Bloody hell, the mood music has gone sombre even more quickly than I expected.
Lord Dannatt: there is going to have to be some sort of a negotiated settlement between Ukraine and Russia.
Macron and Starmer have just jointly reiterated their support for Zelensky and Ukraine in Paris, together after the US they lead the strongest militaries in NATO.
Dannatt is not even a serving general now
If you think NATO will take on Russia without US full support than you have not taken on board the full implications of what has just happened
If NATO is not willing to contain Putin because the US has a more isolationist President then it is redundant and if Russian troops are in Warsaw, Talinn, Helsinki and Berlin by the end of the decade we have nobody to blame but ourselves
The problem is that what you are fearing could happen anyway even if Russia is defeated in Ukraine. No one knows. There are just too many variables/unknowns.
While I appreciate your point re variables and unknowns I seriously doubt Russia could then invade all those Nato countries if Ukraine manages to defeat Russia. Ukraine has inflicted huge damage on Russia's forces with only a fraction of the firepower and manpower of that list of Nato powers and you are actually talking about a scenario where Ukraine actually wins.
If Ukraine wins then Russia will be completely broken. I would be amazed if there aren't subsequent uprisings in Belarus and other places for Russia to deal with let alone worrying about Nato.
Invasion isn't Russia's full aim.
Russia has two ways of gaining 'control' over a territory. Its first is political: to get into place a leadership, and preferably population, that is to a large degree pro-Russian, and which will do Putin's bidding. New media is a very handy weapon in its arsenal. Putin has been successful in places like Belarus and Hungary.
When that fails, Putin considers limited invasions. Georgia in 2008; Ukraine in 2014. Some argue that Ukraine in 2022 was not an attempt to take over the whole country directly (aside from the eastern territories); it was an attempt to defenestrate the pro-western leadership and install a proxy pro-Russian government.
Which is where the Korean analogy rather breaks down. If the price of Western Ukraine being free to orient towards Europe is Crimea etc.. That sucks and all that, but there might be something to talk about with a very heavy heart. If the price of an end to the war is division and Western Ukraine being a Russian satellite... That's rather different and much harder to swallow.
No, I don't have a good answer.
AFAIK the Russians haven't been pressing to reincorporate Kyiv and Western Ukraine, where the population is overwhlemingly hostile - their claim is Crimea plus the eastern provinces. If they were offered that in return for giving the bulk of Ukraine a free hand to join NATO, it might be tempting, especially if linked to the dropping of the current punitive measures. I don't see any Russian attempt to take on a NATO member.
But what's needed is some negotiations. We're all speculating and it's not clear if a viable deal is possible.
I have to ask again: by "eastern provinces", do you mean just the territory of them that Russia currently controls, or all of them, including territory (and people!) that are Ukrainian.
And what about Kursk? Does Ukraine get to keep that territory?
It'd be good if you'd answer that, as it might make what seems to be a reasonable proposition on your part rather more pro-Russian.
I doubt if Kursk is up for grabs - the Ukrainian move there is tactical. Conversely I don't think that Ukraine should be expected to yield Ukrainian terrain that it's not already lost. But my main point is that these issues should be explored in negotiations, instead of simply assuming that each side will insist on something impossible. +
Ukraine have made efforts to negotiate a mutual end to attacks on civilian energy infrastructure. This could be seen as a confidence-building measure that could lead to wider negotiations over ending the conflict as a whole.
Russia has made very clear that it isn't interested.
All the commentary from the pro-negotiation aside is based on the premise that it is Ukraine and the West who are preventing negotiations from starting. But it isn't. Russia is still pushing its maximalist goals of seizing the entire Black Sea coast and the eastern provinces, including Kharkiv, with rump Ukraine not in NATO or the EU and disarming.
Given Russia's maximalist demands what do we do?
I agree that the Biden strategy of providing the least amount of support to prevent Ukrainian defeat, in the hope that Russia will voluntarily stop the war, has failed. We have the choice then between a total defeat for Ukraine, or providing more support in the hope of either a Ukrainian victory, or at least creating the pressure on Russia to start more realistic negotiations.
The grain deal might be instructive. A deal that was somewhat pro-Russian, but advantageous to both. Which was then broken, and not extended, by Russia.
Yet grain is flowing across the Black Sea - mainly because Ukraine has pretty much stopped Russia's capability of stopping ships carrying Ukrainian grain. The much-vaunted Black Sea fleet is now either submarines, or have fled away from the Black Sea.
Russia can be beaten, given the will and the weapons.
Bloody hell, the mood music has gone sombre even more quickly than I expected.
Lord Dannatt: there is going to have to be some sort of a negotiated settlement between Ukraine and Russia.
Macron and Starmer have just jointly reiterated their support for Zelensky and Ukraine in Paris, together after the US they lead the strongest militaries in NATO.
Dannatt is not even a serving general now
If you think NATO will take on Russia without US full support than you have not taken on board the full implications of what has just happened
If NATO is not willing to contain Putin because the US has a more isolationist President then it is redundant and if Russian troops are in Warsaw, Talinn, Helsinki and Berlin by the end of the decade we have nobody to blame but ourselves
The problem is that what you are fearing could happen anyway even if Russia is defeated in Ukraine. No one knows. There are just too many variables/unknowns.
While I appreciate your point re variables and unknowns I seriously doubt Russia could then invade all those Nato countries if Ukraine manages to defeat Russia. Ukraine has inflicted huge damage on Russia's forces with only a fraction of the firepower and manpower of that list of Nato powers and you are actually talking about a scenario where Ukraine actually wins.
If Ukraine wins then Russia will be completely broken. I would be amazed if there aren't subsequent uprisings in Belarus and other places for Russia to deal with let alone worrying about Nato.
Invasion isn't Russia's full aim.
Russia has two ways of gaining 'control' over a territory. Its first is political: to get into place a leadership, and preferably population, that is to a large degree pro-Russian, and which will do Putin's bidding. New media is a very handy weapon in its arsenal. Putin has been successful in places like Belarus and Hungary.
When that fails, Putin considers limited invasions. Georgia in 2008; Ukraine in 2014. Some argue that Ukraine in 2022 was not an attempt to take over the whole country directly (aside from the eastern territories); it was an attempt to defenestrate the pro-western leadership and install a proxy pro-Russian government.
Which is where the Korean analogy rather breaks down. If the price of Western Ukraine being free to orient towards Europe is Crimea etc.. That sucks and all that, but there might be something to talk about with a very heavy heart. If the price of an end to the war is division and Western Ukraine being a Russian satellite... That's rather different and much harder to swallow.
No, I don't have a good answer.
AFAIK the Russians haven't been pressing to reincorporate Kyiv and Western Ukraine, where the population is overwhlemingly hostile - their claim is Crimea plus the eastern provinces. If they were offered that in return for giving the bulk of Ukraine a free hand to join NATO, it might be tempting, especially if linked to the dropping of the current punitive measures. I don't see any Russian attempt to take on a NATO member.
But what's needed is some negotiations. We're all speculating and it's not clear if a viable deal is possible.
I have to ask again: by "eastern provinces", do you mean just the territory of them that Russia currently controls, or all of them, including territory (and people!) that are Ukrainian.
And what about Kursk? Does Ukraine get to keep that territory?
It'd be good if you'd answer that, as it might make what seems to be a reasonable proposition on your part rather more pro-Russian.
I doubt if Kursk is up for grabs - the Ukrainian move there is tactical. Conversely I don't think that Ukraine should be expected to yield Ukrainian terrain that it's not already lost. But my main point is that these issues should be explored in negotiations, instead of simply assuming that each side will insist on something impossible. +
Ukraine have made efforts to negotiate a mutual end to attacks on civilian energy infrastructure. This could be seen as a confidence-building measure that could lead to wider negotiations over ending the conflict as a whole.
Russia has made very clear that it isn't interested.
All the commentary from the pro-negotiation aside is based on the premise that it is Ukraine and the West who are preventing negotiations from starting. But it isn't. Russia is still pushing its maximalist goals of seizing the entire Black Sea coast and the eastern provinces, including Kharkiv, with rump Ukraine not in NATO or the EU and disarming.
Given Russia's maximalist demands what do we do?
I agree that the Biden strategy of providing the least amount of support to prevent Ukrainian defeat, in the hope that Russia will voluntarily stop the war, has failed. We have the choice then between a total defeat for Ukraine, or providing more support in the hope of either a Ukrainian victory, or at least creating the pressure on Russia to start more realistic negotiations.
The energy infrastructure debate has largely been forgotten. When the Ukrainians went after it earlier in the year Biden publicly urged them to stop doing it as it might affect the global price of oil. One wonders now if they may no longer be of an inclination to 'obey' his wishes.
Bloody hell, the mood music has gone sombre even more quickly than I expected.
Lord Dannatt: there is going to have to be some sort of a negotiated settlement between Ukraine and Russia.
Macron and Starmer have just jointly reiterated their support for Zelensky and Ukraine in Paris, together after the US they lead the strongest militaries in NATO.
Dannatt is not even a serving general now
If you think NATO will take on Russia without US full support than you have not taken on board the full implications of what has just happened
If NATO is not willing to contain Putin because the US has a more isolationist President then it is redundant and if Russian troops are in Warsaw, Talinn, Helsinki and Berlin by the end of the decade we have nobody to blame but ourselves
The problem is that what you are fearing could happen anyway even if Russia is defeated in Ukraine. No one knows. There are just too many variables/unknowns.
While I appreciate your point re variables and unknowns I seriously doubt Russia could then invade all those Nato countries if Ukraine manages to defeat Russia. Ukraine has inflicted huge damage on Russia's forces with only a fraction of the firepower and manpower of that list of Nato powers and you are actually talking about a scenario where Ukraine actually wins.
If Ukraine wins then Russia will be completely broken. I would be amazed if there aren't subsequent uprisings in Belarus and other places for Russia to deal with let alone worrying about Nato.
Invasion isn't Russia's full aim.
Russia has two ways of gaining 'control' over a territory. Its first is political: to get into place a leadership, and preferably population, that is to a large degree pro-Russian, and which will do Putin's bidding. New media is a very handy weapon in its arsenal. Putin has been successful in places like Belarus and Hungary.
When that fails, Putin considers limited invasions. Georgia in 2008; Ukraine in 2014. Some argue that Ukraine in 2022 was not an attempt to take over the whole country directly (aside from the eastern territories); it was an attempt to defenestrate the pro-western leadership and install a proxy pro-Russian government.
Which is where the Korean analogy rather breaks down. If the price of Western Ukraine being free to orient towards Europe is Crimea etc.. That sucks and all that, but there might be something to talk about with a very heavy heart. If the price of an end to the war is division and Western Ukraine being a Russian satellite... That's rather different and much harder to swallow.
No, I don't have a good answer.
AFAIK the Russians haven't been pressing to reincorporate Kyiv and Western Ukraine, where the population is overwhlemingly hostile - their claim is Crimea plus the eastern provinces. If they were offered that in return for giving the bulk of Ukraine a free hand to join NATO, it might be tempting, especially if linked to the dropping of the current punitive measures. I don't see any Russian attempt to take on a NATO member.
But what's needed is some negotiations. We're all speculating and it's not clear if a viable deal is possible.
I have to ask again: by "eastern provinces", do you mean just the territory of them that Russia currently controls, or all of them, including territory (and people!) that are Ukrainian.
And what about Kursk? Does Ukraine get to keep that territory?
It'd be good if you'd answer that, as it might make what seems to be a reasonable proposition on your part rather more pro-Russian.
