The "gap year" recruitment idea for the armed forces is interesting - my gap year wasn't spent in far flung destinations but working for Mecca Bookmakers so glamourous, it wasn't. I suspect it would look good on the CV and better than saying I went to Thailand or Australia or even Mecca Bookmakers in Panton Street.
They have a similar program in Australia and it works well. However, it's very expensive to do it properly as these people need a lot of supervision and they can only be used in a very limited number of roles. The UK MoD will probably just use them as cheap labour to do photocopying or something.
I’ve always been a fan of the idea, not so much with what they can do on a day to day basis (maybe be used for guard, sentry duty to free up other soldiers?) but more on the basis of building up a large number over time of people who have already learned the basics of shooting and infantry tactics so if there is a situation in the future where the country had to mobilise a lot of people will need refreshers rather than training from scratch which is surely a good thing?
You aren’t going to have millions of Marines in cold storage but the military would have lists of people with various levels of training and, hopefully, identified skill sets where they can be fast-tracked in an emergency.
Also it might get people to try it as only a short period who then find that it’s the life for them and they commit which would help the recruitment situation.
The scheme sounds interesting.
I would also like to see something between the French pompiers and the TA - an army service that trained and sat within the forces but had a day-to-day role of helping civilians - flood assistance, cat up a tree, perhaps some security stuff to deal with the crime wave, perhaps some deportation duties.
Our police service and possibly other emergency services (Grenfell did not show the Fire service in a good light) are growing increasingly complacent and in some instances anti the public they serve. There are deep philosophical reasons for this, but another one is simply that they have a monopoly on responding to emergencies. If they lost this monopoly, and there was an effective market in such services (not a free market, but a market nonetheless), and people could say 'screw the police I'm calling the army in', that would result in competition, and significant improvements in law and order.
We don’t want to normalise the army getting involved in non-military situations. They are rightly limited to getting involved at the request of (I think) the Home Secretary
Grok has this to say in response to a question as to whether he would be arrested.
"Based on reports, Alaa Abd El-Fattah arrived in the UK on Dec 26, 2025, without arrest. His 2011-2013 tweets, if genuine, include sarcastic remarks (e.g., with smileys) on racism/privilege, which may not meet UK hate speech thresholds under the Public Order Act (requiring intent to stir hatred). Recent arrests targeted incitement during riots. No ongoing probe reported."
I think Grok is contending that it was possibly all banter. Personally I hate banter.
People I worked with who thought they were banter lords were just bullies.
Banter is just en excuse for being an arsehole or mitigating deeply unpleasant comments.
If,people want to see his comments, and there is a pattern here, as banter. So be it.
This sort of bollocks decision by the tribunal plays into the hands of those who believe the Human rights act needs reviewing.
The decision isn't just bollocks its effing ludicrous.
I can't read the article but it seems the premise is that unless conditions are essentially perfect in all regards, with no grounds for appeal, you don't get deported.
The system working as intended then.
Politicians spoute shite about stopping this. They could. They never do.
If I was PM, I'd read Private Eye every fortnight, drag the appropriate ministers and civil servants in, and tell them to f***ing sort it out
Have you read Rory Stewart’s autobiography?
Or wondered why Starmer complains things can’t get done?
Overcoming systemic culture is hard. It requires knowledge, time and a certain kind of polite savagery.
Doesn't it really require a knowledge of behaviourism - ie find out what has motivated/motivates humans to make this mess, work out what will motivate them to fix it, and produce the desired political outcomes, and put those systems in place.
For a start, there can and should be a permanent system in place that makes civil service and political remuneration dependent on individual and departmental performance, but also on positive markers in the economy.
What if every civil servant was going to get less money in their pay packet and pension pot if GDP per capita went down? How would that affect the efficiency of the immigration system and levels of deportations? How would it affect things like the Chagos giveaway?
Ha
I worked in a bank where they tried to change the traders behaviour via the bonus.
So they capped the bonus component for profit and added in a component for growing market share.
The traders took mad risks to maximise profit, then used the “excess” profit to sell derivatives at a loss. So they finished the year with maximum profit bonus and increased bank market share.
