Berlin) seems to be to place extreme restrictions on Ukraine’s use of arms, for fear of escalation.
We must be realistic about what is politically and operational possible at this point. The democrats could win all three elections and it’s not clear that things next year would be very different to today. What is their plan to end the war? It’s clear they’ve thrown Zelenskys plan back in his face.
That's all very debateable, and is what some people have been saying from the start, from "Kyiv should just give in to Russia", back in February 2022 to "Congress will never allow Ukraine to get more weapons!" earlier in the year. Just to be proved wrong every time.
And if Russia is warning us against 'escalation', then they shouldn't fucking well constantly escalate themselves, whether it's long range weapons from Iran or troops and weapons from North Korea.
But this is irrelevant to Trump, whose only plan for 'peace' is an abject Ukrainian surrender.
If it had been left to Biden, Putin would have taken Kyiv within days. His approach was entirely reactive, and showed much less resolve than Boris Johnson.
We're talking about Trump. What do *you* think Trump will do to help Ukraine?
Hypothetically, if there is an armistice that freezes the current front line, that's not "abject surrender" and it would help Ukraine very much to have time to regroup without dealing with the burden of fighting a war and facing constant missile attacks.
Yes; that's an abject surrender as Russia will just regroup and try again. What's more Ukraine gets f'all out of it, and Russia gets loads. And dangling NATO membership in front of Ukraine does not deter Putin, as he knows your best bud Trump isn't NATO's biggest fan. Ukraine cannot rely on NATO with Trump in charge of the USA.
So I ask again: what do you think Trump will do to help Ukraine?
You're being irrational and driven by emotion. If you think that peace is nothing then you need a reality check.
The point is that what you said above is not a 'peace'; it is a defeat for Ukraine. You want Ukraine defeated - which is why your avatar is so egregious.
So I ask again: what do you think Trump will do to help Ukraine?
It's immoral to expect other people to die to satisfy your need for moral purity.
So you cannot answer the question.
My position is f-all to do with 'moral purity'; just as yours is nothing to do with helping Ukraine.
My position is this: a Russian victory in Ukraine is bad for the world, for a whole host of reasons that have been discussed before. That means for as long as Ukraine wants to fight, we need to support them in that fight, to the best of our abilities.
There we have it. You don't care about the lives of Ukrainians, only 'the world', which is just an abstraction.
What the actual fuck? How does your support for Trump help the lives of Ukrainians; many of whom will suddenly find themselves Russian. Have you seen what Russia's done to the population of the territories they have invaded? It ain't good.
But again, you fail to answer the question. So I ask again: what do you think Trump will do to help Ukraine?
The fact that you can't see how peace benefits Ukraine says it all. You are completely detached from the reality of the war. If you were somebody who would otherwise have been killed by a missile but instead got to live thanks to a peace deal, I think you'd see the benefit.
But on that basis why not force agreement on a peace deal in the first week of the war? Lots of people have been killed since then on both sides after all.
Given that Biden has consistently slow-walked military aid, that's a good question. Did he ever have any serious intention of helping Ukraine defend the borders it had at the beginning of his presidency?
Biden has not slow walked military aid, the GOP in Congress at the urging of Trump has.
You have zero integrity.
This is simply not true. Both in terms of the supply of weapons and in placing constraints on how weapons are used, the Biden adminstration has limited Ukraine's ability to fight.
Bullshit.
Do you really believe that? Why did Biden veto British weapons being used to hit Russian targets? Are you happy about that?
Yes I really believe that.
Biden is constrained by what Congress will approve and it is the GOP who have been the ones he's struggled to carry.
Trump wants even less support to go to Ukraine and he's explicit on that.
Britain is not constrained by Congress. When Starmer went to him to ask for permission for British weapons to be used against Russian targets, Biden said no. How do you square that with your belief that he is being held back by the GOP?
Because Britain is weak, and how much it will do without american permission is limited, though Boris did seem to do a good job being a booster for Ukraine, I wish he had spent more time doing so after his ousting.
That wasn't the question. If Biden is champing at the bit to do more for Ukraine but is constrained by Congress and the GOP, why wouldn't he jump at the chance to bypass them?
Zelensky has given the White House both barrels today. Which is rather interesting.
Well, if his claim is true, then it is deserved.