I doubt if Kursk is up for grabs - the Ukrainian move there is tactical. Conversely I don't think that Ukraine should be expected to yield Ukrainian terrain that it's not already lost. But my main point is that these issues should be explored in negotiations, instead of simply assuming that each side will insist on something impossible. +
Ukraine have made efforts to negotiate a mutual end to attacks on civilian energy infrastructure. This could be seen as a confidence-building measure that could lead to wider negotiations over ending the conflict as a whole.
Russia has made very clear that it isn't interested.
All the commentary from the pro-negotiation aside is based on the premise that it is Ukraine and the West who are preventing negotiations from starting. But it isn't. Russia is still pushing its maximalist goals of seizing the entire Black Sea coast and the eastern provinces, including Kharkiv, with rump Ukraine not in NATO or the EU and disarming.
Given Russia's maximalist demands what do we do?
I agree that the Biden strategy of providing the least amount of support to prevent Ukrainian defeat, in the hope that Russia will voluntarily stop the war, has failed. We have the choice then between a total defeat for Ukraine, or providing more support in the hope of either a Ukrainian victory, or at least creating the pressure on Russia to start more realistic negotiations.
The energy infrastructure debate has largely been forgotten. When the Ukrainians went after it earlier in the year Biden publicly urged them to stop doing it as it might affect the global price of oil. One wonders now if they may no longer be of an inclination to 'obey' his wishes.
They will be eager to demonstrate to Trump that (1) they can achieve success against Russia and Russia is not so strong, (2) that they can do this with their own weapons and are not totally reliant on American handouts, and, (3) that Trump can support them, as the winning side, without it costing him much, at all.
I think that counts against oil infrastructure attacks in the short term, because Trump has no more interest in a high oil price than Biden. Ukraine did hit another ammunition depot in Russia recently, and that would count towards (1) and (2).
There are conflicting briefings from the Trump camp on Ukraine, suggesting there's a bit of a tussle over the detail of the implementation of the policy.
Bloody hell, the mood music has gone sombre even more quickly than I expected.
Lord Dannatt: there is going to have to be some sort of a negotiated settlement between Ukraine and Russia.
Macron and Starmer have just jointly reiterated their support for Zelensky and Ukraine in Paris, together after the US they lead the strongest militaries in NATO.
Dannatt is not even a serving general now
If you think NATO will take on Russia without US full support than you have not taken on board the full implications of what has just happened
If NATO is not willing to contain Putin because the US has a more isolationist President then it is redundant and if Russian troops are in Warsaw, Talinn, Helsinki and Berlin by the end of the decade we have nobody to blame but ourselves
The problem is that what you are fearing could happen anyway even if Russia is defeated in Ukraine. No one knows. There are just too many variables/unknowns.
While I appreciate your point re variables and unknowns I seriously doubt Russia could then invade all those Nato countries if Ukraine manages to defeat Russia. Ukraine has inflicted huge damage on Russia's forces with only a fraction of the firepower and manpower of that list of Nato powers and you are actually talking about a scenario where Ukraine actually wins.
If Ukraine wins then Russia will be completely broken. I would be amazed if there aren't subsequent uprisings in Belarus and other places for Russia to deal with let alone worrying about Nato.
There are lots of things going on though, like advances in technology, and instability in NATO. There are many scenarios. Propoganda / psychological warfare, of which the Russians are brilliant at, could make the western powers lose the resolve to defend themselves. The Russian state can also invent narratives to explain defeat or abandonment of the conflict, already it has the narrative that it is single handedly fighting NATO; something that has a lot of traction outside of the west. So it just may not work out the way we expect it will based on past experience.
The real problem I have with what a lot of people are saying is that if the 'strategic goal' is to inflict a defeat on Russia, why hasn't it happened to date? The western countries apparently have the means to do it but they don't. So if you aren't going to do that, then just get on with doing something else, why do 4 more years of the same non strategy? This is why I think Trump is an opportunity rather than the threat assumed by others.
It isn't the West defeating Russia. It is Russia's own machismo/stupidity being used against itself to break Russia.
If Russia loses a piece of Ukrainian turf - a field or a tree-line - then Russsia's immediate reaction is to send meatwave after meatwave, tank and IFV after tank and IFV to recover that loss. All for an area of no strategic value. The vast Soviet reserves of materiel have been exhausted. Russia is down to what Russia can produce - which is limited by sanctions. It is effectively unable to replace AWACS and can hardly make any fighter jets. A month's production of tanks gets lost in a week. Specialist troops are sent to form meatwaves. Those who would train replacements are themselves sent to the front, where survival measures days not weeks. It's navy has been defeated and removed from the field of battle by a country with no navy.
And the biggest losses to Russia are not military. They are economic.
It's economy is on a war-footing, but regardless of win or lose, the end of the fighting means the reveal of a disaster for that economy.
I am seeing it on Saturday, if anybody posts spoilers they are getting exiled to ConHome for the rest of their lives.
There's this chap called Gibbon. He did the book of the film, so you might want to avoid that, even if it has some corking sequences:
Since Romulus, with a small band of shepherds and outlaws, fortified himself on the hills near the Tiber, ten centuries had already elapsed. (59) During the first four ages, the Romans, in the laborious school of poverty, had acquired the virtues of war and government; by the vigorous exertion of those virtues, and by the assistance of fortune, they had obtained, in the course of the three succeeding centuries, an absolute empire over many countries of Europe, Asia, and Africa. The last three hundred years had been consumed in apparent prosperity and internal decline. The nation of soldiers, magistrates, and legislators, who composed the thirty-five tribes of the Roman people, was dissolved into the common mass of mankind and confounded with the millions of servile provincials, who had received the name without adopting the spirit of Romans. A mercenary army, levied among the subjects and barbarians of the frontier, was the only order of men who preserved and abused their independence. By their tumultuary election, a Syrian, a Goth, or an Arab, was exalted to the throne of Rome, and invested with despotic power over the conquests and over the country of the Scipios
I am seeing it on Saturday, if anybody posts spoilers they are getting exiled to ConHome for the rest of their lives.
There's this chap called Gibbon. He did the book of the film, so you might want to avoid that, even if it has some corking sequences:
Since Romulus, with a small band of shepherds and outlaws, fortified himself on the hills near the Tiber, ten centuries had already elapsed. (59) During the first four ages, the Romans, in the laborious school of poverty, had acquired the virtues of war and government; by the vigorous exertion of those virtues, and by the assistance of fortune, they had obtained, in the course of the three succeeding centuries, an absolute empire over many countries of Europe, Asia, and Africa. The last three hundred years had been consumed in apparent prosperity and internal decline. The nation of soldiers, magistrates, and legislators, who composed the thirty-five tribes of the Roman people, was dissolved into the common mass of mankind and confounded with the millions of servile provincials, who had received the name without adopting the spirit of Romans. A mercenary army, levied among the subjects and barbarians of the frontier, was the only order of men who preserved and abused their independence. By their tumultuary election, a Syrian, a Goth, or an Arab, was exalted to the throne of Rome, and invested with despotic power over the conquests and over the country of the Scipios
Sounds a bit.. Matt Godwin... your Gibbon chap. Are you sure you should be quoting him?
I am seeing it on Saturday, if anybody posts spoilers they are getting exiled to ConHome for the rest of their lives.
There's this chap called Gibbon. He did the book of the film, so you might want to avoid that, even if it has some corking sequences:
Since Romulus, with a small band of shepherds and outlaws, fortified himself on the hills near the Tiber, ten centuries had already elapsed. (59) During the first four ages, the Romans, in the laborious school of poverty, had acquired the virtues of war and government; by the vigorous exertion of those virtues, and by the assistance of fortune, they had obtained, in the course of the three succeeding centuries, an absolute empire over many countries of Europe, Asia, and Africa. The last three hundred years had been consumed in apparent prosperity and internal decline. The nation of soldiers, magistrates, and legislators, who composed the thirty-five tribes of the Roman people, was dissolved into the common mass of mankind and confounded with the millions of servile provincials, who had received the name without adopting the spirit of Romans. A mercenary army, levied among the subjects and barbarians of the frontier, was the only order of men who preserved and abused their independence. By their tumultuary election, a Syrian, a Goth, or an Arab, was exalted to the throne of Rome, and invested with despotic power over the conquests and over the country of the Scipios
Sounds a bit.. Matt Godwin... your Gibbon chap. Are you sure you should be quoting him?
Gibbon was especially bothered by the "effeminate and degenerate" Greeks.
I am seeing it on Saturday, if anybody posts spoilers they are getting exiled to ConHome for the rest of their lives.
There's this chap called Gibbon. He did the book of the film, so you might want to avoid that, even if it has some corking sequences:
Since Romulus, with a small band of shepherds and outlaws, fortified himself on the hills near the Tiber, ten centuries had already elapsed. (59) During the first four ages, the Romans, in the laborious school of poverty, had acquired the virtues of war and government; by the vigorous exertion of those virtues, and by the assistance of fortune, they had obtained, in the course of the three succeeding centuries, an absolute empire over many countries of Europe, Asia, and Africa. The last three hundred years had been consumed in apparent prosperity and internal decline. The nation of soldiers, magistrates, and legislators, who composed the thirty-five tribes of the Roman people, was dissolved into the common mass of mankind and confounded with the millions of servile provincials, who had received the name without adopting the spirit of Romans. A mercenary army, levied among the subjects and barbarians of the frontier, was the only order of men who preserved and abused their independence. By their tumultuary election, a Syrian, a Goth, or an Arab, was exalted to the throne of Rome, and invested with despotic power over the conquests and over the country of the Scipios
Sounds a bit.. Matt Godwin... your Gibbon chap. Are you sure you should be quoting him?
That's quite mild compared to some of his other stuff. Especially about the C of E and the University of Oxford.
I am seeing it on Saturday, if anybody posts spoilers they are getting exiled to ConHome for the rest of their lives.
There's this chap called Gibbon. He did the book of the film, so you might want to avoid that, even if it has some corking sequences:
Since Romulus, with a small band of shepherds and outlaws, fortified himself on the hills near the Tiber, ten centuries had already elapsed. (59) During the first four ages, the Romans, in the laborious school of poverty, had acquired the virtues of war and government; by the vigorous exertion of those virtues, and by the assistance of fortune, they had obtained, in the course of the three succeeding centuries, an absolute empire over many countries of Europe, Asia, and Africa. The last three hundred years had been consumed in apparent prosperity and internal decline. The nation of soldiers, magistrates, and legislators, who composed the thirty-five tribes of the Roman people, was dissolved into the common mass of mankind and confounded with the millions of servile provincials, who had received the name without adopting the spirit of Romans. A mercenary army, levied among the subjects and barbarians of the frontier, was the only order of men who preserved and abused their independence. By their tumultuary election, a Syrian, a Goth, or an Arab, was exalted to the throne of Rome, and invested with despotic power over the conquests and over the country of the Scipios
A Syrian, a Goth and an Arab wander into a taberna...
Bloody hell, the mood music has gone sombre even more quickly than I expected.
Lord Dannatt: there is going to have to be some sort of a negotiated settlement between Ukraine and Russia.
Macron and Starmer have just jointly reiterated their support for Zelensky and Ukraine in Paris, together after the US they lead the strongest militaries in NATO.