Be careful what metrics you use.
To be fair, those are savvy traders and exactly the sort that you want to keep around…
The problem is that a project like this will be aggressively opposed by the Enquiry Industrial Complex. Minimum 20 years to get approval.
No. Swansea got through planning in 2 years, with 80-odd% local support.
The bigger issue is that Minhead was always one of the more complex options. It has not been improved by Hinkley C going for a tidal cooling system of it own, as their "fish scarer" - part of the planning requirement - didn't work.
Plus the stated numbers are notywhere near as good as Cardiff. That would be the sensible first build. All the twiddly bits they are talking about for Minehead that make it more appealling were already incorporated into the Swansea proposal.
The Swansea Bay tidal lagoon was a fantastic prospect. As I recall from local anecdota it was heavily supported by Alun Cairns and the May Government who were very enthusiastic, but that tosser Drakeford spent all the investment capital Mrs May provided on 20mph signs and a pedestrian walkway on Aberavon seafront.
Maybe Nigel and the Tories will resurrect the project after their Senedd victory next May.
Grok has this to say in response to a question as to whether he would be arrested.
"Based on reports, Alaa Abd El-Fattah arrived in the UK on Dec 26, 2025, without arrest. His 2011-2013 tweets, if genuine, include sarcastic remarks (e.g., with smileys) on racism/privilege, which may not meet UK hate speech thresholds under the Public Order Act (requiring intent to stir hatred). Recent arrests targeted incitement during riots. No ongoing probe reported."
I think Grok is contending that it was possibly all banter. Personally I hate banter.
People I worked with who thought they were banter lords were just bullies.
Banter is just en excuse for being an arsehole or mitigating deeply unpleasant comments.
If,people want to see his comments, and there is a pattern here, as banter. So be it.
My Arabic isn’t up to scratch, so can’t be 100% confident of the translation, or context, but…
Getting this bloke here was one of Sir Keir’s priorities
The sayings of Labour’s favourite Egyptian dissident Alaa Abd El-Fattah in English are terrifying, but here’s what he says in Arabic: ‘If we can't kill the officers anyway ... fine. We'll find a terrorist cell to kill their children and torture their mothers. Peaceful is stupid.’
Grok has this to say in response to a question as to whether he would be arrested.
"Based on reports, Alaa Abd El-Fattah arrived in the UK on Dec 26, 2025, without arrest. His 2011-2013 tweets, if genuine, include sarcastic remarks (e.g., with smileys) on racism/privilege, which may not meet UK hate speech thresholds under the Public Order Act (requiring intent to stir hatred). Recent arrests targeted incitement during riots. No ongoing probe reported."
I think Grok is contending that it was possibly all banter. Personally I hate banter.
People I worked with who thought they were banter lords were just bullies.
Banter is just en excuse for being an arsehole or mitigating deeply unpleasant comments.
If,people want to see his comments, and there is a pattern here, as banter. So be it.
My Arabic isn’t up to scratch, so can’t be 100% confident of the translation, or context, but…
Getting this bloke here was one of Sir Keir’s priorities
The sayings of Labour’s favourite Egyptian dissident Alaa Abd El-Fattah in English are terrifying, but here’s what he says in Arabic: ‘If we can't kill the officers anyway ... fine. We'll find a terrorist cell to kill their children and torture their mothers. Peaceful is stupid.’
On behalf of all maths teachers across the country, can we just pop the chap back in the clinker for a bit longer until this particular tick tock craze has passed, please?
The "gap year" recruitment idea for the armed forces is interesting - my gap year wasn't spent in far flung destinations but working for Mecca Bookmakers so glamourous, it wasn't. I suspect it would look good on the CV and better than saying I went to Thailand or Australia or even Mecca Bookmakers in Panton Street.
They have a similar program in Australia and it works well. However, it's very expensive to do it properly as these people need a lot of supervision and they can only be used in a very limited number of roles. The UK MoD will probably just use them as cheap labour to do photocopying or something.