(It seems that the story that Ukraine wanted long-range Tomahawk cruise missiles was a secret part of Big Z's peace plan, told to the USA in confidence, and it soon leaked to the media. Note: Ukraine did not tell the USA about the Kursk offensive, and it worked. Someone in the US is leaking badly.)
Biden has been a disaster for Ukraine from the beginning.
No, he has not been a 'disaster'. He could have done better; but much of what he can do is stifled by.... the GOP.
Your mate Trump will be a disaster for Ukraine. You shill for Trump whilst having a reference to the Ukraine flag as your avatar. You should replace it with the Russian flag, as they're who you want to win in Ukraine.
Milley told lawmakers during closed-door briefings on Feb. 2 and 3 that a full-scale Russian invasion of Ukraine could result in the fall of Kyiv within 72-hours, and could come at a cost of 15,000 Ukrainian troop deaths and 4,000 Russian troop deaths.
Several lawmakers expressed concern that the Biden administration did not respond quickly to provide Ukraine with significant military aid, such as anti-aircraft and rocket launcher systems that would defend against an invasion from Russia.
Biden administration officials at the meetings responded to these concerns by saying that a significant supply of military aid to Ukraine could be used as a reason to invade Ukraine.
And what did Trump do to stop Russia between 2016 and 2020, when they were occupying Crimea and vast areas of the Donbass? Answer: weaken Ukraine by obsessing over a fucking laptop.
Replace your avatar with the Russian flag, you sick shill.
If I may, I think the position is more nuanced than you’d care to admit. Ukraine and Russia are locked in a war of attrition, their side looks like it might have more staying power than ours. And its partners are now providing not just shells but infantry.
Even with a 5-1 attrition ratio, it is not guaranteed that Russia collapses prior to Ukraine. Especially given the Washington consensus (and Berlin) seems to be to place extreme restrictions on Ukraine’s use of arms, for fear of escalation.
We must be realistic about what is politically and operational possible at this point. The democrats could win all three elections and it’s not clear that things next year would be very different to today. What is their plan to end the war? It’s clear they’ve thrown Zelenskys plan back in his face.
That's all very debateable, and is what some people have been saying from the start, from "Kyiv should just give in to Russia", back in February 2022 to "Congress will never allow Ukraine to get more weapons!" earlier in the year. Just to be proved wrong every time.
And if Russia is warning us against 'escalation', then they shouldn't fucking well constantly escalate themselves, whether it's long range weapons from Iran or troops and weapons from North Korea.
But this is irrelevant to Trump, whose only plan for 'peace' is an abject Ukrainian surrender.
If it had been left to Biden, Putin would have taken Kyiv within days. His approach was entirely reactive, and showed much less resolve than Boris Johnson.
We're talking about Trump. What do *you* think Trump will do to help Ukraine?
Hypothetically, if there is an armistice that freezes the current front line, that's not "abject surrender" and it would help Ukraine very much to have time to regroup without dealing with the burden of fighting a war and facing constant missile attacks.
Yes; that's an abject surrender as Russia will just regroup and try again. What's more Ukraine gets f'all out of it, and Russia gets loads. And dangling NATO membership in front of Ukraine does not deter Putin, as he knows your best bud Trump isn't NATO's biggest fan. Ukraine cannot rely on NATO with Trump in charge of the USA.
So I ask again: what do you think Trump will do to help Ukraine?
You're being irrational and driven by emotion. If you think that peace is nothing then you need a reality check.
The point is that what you said above is not a 'peace'; it is a defeat for Ukraine. You want Ukraine defeated - which is why your avatar is so egregious.
So I ask again: what do you think Trump will do to help Ukraine?
It's immoral to expect other people to die to satisfy your need for moral purity.
Isn’t that up to them
We appear to be back at February 2022 arguments in relation to the war, regrettably.
Everyone here is surprisingly casual about the leak that the CIA upped their assessment of nuclear exchange in autumn 2022 to 50%. You can’t just sit there and pretend that didn’t happen. Now you might conclude (with the benefit of far less info than them) that they got it completely wrong. But what you cannot deny is the political impact that assessment has had in the US.
Biden was not going to change his policy of containment and a bloody war of attrition, with the goal of no clear winner. And unless I’ve missed it, Harris has said absolutely nothing to suggest her policy would be different. So should Ukraine broker a fragile peace with sub optimal boundaries now? Or strike a likely fairly similar deal some period down the line, with tens of thousands of additional dead?