Dannatt is not even a serving general now
If you think NATO will take on Russia without US full support than you have not taken on board the full implications of what has just happened
If NATO is not willing to contain Putin because the US has a more isolationist President then it is redundant and if Russian troops are in Warsaw, Talinn, Helsinki and Berlin by the end of the decade we have nobody to blame but ourselves
The problem is that what you are fearing could happen anyway even if Russia is defeated in Ukraine. No one knows. There are just too many variables/unknowns.
While I appreciate your point re variables and unknowns I seriously doubt Russia could then invade all those Nato countries if Ukraine manages to defeat Russia. Ukraine has inflicted huge damage on Russia's forces with only a fraction of the firepower and manpower of that list of Nato powers and you are actually talking about a scenario where Ukraine actually wins.
If Ukraine wins then Russia will be completely broken. I would be amazed if there aren't subsequent uprisings in Belarus and other places for Russia to deal with let alone worrying about Nato.
There are lots of things going on though, like advances in technology, and instability in NATO. There are many scenarios. Propoganda / psychological warfare, of which the Russians are brilliant at, could make the western powers lose the resolve to defend themselves. The Russian state can also invent narratives to explain defeat or abandonment of the conflict, already it has the narrative that it is single handedly fighting NATO; something that has a lot of traction outside of the west. So it just may not work out the way we expect it will based on past experience.
The real problem I have with what a lot of people are saying is that if the 'strategic goal' is to inflict a defeat on Russia, why hasn't it happened to date? The western countries apparently have the means to do it but they don't. So if you aren't going to do that, then just get on with doing something else, why do 4 more years of the same non strategy? This is why I think Trump is an opportunity rather than the threat assumed by others.
It isn't the West defeating Russia. It is Russia's own machismo/stupidity being used against itself to break Russia.
If Russia loses a piece of Ukrainian turf - a field or a tree-line - then Russsia's immediate reaction is to send meatwave after meatwave, tank and IFV after tank and IFV to recover that loss. All for an area of no strategic value. The vast Soviet reserves of materiel have been exhausted. Russia is down to what Russia can produce - which is limited by sanctions. It is effectively unable to replace AWACS and can hardly make any fighter jets. A month's production of tanks gets lost in a week. Specialist troops are sent to form meatwaves. Those who would train replacements are themselves sent to the front, where survival measures days not weeks. It's navy has been defeated and removed from the field of battle by a country with no navy.
And the biggest losses to Russia are not military. They are economic.
It's economy is on a war-footing, but regardless of win or lose, the end of the fighting means the reveal of a disaster for that economy.
I get this argument. However this strategy has gone on for what - 18 months? There is no sign of collapse in Russia, it seems to just innovate. On the other hand it is clearly having an impact on Ukraine and its ability to defend itself, men being lost without replacements, fatigue building up etc.
I was not keen on 4 more years of this under the democrats as I don't see how the situation works to Ukraine's advantage; if the western allies don't have the will or means to defeat Russia in Ukraine (as appears to be the case), then inevitably we have to come to some alternative arrangement that preserves security in Europe. Obviously it could go very wrong with Trump, but it feels to me like he is the best hope for progressing the situation.
I am seeing it on Saturday, if anybody posts spoilers they are getting exiled to ConHome for the rest of their lives.
There's this chap called Gibbon. He did the book of the film, so you might want to avoid that, even if it has some corking sequences:
Since Romulus, with a small band of shepherds and outlaws, fortified himself on the hills near the Tiber, ten centuries had already elapsed. (59) During the first four ages, the Romans, in the laborious school of poverty, had acquired the virtues of war and government; by the vigorous exertion of those virtues, and by the assistance of fortune, they had obtained, in the course of the three succeeding centuries, an absolute empire over many countries of Europe, Asia, and Africa. The last three hundred years had been consumed in apparent prosperity and internal decline. The nation of soldiers, magistrates, and legislators, who composed the thirty-five tribes of the Roman people, was dissolved into the common mass of mankind and confounded with the millions of servile provincials, who had received the name without adopting the spirit of Romans. A mercenary army, levied among the subjects and barbarians of the frontier, was the only order of men who preserved and abused their independence. By their tumultuary election, a Syrian, a Goth, or an Arab, was exalted to the throne of Rome, and invested with despotic power over the conquests and over the country of the Scipios
Sounds a bit.. Matt Godwin... your Gibbon chap. Are you sure you should be quoting him?
Gibbon was especially bothered by the "effeminate and degenerate" Greeks.
I am seeing it on Saturday, if anybody posts spoilers they are getting exiled to ConHome for the rest of their lives.
There's this chap called Gibbon. He did the book of the film, so you might want to avoid that, even if it has some corking sequences:
Since Romulus, with a small band of shepherds and outlaws, fortified himself on the hills near the Tiber, ten centuries had already elapsed. (59) During the first four ages, the Romans, in the laborious school of poverty, had acquired the virtues of war and government; by the vigorous exertion of those virtues, and by the assistance of fortune, they had obtained, in the course of the three succeeding centuries, an absolute empire over many countries of Europe, Asia, and Africa. The last three hundred years had been consumed in apparent prosperity and internal decline. The nation of soldiers, magistrates, and legislators, who composed the thirty-five tribes of the Roman people, was dissolved into the common mass of mankind and confounded with the millions of servile provincials, who had received the name without adopting the spirit of Romans. A mercenary army, levied among the subjects and barbarians of the frontier, was the only order of men who preserved and abused their independence. By their tumultuary election, a Syrian, a Goth, or an Arab, was exalted to the throne of Rome, and invested with despotic power over the conquests and over the country of the Scipios
Sounds a bit.. Matt Godwin... your Gibbon chap. Are you sure you should be quoting him?
That's quite mild compared to some of his other stuff. Especially about the C of E and the University of Oxford.
This is fun:
"The expressions which issued the most readily from the mouth of the emperor of the West were, "Strike off his head;" — "Burn him alive;" "Let him be beaten with clubs till he expires;" and his most favoured ministers soon understood that, by a rash attempt to dispute or suspend the execution of his sanguinary commands; they might involve themselves in the guilt and punishment of disobedience. The repeated gratification of this savage justice hardened the mind of Valentinian against pity and remorse; and the sallies of passion were confirmed by the habits of cruelty. He could behold with calm satisfaction the convulsive agonies of torture and death: he reserved his friendship for those faithful servants whose temper was the most congenial to his own. The merit of Maximin, who had slaughtered the noblest families of Rome, was rewarded with the royal approbation, and the praefecture of Gaul. Two fierce and enormous bears, distinguished by the appellations of Innocence and Mica Aurea, could alone deserve to share the favour of Maximin. The cages of those trusty guards were always placed near the bed-chamber of Valentinian, who frequently amused his eyes with the grateful spectacle of seeing them tear and devour the bleeding limbs of the malefactors who were abandoned to their rage. Their diet and exercises were carefully inspected by the Roman emperor; and when Innocence had earned her discharge, by a long course of meritorious service, the faithful animal was again restored to the freedom of her native woods."
I am seeing it on Saturday, if anybody posts spoilers they are getting exiled to ConHome for the rest of their lives.
There's this chap called Gibbon. He did the book of the film, so you might want to avoid that, even if it has some corking sequences:
Since Romulus, with a small band of shepherds and outlaws, fortified himself on the hills near the Tiber, ten centuries had already elapsed. (59) During the first four ages, the Romans, in the laborious school of poverty, had acquired the virtues of war and government; by the vigorous exertion of those virtues, and by the assistance of fortune, they had obtained, in the course of the three succeeding centuries, an absolute empire over many countries of Europe, Asia, and Africa. The last three hundred years had been consumed in apparent prosperity and internal decline. The nation of soldiers, magistrates, and legislators, who composed the thirty-five tribes of the Roman people, was dissolved into the common mass of mankind and confounded with the millions of servile provincials, who had received the name without adopting the spirit of Romans. A mercenary army, levied among the subjects and barbarians of the frontier, was the only order of men who preserved and abused their independence. By their tumultuary election, a Syrian, a Goth, or an Arab, was exalted to the throne of Rome, and invested with despotic power over the conquests and over the country of the Scipios
Sounds a bit.. Matt Godwin... your Gibbon chap. Are you sure you should be quoting him?
That's quite mild compared to some of his other stuff. Especially about the C of E and the University of Oxford.
This is fun:
"The expressions which issued the most readily from the mouth of the emperor of the West were, "Strike off his head;" — "Burn him alive;" "Let him be beaten with clubs till he expires;" and his most favoured ministers soon understood that, by a rash attempt to dispute or suspend the execution of his sanguinary commands; they might involve themselves in the guilt and punishment of disobedience. The repeated gratification of this savage justice hardened the mind of Valentinian against pity and remorse; and the sallies of passion were confirmed by the habits of cruelty. He could behold with calm satisfaction the convulsive agonies of torture and death: he reserved his friendship for those faithful servants whose temper was the most congenial to his own. The merit of Maximin, who had slaughtered the noblest families of Rome, was rewarded with the royal approbation, and the praefecture of Gaul. Two fierce and enormous bears, distinguished by the appellations of Innocence and Mica Aurea, could alone deserve to share the favour of Maximin. The cages of those trusty guards were always placed near the bed-chamber of Valentinian, who frequently amused his eyes with the grateful spectacle of seeing them tear and devour the bleeding limbs of the malefactors who were abandoned to their rage. Their diet and exercises were carefully inspected by the Roman emperor; and when Innocence had earned her discharge, by a long course of meritorious service, the faithful animal was again restored to the freedom of her native woods."
BTW, which emperor(s) are Gladiator and G2 about? I thought the first was Maximinus Thrax but may be wrong ...
I am seeing it on Saturday, if anybody posts spoilers they are getting exiled to ConHome for the rest of their lives.
There's this chap called Gibbon. He did the book of the film, so you might want to avoid that, even if it has some corking sequences:
Since Romulus, with a small band of shepherds and outlaws, fortified himself on the hills near the Tiber, ten centuries had already elapsed. (59) During the first four ages, the Romans, in the laborious school of poverty, had acquired the virtues of war and government; by the vigorous exertion of those virtues, and by the assistance of fortune, they had obtained, in the course of the three succeeding centuries, an absolute empire over many countries of Europe, Asia, and Africa. The last three hundred years had been consumed in apparent prosperity and internal decline. The nation of soldiers, magistrates, and legislators, who composed the thirty-five tribes of the Roman people, was dissolved into the common mass of mankind and confounded with the millions of servile provincials, who had received the name without adopting the spirit of Romans. A mercenary army, levied among the subjects and barbarians of the frontier, was the only order of men who preserved and abused their independence. By their tumultuary election, a Syrian, a Goth, or an Arab, was exalted to the throne of Rome, and invested with despotic power over the conquests and over the country of the Scipios
Sounds a bit.. Matt Godwin... your Gibbon chap. Are you sure you should be quoting him?
That's quite mild compared to some of his other stuff. Especially about the C of E and the University of Oxford.
This is fun:
"The expressions which issued the most readily from the mouth of the emperor of the West were, "Strike off his head;" — "Burn him alive;" "Let him be beaten with clubs till he expires;" and his most favoured ministers soon understood that, by a rash attempt to dispute or suspend the execution of his sanguinary commands; they might involve themselves in the guilt and punishment of disobedience. The repeated gratification of this savage justice hardened the mind of Valentinian against pity and remorse; and the sallies of passion were confirmed by the habits of cruelty. He could behold with calm satisfaction the convulsive agonies of torture and death: he reserved his friendship for those faithful servants whose temper was the most congenial to his own. The merit of Maximin, who had slaughtered the noblest families of Rome, was rewarded with the royal approbation, and the praefecture of Gaul. Two fierce and enormous bears, distinguished by the appellations of Innocence and Mica Aurea, could alone deserve to share the favour of Maximin. The cages of those trusty guards were always placed near the bed-chamber of Valentinian, who frequently amused his eyes with the grateful spectacle of seeing them tear and devour the bleeding limbs of the malefactors who were abandoned to their rage. Their diet and exercises were carefully inspected by the Roman emperor; and when Innocence had earned her discharge, by a long course of meritorious service, the faithful animal was again restored to the freedom of her native woods."