I’ve always been a fan of the idea, not so much with what they can do on a day to day basis (maybe be used for guard, sentry duty to free up other soldiers?) but more on the basis of building up a large number over time of people who have already learned the basics of shooting and infantry tactics so if there is a situation in the future where the country had to mobilise a lot of people will need refreshers rather than training from scratch which is surely a good thing?
You aren’t going to have millions of Marines in cold storage but the military would have lists of people with various levels of training and, hopefully, identified skill sets where they can be fast-tracked in an emergency.
Also it might get people to try it as only a short period who then find that it’s the life for them and they commit which would help the recruitment situation.
The scheme sounds interesting.
I would also like to see something between the French pompiers and the TA - an army service that trained and sat within the forces but had a day-to-day role of helping civilians - flood assistance, cat up a tree, perhaps some security stuff to deal with the crime wave, perhaps some deportation duties.
Our police service and possibly other emergency services (Grenfell did not show the Fire service in a good light) are growing increasingly complacent and in some instances anti the public they serve. There are deep philosophical reasons for this, but another one is simply that they have a monopoly on responding to emergencies. If they lost this monopoly, and there was an effective market in such services (not a free market, but a market nonetheless), and people could say 'screw the police I'm calling the army in', that would result in competition, and significant improvements in law and order.
We don’t want to normalise the army getting involved in non-military situations. They are rightly limited to getting involved at the request of (I think) the Home Secretary
Apart from anything else, the army is a lot smaller than it used to be in the days when the UKG would try and break the firemen's strike by using old Green Goddess Bedford 4 tonners out of storage ex postwar AFS when UKG still believed in civil defence. Flogged off by the HO decades ago.
This sort of bollocks decision by the tribunal plays into the hands of those who believe the Human rights act needs reviewing.
The decision isn't just bollocks its effing ludicrous.
I can't read the article but it seems the premise is that unless conditions are essentially perfect in all regards, with no grounds for appeal, you don't get deported.
The system working as intended then.
Politicians spoute shite about stopping this. They could. They never do.
If I was PM, I'd read Private Eye every fortnight, drag the appropriate ministers and civil servants in, and tell them to f***ing sort it out
Have you read Rory Stewart’s autobiography?
Or wondered why Starmer complains things can’t get done?
Overcoming systemic culture is hard. It requires knowledge, time and a certain kind of polite savagery.
Doesn't it really require a knowledge of behaviourism - ie find out what has motivated/motivates humans to make this mess, work out what will motivate them to fix it, and produce the desired political outcomes, and put those systems in place.
For a start, there can and should be a permanent system in place that makes civil service and political remuneration dependent on individual and departmental performance, but also on positive markers in the economy.
What if every civil servant was going to get less money in their pay packet and pension pot if GDP per capita went down? How would that affect the efficiency of the immigration system and levels of deportations? How would it affect things like the Chagos giveaway?
Ha
I worked in a bank where they tried to change the traders behaviour via the bonus.
So they capped the bonus component for profit and added in a component for growing market share.
The traders took mad risks to maximise profit, then used the “excess” profit to sell derivatives at a loss. So they finished the year with maximum profit bonus and increased bank market share.
Be careful what metrics you use.
To be fair, those are savvy traders and exactly the sort that you want to keep around…
I giggled about that, when I heard.
You hire people with PhD in maths and greed, then get surprised when they optimise the output of a simple algorithm to maximise their advantage?
“Alaa Abdel Fattah has history of antisemitic comments. In November 2012, he wrote that “there is a critical number of Israelis that we need to kill” In 2010 he Tweeted “yes, I consider killing any colonialists and specially zionists heroic, we need to kill more of them”.
Now they were probably looking to take out the power lines rather than the dam itself, but if that dam goes the Ukranian capital gets flooded. Add to the list of Russian war crimes.
Russia are apparently so weak that some argue they are no threat to Britain and Europe at all, and yet Britain and Europe have been unable - in nearly four years - to provide sufficient support to Ukraine so that they can protect themselves from the threat of a catastrophe that would kill many thousands.
There's something missing there.