I don’t know anyone living in Ukraine but I suspect this is a conversation that is being quietly whispered. A shame Leon is banned, he might have useful insight after his recent visits.
You’re getting this arse about face.
Ukraine is not the aggressor, here. Ukraine is not waging war against a Russia that seeks peace.
Russia could have had peace, at any point in the past two years and nine months. Ergo, Russia is not seeking peace.
Yes I think we can all agree that the country that invaded and has committed daily acts of genocide has not sought peace. The point rather is that they have not been compelled into seeking a peace, because the economic and military response from the west (principally the office of the US president but not them alone) has not been strong enough.
Perhaps the response from the West hasn’t been strong enough. The solution to that is not to pick a new US President who wants to do less.
There is potentially a viable path whereby Ukraine’s rules of engagement are lifted. They go hard after Russian energy assets. Secondary sanctions are imposed on anyone facilitating trade with Russia. A million drone d-day is launched at Southern Ukraine and Crimea, backed with US tomahawks on Russian command and control. But come on, none of the lot around power in the US are going to do this. And we know the reason why, thanks to Bob Woodward.
Instead we face the growing consoliation of the axis of evil both militarily and economically, North Korean troops fighting on European soil (!), the further hollowing out of Ukraine’s future to attritional losses, and the cupboards of western defence reserves emptying.
Trump has not said he will leave Ukraine to fall. He has said he will force a (likely unpalatable) peace. It is reasonable to query whether this is a better or worse outcome to the alternative, but it’s rather fruitless to compare it to a scenario with almost no chance of materialising.
Comments
There was, or maybe still is, a complex plan ready to go instantly. They might be planning to return to some or all of it in the future, and I can clearly see the logic of trying to get the public on side with their highest everyday concerns first, but I would say it's quite a big gamble to suddenly swap that to throw it at the NHS, first.
My position is f-all to do with 'moral purity'; just as yours is nothing to do with helping Ukraine.
My position is this: a Russian victory in Ukraine is bad for the world, for a whole host of reasons that have been discussed before. That means for as long as Ukraine wants to fight, we need to support them in that fight, to the best of our abilities.
Trump's closing argument: "I'm not Hitler"
https://x.com/ProjectLincoln/status/1851689371566502399
He had more spirit in the House today that I can recall.
I have a nuanced view on inheritance tax. While I acknowledge on a micro level it’s shit but on a macro level wealth accumulates and if you want a true meritocracy you need IHT
in the UK there are 27,800 Estates affected by IHT per annum, and a total of just over 200k farms.
Paul Johnson
@PJTheEconomist
·
3m
Amazingly new government, new chancellor, same old ridiculousness. Still working to public finance forecasts which assume fuel duty will rise with inflation and "temporary" 5p cut will be reinstated. But if not this year, what chance that will ever really happen?
And that was basically inevitable.
Right up there with reannouncing something as if it is new money, and taking credit for things that were put in place before you were on the scene.
But again, you fail to answer the question. So I ask again: what do you think Trump will do to help Ukraine?
"Budget policies will increase UK borrowing by £19.6bn this year and by an average of £32.3bn over the next five years, according to the OBR"
This is the part of the budget that I am appalled at. We needed more taxes. We absolutely did not need to increase spending like this. We cannot afford it.
Of course that was very much the cosplay, mythical Thatcher rather than the actual one. Who understood sequencing and that some taxes had to go up, the ship be steadied, and calculations tilted before you could get agressive and reshape the country.
Whereas Truss came in at a point when we'd just had to borrow vast sums for Covid and Ukraine, from a weak position to start with due to previous mismanagement, more than a decade of low growth, and big obligations coming down the track that it was and is politically impossible to avoid (hence some of Reeves' unpleasant decisions).
So no one was going to stake you the bet you could slash taxes and pay for it all with boosted growth, when everything pointed to it being both a risky (but not completely implausible) bet, but one that if it didn't come in we were unlikely to be good for.
Biden was not going to change his policy of containment and a bloody war of attrition, with the goal of no clear winner. And unless I’ve missed it, Harris has said absolutely nothing to suggest her policy would be different. So should Ukraine broker a fragile peace with sub optimal boundaries now? Or strike a likely fairly similar deal some period down the line, with tens of thousands of additional dead?
I don’t know anyone living in Ukraine but I suspect this is a conversation that is being quietly whispered. A shame Leon is banned, he might have useful insight after his recent visits.