BTW, which emperor(s) are Gladiator and G2 about? I thought the first was Maximinus Thrax but may be wrong ...
I am seeing it on Saturday, if anybody posts spoilers they are getting exiled to ConHome for the rest of their lives.
There's this chap called Gibbon. He did the book of the film, so you might want to avoid that, even if it has some corking sequences:
Since Romulus, with a small band of shepherds and outlaws, fortified himself on the hills near the Tiber, ten centuries had already elapsed. (59) During the first four ages, the Romans, in the laborious school of poverty, had acquired the virtues of war and government; by the vigorous exertion of those virtues, and by the assistance of fortune, they had obtained, in the course of the three succeeding centuries, an absolute empire over many countries of Europe, Asia, and Africa. The last three hundred years had been consumed in apparent prosperity and internal decline. The nation of soldiers, magistrates, and legislators, who composed the thirty-five tribes of the Roman people, was dissolved into the common mass of mankind and confounded with the millions of servile provincials, who had received the name without adopting the spirit of Romans. A mercenary army, levied among the subjects and barbarians of the frontier, was the only order of men who preserved and abused their independence. By their tumultuary election, a Syrian, a Goth, or an Arab, was exalted to the throne of Rome, and invested with despotic power over the conquests and over the country of the Scipios
Sounds a bit.. Matt Godwin... your Gibbon chap. Are you sure you should be quoting him?
That's quite mild compared to some of his other stuff. Especially about the C of E and the University of Oxford.
This is fun:
"The expressions which issued the most readily from the mouth of the emperor of the West were, "Strike off his head;" — "Burn him alive;" "Let him be beaten with clubs till he expires;" and his most favoured ministers soon understood that, by a rash attempt to dispute or suspend the execution of his sanguinary commands; they might involve themselves in the guilt and punishment of disobedience. The repeated gratification of this savage justice hardened the mind of Valentinian against pity and remorse; and the sallies of passion were confirmed by the habits of cruelty. He could behold with calm satisfaction the convulsive agonies of torture and death: he reserved his friendship for those faithful servants whose temper was the most congenial to his own. The merit of Maximin, who had slaughtered the noblest families of Rome, was rewarded with the royal approbation, and the praefecture of Gaul. Two fierce and enormous bears, distinguished by the appellations of Innocence and Mica Aurea, could alone deserve to share the favour of Maximin. The cages of those trusty guards were always placed near the bed-chamber of Valentinian, who frequently amused his eyes with the grateful spectacle of seeing them tear and devour the bleeding limbs of the malefactors who were abandoned to their rage. Their diet and exercises were carefully inspected by the Roman emperor; and when Innocence had earned her discharge, by a long course of meritorious service, the faithful animal was again restored to the freedom of her native woods."
BTW, which emperor(s) are Gladiator and G2 about? I thought the first was Maximinus Thrax but may be wrong ...
"The beauty of Theodora was the subject of more flattering praise, and the source of more exquisite delight..... But this form was degraded by the facility with which it was exposed to the public eye, and prostituted to licentious desire. Her venal charms were abandoned to a promiscuous crowd of citizens and strangers of every rank, and of every profession: the fortunate lover who had been promised a night of enjoyment, was often driven from her bed by a stronger or more wealthy favourite; and when she passed through the streets, her presence was avoided by all who wished to escape either the scandal or the temptation. The satirical historian has not blushed to describe the naked scenes which Theodora was not ashamed to exhibit in the theatre."
Bloody hell, the mood music has gone sombre even more quickly than I expected.
Lord Dannatt: there is going to have to be some sort of a negotiated settlement between Ukraine and Russia.
Macron and Starmer have just jointly reiterated their support for Zelensky and Ukraine in Paris, together after the US they lead the strongest militaries in NATO.
Dannatt is not even a serving general now
If you think NATO will take on Russia without US full support than you have not taken on board the full implications of what has just happened
If NATO is not willing to contain Putin because the US has a more isolationist President then it is redundant and if Russian troops are in Warsaw, Talinn, Helsinki and Berlin by the end of the decade we have nobody to blame but ourselves
The problem is that what you are fearing could happen anyway even if Russia is defeated in Ukraine. No one knows. There are just too many variables/unknowns.
While I appreciate your point re variables and unknowns I seriously doubt Russia could then invade all those Nato countries if Ukraine manages to defeat Russia. Ukraine has inflicted huge damage on Russia's forces with only a fraction of the firepower and manpower of that list of Nato powers and you are actually talking about a scenario where Ukraine actually wins.
If Ukraine wins then Russia will be completely broken. I would be amazed if there aren't subsequent uprisings in Belarus and other places for Russia to deal with let alone worrying about Nato.
There are lots of things going on though, like advances in technology, and instability in NATO. There are many scenarios. Propoganda / psychological warfare, of which the Russians are brilliant at, could make the western powers lose the resolve to defend themselves. The Russian state can also invent narratives to explain defeat or abandonment of the conflict, already it has the narrative that it is single handedly fighting NATO; something that has a lot of traction outside of the west. So it just may not work out the way we expect it will based on past experience.
The real problem I have with what a lot of people are saying is that if the 'strategic goal' is to inflict a defeat on Russia, why hasn't it happened to date? The western countries apparently have the means to do it but they don't. So if you aren't going to do that, then just get on with doing something else, why do 4 more years of the same non strategy? This is why I think Trump is an opportunity rather than the threat assumed by others.
It isn't the West defeating Russia. It is Russia's own machismo/stupidity being used against itself to break Russia.
If Russia loses a piece of Ukrainian turf - a field or a tree-line - then Russsia's immediate reaction is to send meatwave after meatwave, tank and IFV after tank and IFV to recover that loss. All for an area of no strategic value. The vast Soviet reserves of materiel have been exhausted. Russia is down to what Russia can produce - which is limited by sanctions. It is effectively unable to replace AWACS and can hardly make any fighter jets. A month's production of tanks gets lost in a week. Specialist troops are sent to form meatwaves. Those who would train replacements are themselves sent to the front, where survival measures days not weeks. It's navy has been defeated and removed from the field of battle by a country with no navy.
And the biggest losses to Russia are not military. They are economic.
It's economy is on a war-footing, but regardless of win or lose, the end of the fighting means the reveal of a disaster for that economy.
I get this argument. However this strategy has gone on for what - 18 months? There is no sign of collapse in Russia, it seems to just innovate. On the other hand it is clearly having an impact on Ukraine and its ability to defend itself, men being lost without replacements, fatigue building up etc.
I was not keen on 4 more years of this under the democrats as I don't see how the situation works to Ukraine's advantage; if the western allies don't have the will or means to defeat Russia in Ukraine (as appears to be the case), then inevitably we have to come to some alternative arrangement that preserves security in Europe. Obviously it could go very wrong with Trump, but it feels to me like he is the best hope for progressing the situation.
Public opinion in the West oscillates between overestimating Russian military and economic strength, and underestimating it. We have been in a period of overestimating it for the last 2 or 3 months, just as we were the opposite last year before the much heralded Ukrainian counteroffensive.
I am seeing it on Saturday, if anybody posts spoilers they are getting exiled to ConHome for the rest of their lives.
There's this chap called Gibbon. He did the book of the film, so you might want to avoid that, even if it has some corking sequences:
Since Romulus, with a small band of shepherds and outlaws, fortified himself on the hills near the Tiber, ten centuries had already elapsed. (59) During the first four ages, the Romans, in the laborious school of poverty, had acquired the virtues of war and government; by the vigorous exertion of those virtues, and by the assistance of fortune, they had obtained, in the course of the three succeeding centuries, an absolute empire over many countries of Europe, Asia, and Africa. The last three hundred years had been consumed in apparent prosperity and internal decline. The nation of soldiers, magistrates, and legislators, who composed the thirty-five tribes of the Roman people, was dissolved into the common mass of mankind and confounded with the millions of servile provincials, who had received the name without adopting the spirit of Romans. A mercenary army, levied among the subjects and barbarians of the frontier, was the only order of men who preserved and abused their independence. By their tumultuary election, a Syrian, a Goth, or an Arab, was exalted to the throne of Rome, and invested with despotic power over the conquests and over the country of the Scipios
Sounds a bit.. Matt Godwin... your Gibbon chap. Are you sure you should be quoting him?
Gibbon was especially bothered by the "effeminate and degenerate" Greeks.
Bloody hell, the mood music has gone sombre even more quickly than I expected.
Lord Dannatt: there is going to have to be some sort of a negotiated settlement between Ukraine and Russia.
Macron and Starmer have just jointly reiterated their support for Zelensky and Ukraine in Paris, together after the US they lead the strongest militaries in NATO.
Dannatt is not even a serving general now
If you think NATO will take on Russia without US full support than you have not taken on board the full implications of what has just happened
If NATO is not willing to contain Putin because the US has a more isolationist President then it is redundant and if Russian troops are in Warsaw, Talinn, Helsinki and Berlin by the end of the decade we have nobody to blame but ourselves
The problem is that what you are fearing could happen anyway even if Russia is defeated in Ukraine. No one knows. There are just too many variables/unknowns.
While I appreciate your point re variables and unknowns I seriously doubt Russia could then invade all those Nato countries if Ukraine manages to defeat Russia. Ukraine has inflicted huge damage on Russia's forces with only a fraction of the firepower and manpower of that list of Nato powers and you are actually talking about a scenario where Ukraine actually wins.
If Ukraine wins then Russia will be completely broken. I would be amazed if there aren't subsequent uprisings in Belarus and other places for Russia to deal with let alone worrying about Nato.
There are lots of things going on though, like advances in technology, and instability in NATO. There are many scenarios. Propoganda / psychological warfare, of which the Russians are brilliant at, could make the western powers lose the resolve to defend themselves. The Russian state can also invent narratives to explain defeat or abandonment of the conflict, already it has the narrative that it is single handedly fighting NATO; something that has a lot of traction outside of the west. So it just may not work out the way we expect it will based on past experience.
The real problem I have with what a lot of people are saying is that if the 'strategic goal' is to inflict a defeat on Russia, why hasn't it happened to date? The western countries apparently have the means to do it but they don't. So if you aren't going to do that, then just get on with doing something else, why do 4 more years of the same non strategy? This is why I think Trump is an opportunity rather than the threat assumed by others.
It isn't the West defeating Russia. It is Russia's own machismo/stupidity being used against itself to break Russia.
If Russia loses a piece of Ukrainian turf - a field or a tree-line - then Russsia's immediate reaction is to send meatwave after meatwave, tank and IFV after tank and IFV to recover that loss. All for an area of no strategic value. The vast Soviet reserves of materiel have been exhausted. Russia is down to what Russia can produce - which is limited by sanctions. It is effectively unable to replace AWACS and can hardly make any fighter jets. A month's production of tanks gets lost in a week. Specialist troops are sent to form meatwaves. Those who would train replacements are themselves sent to the front, where survival measures days not weeks. It's navy has been defeated and removed from the field of battle by a country with no navy.
And the biggest losses to Russia are not military. They are economic.
It's economy is on a war-footing, but regardless of win or lose, the end of the fighting means the reveal of a disaster for that economy.
I get this argument. However this strategy has gone on for what - 18 months? There is no sign of collapse in Russia, it seems to just innovate. On the other hand it is clearly having an impact on Ukraine and its ability to defend itself, men being lost without replacements, fatigue building up etc.
I was not keen on 4 more years of this under the democrats as I don't see how the situation works to Ukraine's advantage; if the western allies don't have the will or means to defeat Russia in Ukraine (as appears to be the case), then inevitably we have to come to some alternative arrangement that preserves security in Europe. Obviously it could go very wrong with Trump, but it feels to me like he is the best hope for progressing the situation.
Trump's solution is no solution. It merely gives Putin time to rebuildand then emboldens him to try again. There is no progressing the sitution in the way you suggest.
UPDATE THE ARCHBISHOP HASN’T RESIGNED, WAS GIVEN DUFF INFO
Indeed, I was somewhat surprised an atheist republican from a Muslim family had first hand access to the position of the Archbishop ahead of the BBC and other news networks
That is uncalled for
To be fair to HYUFD, I'm confident that his comment was meant to be, and indeed was, rather amusing.
Aye.
He forgot to mention Sheffield though. That would have been the real coup de glacé
I am seeing it on Saturday, if anybody posts spoilers they are getting exiled to ConHome for the rest of their lives.
There's this chap called Gibbon. He did the book of the film, so you might want to avoid that, even if it has some corking sequences:
Since Romulus, with a small band of shepherds and outlaws, fortified himself on the hills near the Tiber, ten centuries had already elapsed. (59) During the first four ages, the Romans, in the laborious school of poverty, had acquired the virtues of war and government; by the vigorous exertion of those virtues, and by the assistance of fortune, they had obtained, in the course of the three succeeding centuries, an absolute empire over many countries of Europe, Asia, and Africa. The last three hundred years had been consumed in apparent prosperity and internal decline. The nation of soldiers, magistrates, and legislators, who composed the thirty-five tribes of the Roman people, was dissolved into the common mass of mankind and confounded with the millions of servile provincials, who had received the name without adopting the spirit of Romans. A mercenary army, levied among the subjects and barbarians of the frontier, was the only order of men who preserved and abused their independence. By their tumultuary election, a Syrian, a Goth, or an Arab, was exalted to the throne of Rome, and invested with despotic power over the conquests and over the country of the Scipios
Sounds a bit.. Matt Godwin... your Gibbon chap. Are you sure you should be quoting him?
Gibbon was especially bothered by the "effeminate and degenerate" Greeks.
But Elagabalus (I speak of the emperor of that name), corrupted by his youth, his country, and his fortune, abandoned himself to the grossest pleasures with ungoverned fury, and soon found disgust and satiety in the midst of his enjoyments. The inflammatory powers of art were summoned to his aid: the confused multitude of women, of wines, and of dishes, and the studied variety of attitudes and sauces, served to revive his languid appetites. New terms and new inventions in these sciences, the only ones cultivated and patronised by the monarch, signalised his reign, and transmitted his infamy to succeeding times. A capricious prodigality supplied the want of taste and elegance; and whilst Elagabalus lavished away the treasures of his people in the wildest extravagance, his own voice and that of his flatterers applauded a spirit and magnificence unknown to the tameness of his predecessors. To confound the order of seasons and climates, to sport with the passions and prejudices of his subjects, and to subvert every law of nature and decency, were in the number of his most delicious amusements. A long train of concubines, and a rapid succession of wives, among whom was a vestal virgin, ravished by force from her sacred asylum, were insufficient to satisfy the impotence of his passions. The master of the Roman world affected to copy the dress and manners of the female sex, preferred the distaff to the sceptre, and dishonoured the principal dignities of the empire by distributing them among his numerous lovers; one of whom was publicly invested with the title and authority of the emperor's, or, as he more properly styled himself, of the empress's husband."
Latest Paul Krugman making the point that it's not just Trump's tariffs, but also his planned deportations are going to push up inflation - particularly food prices.
Bloody hell, the mood music has gone sombre even more quickly than I expected.
Lord Dannatt: there is going to have to be some sort of a negotiated settlement between Ukraine and Russia.
Macron and Starmer have just jointly reiterated their support for Zelensky and Ukraine in Paris, together after the US they lead the strongest militaries in NATO.
Dannatt is not even a serving general now
If you think NATO will take on Russia without US full support than you have not taken on board the full implications of what has just happened
If NATO is not willing to contain Putin because the US has a more isolationist President then it is redundant and if Russian troops are in Warsaw, Talinn, Helsinki and Berlin by the end of the decade we have nobody to blame but ourselves
The problem is that what you are fearing could happen anyway even if Russia is defeated in Ukraine. No one knows. There are just too many variables/unknowns.
While I appreciate your point re variables and unknowns I seriously doubt Russia could then invade all those Nato countries if Ukraine manages to defeat Russia. Ukraine has inflicted huge damage on Russia's forces with only a fraction of the firepower and manpower of that list of Nato powers and you are actually talking about a scenario where Ukraine actually wins.
If Ukraine wins then Russia will be completely broken. I would be amazed if there aren't subsequent uprisings in Belarus and other places for Russia to deal with let alone worrying about Nato.
There are lots of things going on though, like advances in technology, and instability in NATO. There are many scenarios. Propoganda / psychological warfare, of which the Russians are brilliant at, could make the western powers lose the resolve to defend themselves. The Russian state can also invent narratives to explain defeat or abandonment of the conflict, already it has the narrative that it is single handedly fighting NATO; something that has a lot of traction outside of the west. So it just may not work out the way we expect it will based on past experience.
The real problem I have with what a lot of people are saying is that if the 'strategic goal' is to inflict a defeat on Russia, why hasn't it happened to date? The western countries apparently have the means to do it but they don't. So if you aren't going to do that, then just get on with doing something else, why do 4 more years of the same non strategy? This is why I think Trump is an opportunity rather than the threat assumed by others.
It isn't the West defeating Russia. It is Russia's own machismo/stupidity being used against itself to break Russia.
If Russia loses a piece of Ukrainian turf - a field or a tree-line - then Russsia's immediate reaction is to send meatwave after meatwave, tank and IFV after tank and IFV to recover that loss. All for an area of no strategic value. The vast Soviet reserves of materiel have been exhausted. Russia is down to what Russia can produce - which is limited by sanctions. It is effectively unable to replace AWACS and can hardly make any fighter jets. A month's production of tanks gets lost in a week. Specialist troops are sent to form meatwaves. Those who would train replacements are themselves sent to the front, where survival measures days not weeks. It's navy has been defeated and removed from the field of battle by a country with no navy.
And the biggest losses to Russia are not military. They are economic.
It's economy is on a war-footing, but regardless of win or lose, the end of the fighting means the reveal of a disaster for that economy.
I get this argument. However this strategy has gone on for what - 18 months? There is no sign of collapse in Russia, it seems to just innovate. On the other hand it is clearly having an impact on Ukraine and its ability to defend itself, men being lost without replacements, fatigue building up etc.
I was not keen on 4 more years of this under the democrats as I don't see how the situation works to Ukraine's advantage; if the western allies don't have the will or means to defeat Russia in Ukraine (as appears to be the case), then inevitably we have to come to some alternative arrangement that preserves security in Europe. Obviously it could go very wrong with Trump, but it feels to me like he is the best hope for progressing the situation.
Trump's solution is no solution. It merely gives Putin time to rebuildand then emboldens him to try again. There is no progressing the sitution in the way you suggest.
One of the bad consequences of getting used to almost-instant delivery. As a culture, we get bored with anything that takes time to do properly. Unfortunately, wars take time to play out.
Latest Paul Krugman making the point that it's not just Trump's tariffs, but also his planned deportations are going to push up inflation - particularly food prices.
Bloody hell, the mood music has gone sombre even more quickly than I expected.
Lord Dannatt: there is going to have to be some sort of a negotiated settlement between Ukraine and Russia.
Macron and Starmer have just jointly reiterated their support for Zelensky and Ukraine in Paris, together after the US they lead the strongest militaries in NATO.
Dannatt is not even a serving general now
If you think NATO will take on Russia without US full support than you have not taken on board the full implications of what has just happened
If NATO is not willing to contain Putin because the US has a more isolationist President then it is redundant and if Russian troops are in Warsaw, Talinn, Helsinki and Berlin by the end of the decade we have nobody to blame but ourselves
The problem is that what you are fearing could happen anyway even if Russia is defeated in Ukraine. No one knows. There are just too many variables/unknowns.
While I appreciate your point re variables and unknowns I seriously doubt Russia could then invade all those Nato countries if Ukraine manages to defeat Russia. Ukraine has inflicted huge damage on Russia's forces with only a fraction of the firepower and manpower of that list of Nato powers and you are actually talking about a scenario where Ukraine actually wins.
If Ukraine wins then Russia will be completely broken. I would be amazed if there aren't subsequent uprisings in Belarus and other places for Russia to deal with let alone worrying about Nato.
There are lots of things going on though, like advances in technology, and instability in NATO. There are many scenarios. Propoganda / psychological warfare, of which the Russians are brilliant at, could make the western powers lose the resolve to defend themselves. The Russian state can also invent narratives to explain defeat or abandonment of the conflict, already it has the narrative that it is single handedly fighting NATO; something that has a lot of traction outside of the west. So it just may not work out the way we expect it will based on past experience.
The real problem I have with what a lot of people are saying is that if the 'strategic goal' is to inflict a defeat on Russia, why hasn't it happened to date? The western countries apparently have the means to do it but they don't. So if you aren't going to do that, then just get on with doing something else, why do 4 more years of the same non strategy? This is why I think Trump is an opportunity rather than the threat assumed by others.
It isn't the West defeating Russia. It is Russia's own machismo/stupidity being used against itself to break Russia.
If Russia loses a piece of Ukrainian turf - a field or a tree-line - then Russsia's immediate reaction is to send meatwave after meatwave, tank and IFV after tank and IFV to recover that loss. All for an area of no strategic value. The vast Soviet reserves of materiel have been exhausted. Russia is down to what Russia can produce - which is limited by sanctions. It is effectively unable to replace AWACS and can hardly make any fighter jets. A month's production of tanks gets lost in a week. Specialist troops are sent to form meatwaves. Those who would train replacements are themselves sent to the front, where survival measures days not weeks. It's navy has been defeated and removed from the field of battle by a country with no navy.
And the biggest losses to Russia are not military. They are economic.
It's economy is on a war-footing, but regardless of win or lose, the end of the fighting means the reveal of a disaster for that economy.
I get this argument. However this strategy has gone on for what - 18 months? There is no sign of collapse in Russia, it seems to just innovate. On the other hand it is clearly having an impact on Ukraine and its ability to defend itself, men being lost without replacements, fatigue building up etc.
I was not keen on 4 more years of this under the democrats as I don't see how the situation works to Ukraine's advantage; if the western allies don't have the will or means to defeat Russia in Ukraine (as appears to be the case), then inevitably we have to come to some alternative arrangement that preserves security in Europe. Obviously it could go very wrong with Trump, but it feels to me like he is the best hope for progressing the situation.
Trump's solution is no solution. It merely gives Putin time to rebuildand then emboldens him to try again. There is no progressing the sitution in the way you suggest.