You having the audacity of a Ukraine flag in your avatar when you want Ukraine betrayed is as two-faced as countries declaring themselves Democratic.
The employers NIC rise will impact all public sector budgets, from binmen to High Court judges. It will be quite a cost pressure on my Trust.
Fully agreed.
You have zero integrity.
If the argument is a colder one about Ukraine's position being unlikely to improve to reach a better settlement than they might get if they sue for peace now, many will disagree, but it is a different argument entirely to blanket statements, as are being made, that arguing against a deal 'now' is expecting others to die for moral purity or that peace will prevent deaths, which, yes, clearly, and that has to be weighed up by those actually involved in the decisions, but it's not the 'only' factor Ukraine or its various supporters will consider.
All of which is still secondary to idea to whether immediate cessation of support, as is implied by Trump in saying he will end the war very quickly, is better for Ukraine and others than a grinding quagmire. And that is hardly being argued honestly, since some argue instead that people should ignore what Trump says, because he wouldn't really do it, which is even less analytical than people ignoring potential escalation risks.
41 27 good vs bad for the budget
Big support for Minimum wage, NHS funding
Neutral on NI
Firmly against bus fare cap increase
Initial verdict a relief for no 10 but no narrative changer yet
Trump means the withdrawal of all US aid and diplomatic support.
I actually think without Boris Johnson, there’s a high chance Kyev would indeed have fallen in those early weeks, so calamitous has Biden’s policy stance been. But it’s not trendy to given Boris Johnson credit for anything.
They probably wrote the budget they wanted to do 18 months or more ago, but have to readjust some ideas due to prevailing winds. Like, if inflationary pressures and high interest rates still in system, a growth growth growth budgets will hit inflation and interest rates and mortgage deals. Another example is to keep close eye on size of borrowing and costs on that borrowing - personally I find one in every ten pound UK government spends just pays off our loan bills is wrongheaded waste. Yuk.
So to not just do everything you want, your supporters and voters and party donors want, taper it to what situation allows, is probably quite sensible really. Looking at political history, previous incoming governments, especially in growth chasing boom and bust sixties and seventies, were not as smart and cautious - I’m looking at how Labour started 1974-1979 as being witless architects of their own pain. In fact, Lady Thatchers government 1979-1983 is a better example of today’s budget - Lady Thatcher promising tax cuts, but in fact putting up taxes instead, including windfall tax on industry and business, because it was simply the right thing to do at the time.
Another consideration for us, are those considerations the OBR just can’t make in their forcasts. The OBR have to say what growth will be on facts and stats at their fingertips - known knowns - the OBR can’t tell us growth in 2029 will be insane overheating 5%, due to Starmer as promised climbing on a bulldozer and destroying all sorts of laws and restrictions, becuase he hasn’t done it, and might never do it as advertised. Doesn’t mean to say though, future budgets this parliament won’t get creative to boost growth. If prevailing winds allow.
All of which might be true, I'm not a geopolitical analyst, but even if it is true, could people think that is superior to Trump and Vance looking actively hostile at more support to Ukraine? I'd say people definitely could, and it doesn't mean those people don't care about people suffering and dying in a war because they don't agree that hastening a deal at this time would be the best for anybody.
(1) the number used as short term lets (mostly for AirBnB)
(2) the number that are long-term empty
(3) the number that are furnished but empty
(4) the number that are second homes
In one London borough, the combination of (2) and (4) alone accounts for a quarter of all properties!
It is true that the UK does not have large numbers of empty homes built on the coast for tourists. But we do definitely have a problem in London of underutilized housing. And imposing a proper council tax surcharge on people like me who own places but inhabit it rarely can only be good for housing availability.
Biden is constrained by what Congress will approve and it is the GOP who have been the ones he's struggled to carry.
Trump wants even less support to go to Ukraine and he's explicit on that.
The NHS is a more tangible public priority than growth, but they can't l leave it too long.
Ukraine is not the aggressor, here. Ukraine is not waging war against a Russia that seeks peace.
Russia could have had peace, at any point in the past two years and nine months. Ergo, Russia is not seeking peace.
Car dealerships in chaos as shock ruling leaves market at risk of collapse
Lenders pause vehicle loans as forecourts face dramatic rethink of sales practices
Britain’s biggest banks and lenders are scrambling to avoid a collapse in the car sales market after a shock court judgement prompted chaos at forecourts across the country.