One of the bad consequences of getting used to almost-instant delivery. As a culture, we get bored with anything that takes time to do properly. Unfortunately, wars take time to play out.
Sometimes, you just have to keep going till your enemy loses its will.
Russia lost its will, in January 1917; Germany, in October 1918.
Bloody hell, the mood music has gone sombre even more quickly than I expected.
Lord Dannatt: there is going to have to be some sort of a negotiated settlement between Ukraine and Russia.
Macron and Starmer have just jointly reiterated their support for Zelensky and Ukraine in Paris, together after the US they lead the strongest militaries in NATO.
Dannatt is not even a serving general now
If you think NATO will take on Russia without US full support than you have not taken on board the full implications of what has just happened
If NATO is not willing to contain Putin because the US has a more isolationist President then it is redundant and if Russian troops are in Warsaw, Talinn, Helsinki and Berlin by the end of the decade we have nobody to blame but ourselves
The problem is that what you are fearing could happen anyway even if Russia is defeated in Ukraine. No one knows. There are just too many variables/unknowns.
While I appreciate your point re variables and unknowns I seriously doubt Russia could then invade all those Nato countries if Ukraine manages to defeat Russia. Ukraine has inflicted huge damage on Russia's forces with only a fraction of the firepower and manpower of that list of Nato powers and you are actually talking about a scenario where Ukraine actually wins.
If Ukraine wins then Russia will be completely broken. I would be amazed if there aren't subsequent uprisings in Belarus and other places for Russia to deal with let alone worrying about Nato.
There are lots of things going on though, like advances in technology, and instability in NATO. There are many scenarios. Propoganda / psychological warfare, of which the Russians are brilliant at, could make the western powers lose the resolve to defend themselves. The Russian state can also invent narratives to explain defeat or abandonment of the conflict, already it has the narrative that it is single handedly fighting NATO; something that has a lot of traction outside of the west. So it just may not work out the way we expect it will based on past experience.
The real problem I have with what a lot of people are saying is that if the 'strategic goal' is to inflict a defeat on Russia, why hasn't it happened to date? The western countries apparently have the means to do it but they don't. So if you aren't going to do that, then just get on with doing something else, why do 4 more years of the same non strategy? This is why I think Trump is an opportunity rather than the threat assumed by others.
It isn't the West defeating Russia. It is Russia's own machismo/stupidity being used against itself to break Russia.
If Russia loses a piece of Ukrainian turf - a field or a tree-line - then Russsia's immediate reaction is to send meatwave after meatwave, tank and IFV after tank and IFV to recover that loss. All for an area of no strategic value. The vast Soviet reserves of materiel have been exhausted. Russia is down to what Russia can produce - which is limited by sanctions. It is effectively unable to replace AWACS and can hardly make any fighter jets. A month's production of tanks gets lost in a week. Specialist troops are sent to form meatwaves. Those who would train replacements are themselves sent to the front, where survival measures days not weeks. It's navy has been defeated and removed from the field of battle by a country with no navy.
And the biggest losses to Russia are not military. They are economic.
It's economy is on a war-footing, but regardless of win or lose, the end of the fighting means the reveal of a disaster for that economy.
I get this argument. However this strategy has gone on for what - 18 months? There is no sign of collapse in Russia, it seems to just innovate. On the other hand it is clearly having an impact on Ukraine and its ability to defend itself, men being lost without replacements, fatigue building up etc.
I was not keen on 4 more years of this under the democrats as I don't see how the situation works to Ukraine's advantage; if the western allies don't have the will or means to defeat Russia in Ukraine (as appears to be the case), then inevitably we have to come to some alternative arrangement that preserves security in Europe. Obviously it could go very wrong with Trump, but it feels to me like he is the best hope for progressing the situation.
Trump's solution is no solution. It merely gives Putin time to rebuildand then emboldens him to try again. There is no progressing the sitution in the way you suggest.
One of the bad consequences of getting used to almost-instant delivery. As a culture, we get bored with anything that takes time to do properly. Unfortunately, wars take time to play out.
But we're not only not getting instead delivery, but to an extent, reversals.
Rather than economic or military collapse, Putin now has more territory, foreign support, and resources from abroad than two years ago.
Latest Paul Krugman making the point that it's not just Trump's tariffs, but also his planned deportations are going to push up inflation - particularly food prices.
I still find it astounding that anyone defends illegal migration.
Why? It represents profits for business (cheap workers). It provides social credit for liberals who have guilt issues about the success of the West. It provides a can kicking exercise for the collapse in the population pyramid, leading to pay-as-you-go social security systems crises (see pensions), for governments.
So you have big business, social liberals and people trying to get re-elected all in favour. That's a big coalition.
Here in the UK, during COVID, it was specifically said that enforcing minimum wage, legal factory conditions *and* migration status would lead to the collapse of the garment industry around Leicester. The context was the massive outbreaks in factories where no spacing, masks etc were present.
I get this argument. However this strategy has gone on for what - 18 months? There is no sign of collapse in Russia, it seems to just innovate. On the other hand it is clearly having an impact on Ukraine and its ability to defend itself, men being lost without replacements, fatigue building up etc.
Russia is likely to be a demonstration of the old phase "things happen slowly, then all at once".
They are spending 40% of their GDP on the war. No country can keep that up indefinitely, spending at that level hollows out an economy without massive external influxes of money and materiel. Ukraine is getting that, Russia isn't.
It's a race, essentially. Ukraine has money and weapons, thanks to the US and Europe. What it doesn't have is manpower. What happens first, Russian economic collapse or Ukraine running out of men? Until the US elections I would have bet on Ukraine to win that one. But if Trump drops sanctions and stops aid that tilts the balance firmly toward Russia.
The only way to tilt it back is for Europe to become directly involved in the war. My feeling is European leaders will dither until one country, probably Poland, jumps in. Then at least a few others will follow.
The thing I don't get is that Justin Welby will be retiring in January 2026 anyway.
So I'm not sure what the +Newcastle is playing at because it feels like schoolyard politics
Just letting Welby walk away into retirement as if nothing happened would be to condone his failings and send entirely the wrong message about how the Church is supposed to treat accusations and those who fail to act upon them. Welby is accused not only of a cover up but of lying about what he knew. He should not be allowed to just walk away.
Have you got a reference in the Makin report for your last sentence?
I'm skim reading sections of it, but it's 250 pages and a full "read and absorb" would take a full one or two days - and I haven't found 'Welby lied' yet. And I won't believe in detail what I read in any of the media without reading the original in full - this is too political. I have found 'Welby failed to sufficiently take notice of, follow through and report things that should have been red flags when they came through his attention', relating to 2013. And also 'Welby failed to follow up the wider implications of contact with particular victims'.
The themes I'm picking up around what went wrong are that 'good systems' are not enough, when there are public reputations, egos, a wish to avoid controversy in your cherished tradition, and pressure to conform involved. Iwerne had some good practices in place, but there were blind spots which the abuser could exploit - and cross-cutting checks and balances were not in place (and would then require to be operated) to catch these.
Some were warned personally by others who were aware that Smyth was a 'bad un', or told 'steer clear of John Smyth' (including Welby when he was in his early 20s in the early 1980s, a leader at Iwerne, and potentially at risk of being groomed himself).
But dots weren't joined up, warnings were not clear and done via nods and winks, and not followed through.
The complexity of the Church of England (it is in practise a stack of doctrinal-tradition-based networks with limited intercommunication, and some mutual suspicion, and other denominations which form their own further networks in the stack) make cross-cutting reporting / co-ordination more difficult.
The abuse was similar in modus operandi to that by Cyril Smith in the childrens homes he had influence over, also in the early 1980s - figures of authority exploiting their positions. That was also described as 'caning boys' iirc, and was 'sloped shoulders on' too.
One important one is to put responsibility where it belongs, and make systems properly resilient. Another is not to pretend this is just the Church, which will be to make the same mistakes that were made here.
I'm moving towards thinking that ++Welby probably needs to step down for acts of omission in 2013.
Latest Paul Krugman making the point that it's not just Trump's tariffs, but also his planned deportations are going to push up inflation - particularly food prices.
You don't actually have to be an economist to figure out that chucking out a large number of people who do tough jobs for little reward is going to adversely affect your economy. And you probably don't have to be much of an economist to figure out that that adverse effect will likely manifest itself as inflation.
I get this argument. However this strategy has gone on for what - 18 months? There is no sign of collapse in Russia, it seems to just innovate. On the other hand it is clearly having an impact on Ukraine and its ability to defend itself, men being lost without replacements, fatigue building up etc.
Russia is likely to be a demonstration of the old phase "things happen slowly, then all at once".
They are spending 40% of their GDP on the war. No country can keep that up indefinitely, spending at that level hollows out an economy without massive external influxes of money and materiel. Ukraine is getting that, Russia isn't.
It's a race, essentially. Ukraine has money and weapons, thanks to the US and Europe. What it doesn't have is manpower. What happens first, Russian economic collapse or Ukraine running out of men? Until the US elections I would have bet on Ukraine to win that one. But if Trump drops sanctions and stops aid that tilts the balance firmly toward Russia.
The only way to tilt it back is for Europe to become directly involved in the war. My feeling is European leaders will dither until one country, probably Poland, jumps in. Then at least a few others will follow.
If we look at it case by case, Putin has a level of economic and morale support from China that he didn't have in February 2022.
He has a new source of Asian troops he didn't have two years ago.
He has made more progress in the battle for global public opinion, and set in motion a stronger BRICS alliance.
He also has more territory than in.May 2022.
I would like see the West continue to be strong in the world, but that doesn't mean that we should live in a world of wish-fulfillment.
Bloody hell, the mood music has gone sombre even more quickly than I expected.
Lord Dannatt: there is going to have to be some sort of a negotiated settlement between Ukraine and Russia.
Macron and Starmer have just jointly reiterated their support for Zelensky and Ukraine in Paris, together after the US they lead the strongest militaries in NATO.
Dannatt is not even a serving general now
If you think NATO will take on Russia without US full support than you have not taken on board the full implications of what has just happened
If NATO is not willing to contain Putin because the US has a more isolationist President then it is redundant and if Russian troops are in Warsaw, Talinn, Helsinki and Berlin by the end of the decade we have nobody to blame but ourselves
The problem is that what you are fearing could happen anyway even if Russia is defeated in Ukraine. No one knows. There are just too many variables/unknowns.
While I appreciate your point re variables and unknowns I seriously doubt Russia could then invade all those Nato countries if Ukraine manages to defeat Russia. Ukraine has inflicted huge damage on Russia's forces with only a fraction of the firepower and manpower of that list of Nato powers and you are actually talking about a scenario where Ukraine actually wins.
If Ukraine wins then Russia will be completely broken. I would be amazed if there aren't subsequent uprisings in Belarus and other places for Russia to deal with let alone worrying about Nato.
There are lots of things going on though, like advances in technology, and instability in NATO. There are many scenarios. Propoganda / psychological warfare, of which the Russians are brilliant at, could make the western powers lose the resolve to defend themselves. The Russian state can also invent narratives to explain defeat or abandonment of the conflict, already it has the narrative that it is single handedly fighting NATO; something that has a lot of traction outside of the west. So it just may not work out the way we expect it will based on past experience.
The real problem I have with what a lot of people are saying is that if the 'strategic goal' is to inflict a defeat on Russia, why hasn't it happened to date? The western countries apparently have the means to do it but they don't. So if you aren't going to do that, then just get on with doing something else, why do 4 more years of the same non strategy? This is why I think Trump is an opportunity rather than the threat assumed by others.
The backchannel messages via China were basically: if you launch nukes we will obliterate Russia and drag you personally to hell and back. Putin responded: understood, I won’t. Unless you inflict an embarrassing defeat on me and then I don’t care because I’m toast anyway so I might as well be the last Russian leader in history. Your move.
Biden is stuck in a Cold War mindset and afraid of escalation
Bloody hell, the mood music has gone sombre even more quickly than I expected.
Lord Dannatt: there is going to have to be some sort of a negotiated settlement between Ukraine and Russia.
Macron and Starmer have just jointly reiterated their support for Zelensky and Ukraine in Paris, together after the US they lead the strongest militaries in NATO.
Dannatt is not even a serving general now
If you think NATO will take on Russia without US full support than you have not taken on board the full implications of what has just happened
If NATO is not willing to contain Putin because the US has a more isolationist President then it is redundant and if Russian troops are in Warsaw, Talinn, Helsinki and Berlin by the end of the decade we have nobody to blame but ourselves
The problem is that what you are fearing could happen anyway even if Russia is defeated in Ukraine. No one knows. There are just too many variables/unknowns.
While I appreciate your point re variables and unknowns I seriously doubt Russia could then invade all those Nato countries if Ukraine manages to defeat Russia. Ukraine has inflicted huge damage on Russia's forces with only a fraction of the firepower and manpower of that list of Nato powers and you are actually talking about a scenario where Ukraine actually wins.
If Ukraine wins then Russia will be completely broken. I would be amazed if there aren't subsequent uprisings in Belarus and other places for Russia to deal with let alone worrying about Nato.
There are lots of things going on though, like advances in technology, and instability in NATO. There are many scenarios. Propoganda / psychological warfare, of which the Russians are brilliant at, could make the western powers lose the resolve to defend themselves. The Russian state can also invent narratives to explain defeat or abandonment of the conflict, already it has the narrative that it is single handedly fighting NATO; something that has a lot of traction outside of the west. So it just may not work out the way we expect it will based on past experience.
The real problem I have with what a lot of people are saying is that if the 'strategic goal' is to inflict a defeat on Russia, why hasn't it happened to date? The western countries apparently have the means to do it but they don't. So if you aren't going to do that, then just get on with doing something else, why do 4 more years of the same non strategy? This is why I think Trump is an opportunity rather than the threat assumed by others.
It isn't the West defeating Russia. It is Russia's own machismo/stupidity being used against itself to break Russia.
If Russia loses a piece of Ukrainian turf - a field or a tree-line - then Russsia's immediate reaction is to send meatwave after meatwave, tank and IFV after tank and IFV to recover that loss. All for an area of no strategic value. The vast Soviet reserves of materiel have been exhausted. Russia is down to what Russia can produce - which is limited by sanctions. It is effectively unable to replace AWACS and can hardly make any fighter jets. A month's production of tanks gets lost in a week. Specialist troops are sent to form meatwaves. Those who would train replacements are themselves sent to the front, where survival measures days not weeks. It's navy has been defeated and removed from the field of battle by a country with no navy.
And the biggest losses to Russia are not military. They are economic.
It's economy is on a war-footing, but regardless of win or lose, the end of the fighting means the reveal of a disaster for that economy.
I get this argument. However this strategy has gone on for what - 18 months? There is no sign of collapse in Russia, it seems to just innovate. On the other hand it is clearly having an impact on Ukraine and its ability to defend itself, men being lost without replacements, fatigue building up etc.
I was not keen on 4 more years of this under the democrats as I don't see how the situation works to Ukraine's advantage; if the western allies don't have the will or means to defeat Russia in Ukraine (as appears to be the case), then inevitably we have to come to some alternative arrangement that preserves security in Europe. Obviously it could go very wrong with Trump, but it feels to me like he is the best hope for progressing the situation.
Trump's solution is no solution. It merely gives Putin time to rebuildand then emboldens him to try again. There is no progressing the sitution in the way you suggest.
One of the bad consequences of getting used to almost-instant delivery. As a culture, we get bored with anything that takes time to do properly. Unfortunately, wars take time to play out.
Sometimes, you just have to keep going till your enemy loses its will.
Russia lost its will, in January 1917; Germany, in October 1918.
I get this argument. However this strategy has gone on for what - 18 months? There is no sign of collapse in Russia, it seems to just innovate. On the other hand it is clearly having an impact on Ukraine and its ability to defend itself, men being lost without replacements, fatigue building up etc.
Russia is likely to be a demonstration of the old phase "things happen slowly, then all at once".
They are spending 40% of their GDP on the war. No country can keep that up indefinitely, spending at that level hollows out an economy without massive external influxes of money and materiel. Ukraine is getting that, Russia isn't.
It's a race, essentially. Ukraine has money and weapons, thanks to the US and Europe. What it doesn't have is manpower. What happens first, Russian economic collapse or Ukraine running out of men? Until the US elections I would have bet on Ukraine to win that one. But if Trump drops sanctions and stops aid that tilts the balance firmly toward Russia.
The only way to tilt it back is for Europe to become directly involved in the war. My feeling is European leaders will dither until one country, probably Poland, jumps in. Then at least a few others will follow.
I'd agree with that. Trump abandoning Europe or Nato collapsing doesn't necessarily work in Putin's favour. There's been a desperate effort to avoid direct Nato/Russia confrontation. If Trump pulls the plug, some might feel they can take the gloves off.
I get this argument. However this strategy has gone on for what - 18 months? There is no sign of collapse in Russia, it seems to just innovate. On the other hand it is clearly having an impact on Ukraine and its ability to defend itself, men being lost without replacements, fatigue building up etc.
Russia is likely to be a demonstration of the old phase "things happen slowly, then all at once".
They are spending 40% of their GDP on the war. No country can keep that up indefinitely, spending at that level hollows out an economy without massive external influxes of money and materiel. Ukraine is getting that, Russia isn't.
It's a race, essentially. Ukraine has money and weapons, thanks to the US and Europe. What it doesn't have is manpower. What happens first, Russian economic collapse or Ukraine running out of men? Until the US elections I would have bet on Ukraine to win that one. But if Trump drops sanctions and stops aid that tilts the balance firmly toward Russia.
The only way to tilt it back is for Europe to become directly involved in the war. My feeling is European leaders will dither until one country, probably Poland, jumps in. Then at least a few others will follow.
You're ignoring Russian external supporters. China, NK, Iran, India are playing their part in supporting the Russian state. The industrial capacity of these probably surpasses ours, at least in the bits that matter for war. So steel, explosives, fuel, shells, drone parts, and ammunition are not a worry. Putin just needs men willing to die for 2-4k USD a month and there doesn't seem to be a shortage of them.
I suspect we're much closer to an international conflagration than everyone seems to believe. There is a railway link from NK direct to the front and the Russians seem aware of its potential. And Its not much of a stretch for the Chinese to start playing a bigger role in munitions supply, they're already providing assorted equipment.
The one voting thing that genuinely is super tight atm - will Trump get 50% of the votes or not (including all candidates). That's down to an absolute knife edge. If you're interested, it's "Trump Vote Percentage 2" on Betfair. Also includes possibility of a fun argument with Betfair if you lay stuff, because the markets are 45.00-49.99 and 50.00-54.99 and 49.997 (for example) is perfectly possible (I think this *should* count on the 50.00 but it's arguable imo, unless anyone can see specific rules about that)
I think definitely not. There are still several million votes to come from California, plus a fair number from Washington and Oregon.
I was just about to post this when I read your comment.
"Trump is down to 50.3%. Maybe he'll go below 50% in the next day or so."
Disclosure - I've backed that he won't make 50% at odds between 2.7 and 2.8. But that market is still having >50% is making me nervous of something I've missed. Or indeed the 49.996% thing!
BTW subject to above caveats, there is plenty more liquidity in that market than the market depth seems to suggest so if anyone wants to agree with Andy and I's view, now is time to go for it!
Are the remaining votes from particularly Harris-friendly districts? A back-of-the-envelope calculation of raw numbers and state vote splits says Trump is home and dry (by about 150K?).
I get this argument. However this strategy has gone on for what - 18 months? There is no sign of collapse in Russia, it seems to just innovate. On the other hand it is clearly having an impact on Ukraine and its ability to defend itself, men being lost without replacements, fatigue building up etc.
Russia is likely to be a demonstration of the old phase "things happen slowly, then all at once".
They are spending 40% of their GDP on the war. No country can keep that up indefinitely, spending at that level hollows out an economy without massive external influxes of money and materiel. Ukraine is getting that, Russia isn't.
It's a race, essentially. Ukraine has money and weapons, thanks to the US and Europe. What it doesn't have is manpower. What happens first, Russian economic collapse or Ukraine running out of men? Until the US elections I would have bet on Ukraine to win that one. But if Trump drops sanctions and stops aid that tilts the balance firmly toward Russia.
The only way to tilt it back is for Europe to become directly involved in the war. My feeling is European leaders will dither until one country, probably Poland, jumps in. Then at least a few others will follow.
You're ignoring Russian external supporters. China, NK, Iran, India are playing their part in supporting the Russian state. The industrial capacity of these probably surpasses ours, at least in the bits that matter for war. So steel, explosives, fuel, shells, drone parts, and ammunition are not a worry. Putin just needs men willing to die for 2-4k USD a month and there doesn't seem to be a shortage of them.
I suspect we're much closer to an international conflagration than everyone seems to believe. There is a railway link from NK direct to the front and the Russians seem aware of its potential. And Its not much of a stretch for the Chinese to start playing a bigger role in munitions supply, they're already providing assorted equipment.
Iran and NK: yes, absolutely.
India and China: much less so, and very much on a commercial basis.
I get this argument. However this strategy has gone on for what - 18 months? There is no sign of collapse in Russia, it seems to just innovate. On the other hand it is clearly having an impact on Ukraine and its ability to defend itself, men being lost without replacements, fatigue building up etc.
Russia is likely to be a demonstration of the old phase "things happen slowly, then all at once".
They are spending 40% of their GDP on the war. No country can keep that up indefinitely, spending at that level hollows out an economy without massive external influxes of money and materiel. Ukraine is getting that, Russia isn't.
It's a race, essentially. Ukraine has money and weapons, thanks to the US and Europe. What it doesn't have is manpower. What happens first, Russian economic collapse or Ukraine running out of men? Until the US elections I would have bet on Ukraine to win that one. But if Trump drops sanctions and stops aid that tilts the balance firmly toward Russia.
The only way to tilt it back is for Europe to become directly involved in the war. My feeling is European leaders will dither until one country, probably Poland, jumps in. Then at least a few others will follow.
You're ignoring Russian external supporters. China, NK, Iran, India are playing their part in supporting the Russian state. The industrial capacity of these probably surpasses ours, at least in the bits that matter for war. So steel, explosives, fuel, shells, drone parts, and ammunition are not a worry. Putin just needs men willing to die for 2-4k USD a month and there doesn't seem to be a shortage of them.
I suspect we're much closer to an international conflagration than everyone seems to believe. There is a railway link from NK direct to the front and the Russians seem aware of its potential. And Its not much of a stretch for the Chinese to start playing a bigger role in munitions supply, they're already providing assorted equipment.
Iran and NK: yes, absolutely.
India and China: much less so, and very much on a commercial basis.
We've been too soft on China particularly since the North Korean involvement. I don't believe it could happen without their support. They're not even feeling the threat of sanctions from Europe at the moment.