A ruling from the Court of Appeal on commissions paid to car salesmen has forced several lenders to pause loans, and dealerships to urgently revise their sales practices to avoid a paralysis in the market.
Lloyds Bank, one of the UK’s largest motor financiers through its Black Horse arm, became the latest lender to revamp its practices by abolishing bonuses paid to car dealers.
The bank has introduced a “no commission” contract, meaning no fees will be paid to dealerships.
William Chalmers, Lloyds’s chief of finance, held an urgent call with investors last night to explain the situation, saying it wanted to stand by its customers and the UK economy to carry on lending.
Car finance is the biggest source of funding used by drivers to buy new vehicles, with nine in every 10 cars bought by motorists relying on a loan, according to Autotrader.
There are fears a loan famine would effectively freeze up the market – damaging the already under-fire sector.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2024/10/30/ministers-scramble-to-prevent-car-sale-market-collapsing/
Both of them, gone.
At most that will be 10s of millions extra per annum, which is not a lot for a weekly audience of 300m+.
In 2024/25 the government contributed £104m towards the £366m cost of the BBC’s World Service, but the BBC said it was increasingly unable to fund services. In March, the BBC Director General Tim Davie said: "We cannot keep asking UK Licence Fee payers to invest in (the World Service) when we face cuts to UK services.
"We will need to discuss a long-term funding solution for the World Service that comes from central government budgets.”
Funding of the BBC World Service was for most of its history fully funded by the British government until it was announced in 2010 that the cost would be passed onto the BBC.
In 2016, the Government awarded the BBC a grant of £291m to cover the years 2020 to 2024 to help with the World Service’s modernisation and made further contributions in the years after.
BBC rolling blog, so tricky to deep link.
Trump, Vance and MAGA favour not giving weapons to Ukraine at all.
Will there come a point they cannot as a nation keep bearing the cost, even with the horrendous alternative of abandoning people to rule by Moscow? Maybe. Is there a point where supporting nations do not feel able to support Ukraine to avoid such an outcome as long and as much as they can because of wider costs and concerns? Unfortunately.
Is that time now? It doesn't have to be, and personally I don't think the calculation allies are making towards Ukraine are as simplistic as peace=good, even if the preferred outcome - Russia out of Ukraine completely - is probably not realistic or even a US goal.
I feel like that is relatively nuanced enough.
And as noted that some people don't believe what Trump is saying make the argument to the contrary trickier, since is enforcing a 'peace' good or not, if we might not believe the person pushing that position the hardest?
I'm glad it didn't go up, even though I don't often drink in pubs, but one penny off?
What's the fucking point?
The shock is going to be Black Horse removing the commission payments and where the car dealer will make up the shortfall in profits.
A harbinger for the improvement in the reputation of new car salesmen?
Is this going to be as big a flop as Black Horse Estate Agencies?
Why wouldn't Russia keep grinding forward in Donetsk in the hope that they will exhaust Ukraine's ability to resist? They might reasonably hope to demolish Kharkiv and occupy the ruins of that city too. It's a grotesque fallacy that Ukraine, or its western supporters, are prolonging the war.
Russia is only going to stop if we provide the Ukrainians with the weapons they need to fight the war effectively, by destroying Russian equipment and soldiers behind the front lines.
So yes, Biden hasn't been as strong on Ukraine as he could have been, for bad and good reasons. But the idea that Trump would be better is delusional.
https://www.tesco.com/groceries/en-GB/products/265553901
At least the fuckers can't tax walking
Andrew Tate replying to @Scwarzenegger
The worst thing about going from nothing to super rich and famous as I have is realising all your heros are sellouts.
You meet these people you once loved, and trust me, youre dissapointed.
So sad.
Being serious, given his past comments about January 6th it's not like it would have surprised anyone which way Arnold was learning.
Instead we face the growing consoliation of the axis of evil both militarily and economically, North Korean troops fighting on European soil (!), the further hollowing out of Ukraine’s future to attritional losses, and the cupboards of western defence reserves emptying.
Trump has not said he will leave Ukraine to fall. He has said he will force a (likely unpalatable) peace. It is reasonable to query whether this is a better or worse outcome to the alternative, but it’s rather fruitless to compare it to a scenario with almost no chance of materialising.