India is just buying Russian oil. I was hoping the Saudis might screw Russia by increasing oil production as punishment for them supporting Iran and its proxies.
You're ignoring Russian external supporters. China, NK, Iran, India are playing their part in supporting the Russian state. The industrial capacity of these probably surpasses ours, at least in the bits that matter for war.
I believe you're somewhat overestimating the support those countries can offer. Iran has almost nothing other than some limited capacity to make drones. NK can manufacture low-tech stuff like artillery shells but they have basically a backwards 1950s level economy. They'll take food and technology in return for ammo, which is useful to Russia, but you can't win a war with just artillery no matter how hard Russia tries to make that happen.
India and China will help out, purely in their own interests. They'll sell to Russia to make a buck and get some cheap oil, but Putin is rapidly running out of funds. He needs money coming in, not going out, his country is in a nose-dive toward penury. My best guess is summer next year when Russia his the buffers. Businesses that cannot get materials, machinery, transport or labour are going under. Each one that fails will pull others down with it, and at some point even government spending can't prevent an economic failure cascade.
Comments
Yet grain is flowing across the Black Sea - mainly because Ukraine has pretty much stopped Russia's capability of stopping ships carrying Ukrainian grain. The much-vaunted Black Sea fleet is now either submarines, or have fled away from the Black Sea.
Russia can be beaten, given the will and the weapons.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/films/0/gladiator-ii-review-paul-mescal-ridley-scott/
I am seeing it on Saturday, if anybody posts spoilers they are getting exiled to ConHome for the rest of their lives.
I think that counts against oil infrastructure attacks in the short term, because Trump has no more interest in a high oil price than Biden. Ukraine did hit another ammunition depot in Russia recently, and that would count towards (1) and (2).
There are conflicting briefings from the Trump camp on Ukraine, suggesting there's a bit of a tussle over the detail of the implementation of the policy.
Absolutely nothing, apparently.
If Russia loses a piece of Ukrainian turf - a field or a tree-line - then Russsia's immediate reaction is to send meatwave after meatwave, tank and IFV after tank and IFV to recover that loss. All for an area of no strategic value. The vast Soviet reserves of materiel have been exhausted. Russia is down to what Russia can produce - which is limited by sanctions. It is effectively unable to replace AWACS and can hardly make any fighter jets. A month's production of tanks gets lost in a week. Specialist troops are sent to form meatwaves. Those who would train replacements are themselves sent to the front, where survival measures days not weeks. It's navy has been defeated and removed from the field of battle by a country with no navy.
And the biggest losses to Russia are not military. They are economic.
It's economy is on a war-footing, but regardless of win or lose, the end of the fighting means the reveal of a disaster for that economy.
Since Romulus, with a small band of shepherds and outlaws, fortified himself on the hills near the Tiber, ten centuries had already elapsed. (59) During the first four ages, the Romans, in the laborious school of poverty, had acquired the virtues of war and government; by the vigorous exertion of those virtues, and by the assistance of fortune, they had obtained, in the course of the three succeeding centuries, an absolute empire over many countries of Europe, Asia, and Africa. The last three hundred years had been consumed in apparent prosperity and internal decline. The nation of soldiers, magistrates, and legislators, who composed the thirty-five tribes of the Roman people, was dissolved into the common mass of mankind and confounded with the millions of servile provincials, who had received the name without adopting the spirit of Romans. A mercenary army, levied among the subjects and barbarians of the frontier, was the only order of men who preserved and abused their independence. By their tumultuary election, a Syrian, a Goth, or an Arab, was exalted to the throne of Rome, and invested with despotic power over the conquests and over the country of the Scipios
It's the firing squad...
Script by infinite monkeys.
I was not keen on 4 more years of this under the democrats as I don't see how the situation works to Ukraine's advantage; if the western allies don't have the will or means to defeat Russia in Ukraine (as appears to be the case), then inevitably we have to come to some alternative arrangement that preserves security in Europe. Obviously it could go very wrong with Trump, but it feels to me like he is the best hope for progressing the situation.
"The expressions which issued the most readily from the mouth of the emperor of the West were, "Strike off his head;" — "Burn him alive;" "Let him be beaten with clubs till he expires;" and his most favoured ministers soon understood that, by a rash attempt to dispute or suspend the execution of his sanguinary commands; they might involve themselves in the guilt and punishment of disobedience. The repeated gratification of this savage justice hardened the mind of Valentinian against pity and remorse; and the sallies of passion were confirmed by the habits of cruelty. He could behold with calm satisfaction the convulsive agonies of torture and death: he reserved his friendship for those faithful servants whose temper was the most congenial to his own. The merit of Maximin, who had slaughtered the noblest families of Rome, was rewarded with the royal approbation, and the praefecture of Gaul. Two fierce and enormous bears, distinguished by the appellations of Innocence and Mica Aurea, could alone deserve to share the favour of Maximin. The cages of those trusty guards were always placed near the bed-chamber of Valentinian, who frequently amused his eyes with the grateful spectacle of seeing them tear and devour the bleeding limbs of the malefactors who were abandoned to their rage. Their diet and exercises were carefully inspected by the Roman emperor; and when Innocence had earned her discharge, by a long course of meritorious service, the faithful animal was again restored to the freedom of her native woods."
"The beauty of Theodora was the subject of more flattering praise, and the source of more exquisite delight..... But this form was degraded by the facility with which it was exposed to the public eye, and prostituted to licentious desire. Her venal charms were abandoned to a promiscuous crowd of citizens and strangers of every rank, and of every profession: the fortunate lover who had been promised a night of enjoyment, was often driven from her bed by a stronger or more wealthy favourite; and when she passed through the streets, her presence was avoided by all who wished to escape either the scandal or the temptation. The satirical historian has not blushed to describe the naked scenes which Theodora was not ashamed to exhibit in the theatre."
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cMfVnBmpMm8
But Elagabalus (I speak of the emperor of that name), corrupted by his youth, his country, and his fortune, abandoned himself to the grossest pleasures with ungoverned fury, and soon found disgust and satiety in the midst of his enjoyments. The inflammatory powers of art were summoned to his aid: the confused multitude of women, of wines, and of dishes, and the studied variety of attitudes and sauces, served to revive his languid appetites. New terms and new inventions in these sciences, the only ones cultivated and patronised by the monarch, signalised his reign, and transmitted his infamy to succeeding times. A capricious prodigality supplied the want of taste and elegance; and whilst Elagabalus lavished away the treasures of his people in the wildest extravagance, his own voice and that of his flatterers applauded a spirit and magnificence unknown to the tameness of his predecessors. To confound the order of seasons and climates, to sport with the passions and prejudices of his subjects, and to subvert every law of nature and decency, were in the number of his most delicious amusements. A long train of concubines, and a rapid succession of wives, among whom was a vestal virgin, ravished by force from her sacred asylum, were insufficient to satisfy the impotence of his passions. The master of the Roman world affected to copy the dress and manners of the female sex, preferred the distaff to the sceptre, and dishonoured the principal dignities of the empire by distributing them among his numerous lovers; one of whom was publicly invested with the title and authority of the emperor's, or, as he more properly styled himself, of the empress's husband."
Why Trump’s Deportations Will Drive Up Your Grocery Bill https://www.nytimes.com/2024/11/11/opinion/trump-deportation-inflation-grocery-bills.html?smid=nytcore-android-share
Russia lost its will, in January 1917; Germany, in October 1918.
Rather than economic or military collapse, Putin now has more territory, foreign support, and resources from abroad than two years ago.
So you have big business, social liberals and people trying to get re-elected all in favour. That's a big coalition.
Here in the UK, during COVID, it was specifically said that enforcing minimum wage, legal factory conditions *and* migration status would lead to the collapse of the garment industry around Leicester. The context was the massive outbreaks in factories where no spacing, masks etc were present.
They are spending 40% of their GDP on the war. No country can keep that up indefinitely, spending at that level hollows out an economy without massive external influxes of money and materiel. Ukraine is getting that, Russia isn't.
It's a race, essentially. Ukraine has money and weapons, thanks to the US and Europe. What it doesn't have is manpower. What happens first, Russian economic collapse or Ukraine running out of men? Until the US elections I would have bet on Ukraine to win that one. But if Trump drops sanctions and stops aid that tilts the balance firmly toward Russia.
The only way to tilt it back is for Europe to become directly involved in the war. My feeling is European leaders will dither until one country, probably Poland, jumps in. Then at least a few others will follow.
NEW THREAD
I'm skim reading sections of it, but it's 250 pages and a full "read and absorb" would take a full one or two days - and I haven't found 'Welby lied' yet. And I won't believe in detail what I read in any of the media without reading the original in full - this is too political. I have found 'Welby failed to sufficiently take notice of, follow through and report things that should have been red flags when they came through his attention', relating to 2013. And also 'Welby failed to follow up the wider implications of contact with particular victims'.
The themes I'm picking up around what went wrong are that 'good systems' are not enough, when there are public reputations, egos, a wish to avoid controversy in your cherished tradition, and pressure to conform involved. Iwerne had some good practices in place, but there were blind spots which the abuser could exploit - and cross-cutting checks and balances were not in place (and would then require to be operated) to catch these.
Some were warned personally by others who were aware that Smyth was a 'bad un', or told 'steer clear of John Smyth' (including Welby when he was in his early 20s in the early 1980s, a leader at Iwerne, and potentially at risk of being groomed himself).
But dots weren't joined up, warnings were not clear and done via nods and winks, and not followed through.
The complexity of the Church of England (it is in practise a stack of doctrinal-tradition-based networks with limited intercommunication, and some mutual suspicion, and other denominations which form their own further networks in the stack) make cross-cutting reporting / co-ordination more difficult.
The abuse was similar in modus operandi to that by Cyril Smith in the childrens homes he had influence over, also in the early 1980s - figures of authority exploiting their positions. That was also described as 'caning boys' iirc, and was 'sloped shoulders on' too.
One important one is to put responsibility where it belongs, and make systems properly resilient. Another is not to pretend this is just the Church, which will be to make the same mistakes that were made here.
I'm moving towards thinking that ++Welby probably needs to step down for acts of omission in 2013.
He has a new source of Asian troops he didn't have two years ago.
He has made more progress in the battle for global public opinion, and set in motion a stronger BRICS alliance.
He also has more territory than in.May 2022.
I would like see the West continue to be strong in the world, but that doesn't mean that we should live in a world of wish-fulfillment.
Things are not going well.
Biden is stuck in a Cold War mindset and afraid of escalation
And for what? Pride?
I suspect we're much closer to an international conflagration than everyone seems to believe. There is a railway link from NK direct to the front and the Russians seem aware of its potential. And Its not much of a stretch for the Chinese to start playing a bigger role in munitions supply, they're already providing assorted equipment.
India and China: much less so, and very much on a commercial basis.
Digital is overrated.
India is just buying Russian oil. I was hoping the Saudis might screw Russia by increasing oil production as punishment for them supporting Iran and its proxies.
Everything. Absolutely everything about him.
The the really pivotal question is whether you'll be be buying these purchases with cash or not?
India and China will help out, purely in their own interests. They'll sell to Russia to make a buck and get some cheap oil, but Putin is rapidly running out of funds. He needs money coming in, not going out, his country is in a nose-dive toward penury. My best guess is summer next year when Russia his the buffers. Businesses that cannot get materials, machinery, transport or labour are going under. Each one that fails will pull others down with it, and at some point even government spending can't prevent an economic failure cascade.