I fear that Britain is not at all prepared for the destruction that Russia could inflict upon the country, should they so choose.
I don’t know that there’s a contradiction. For example, the IRA were never a strong conventional army, never had tanks or fighter jets, but they could still cause havoc, mayhem and death. Russia is, in some ways, very weak, but still also a significant threat. Russia is, in other ways, very strong. Defeating them in Ukraine is not easy.
We have given a lot of aid to Ukraine from some perspectives, but it’s only been 0.6% of our GDP. During World War II, we spent about 54% of our GDP on fighting, so about 100 times more.
I think Estonia has given about 4% of its GDP to Ukraine. Imagine if all of Europe and North America did that. But someone has to make the political argument for that and convince Western electorates, many of whom have already been turning to parties wanting to give less aid.
“Alaa Abdel Fattah has history of antisemitic comments. In November 2012, he wrote that “there is a critical number of Israelis that we need to kill” In 2010 he Tweeted “yes, I consider killing any colonialists and specially zionists heroic, we need to kill more of them”.
“Alaa Abdel Fattah has history of antisemitic comments. In November 2012, he wrote that “there is a critical number of Israelis that we need to kill” In 2010 he Tweeted “yes, I consider killing any colonialists and specially zionists heroic, we need to kill more of them”.
Neville Chamberlain wanted to destroy Merthyr Tydfil as well.
So clearly Putin is a technocratic politician of the 1930s with no idea of how to wage a war.
I am remi ded of the old Mike Harding joke that Hitler didn't bomb Wath on Derne because he wanted to be able to see where he had bombed.
I don’t see Slough on the target list.
But if it is, will Starmer make The Big Decision?
Namely, if the Russians turn Slough into a post-apocalyptic hell, populated with radioactive cannibal zombies, will he force Putin to pay the CGT on the property value uplift?
Oh dear. The Tories are up to their necks in it too. He actually linked to his twitter feed, so there can be no excuse of ignorance about his social media output.
We will continue to work tirelessly for his release.
Might help Cleverly to get some Labour and LD tactical votes though in Tory held seats if Kemi is replaced as leader before the next general election. A vote for Cleverly is clearly a vote against Farage not to put Farage in government.
Jenrick though clearly pitching against Starmer and Cleverly and showing more leg to Reform voters by being an even more articulate version of Farage and saying the release of this man is a disaster
Nope. Reform and all Tories are indistinguishable.
Now they were probably looking to take out the power lines rather than the dam itself, but if that dam goes the Ukranian capital gets flooded. Add to the list of Russian war crimes.
Russia are apparently so weak that some argue they are no threat to Britain and Europe at all, and yet Britain and Europe have been unable - in nearly four years - to provide sufficient support to Ukraine so that they can protect themselves from the threat of a catastrophe that would kill many thousands.
There's something missing there.
I fear that Britain is not at all prepared for the destruction that Russia could inflict upon the country, should they so choose.
I don’t know that there’s a contradiction. For example, the IRA were never a strong conventional army, never had tanks or fighter jets, but they could still cause havoc, mayhem and death. Russia is, in some ways, very weak, but still also a significant threat. Russia is, in other ways, very strong. Defeating them in Ukraine is not easy.
We have given a lot of aid to Ukraine from some perspectives, but it’s only been 0.6% of our GDP. During World War II, we spent about 54% of our GDP on fighting, so about 100 times more.
I think Estonia has given about 4% of its GDP to Ukraine. Imagine if all of Europe and North America did that. But someone has to make the political argument for that and convince Western electorates, many of whom have already been turning to parties wanting to give less aid.
I think that's a very linear view of the politics.
You could argue that Britain is only giving just enough support to Ukraine to slow the rate at which it loses the war. You wouldn't have to be a Russian sympathiser to think that was a waste of money.
If we gave Ukraine more support, so that they could turn the tide, then that might inspire more confidence in the voting public, and the money might look like it was achieving more.
Fundamentally I think that European politicians have been too timid and lacking in confidence. They are scared of Putin escalating. They are scared of their own voters. You cannot inspire people to follow you with such behaviour.
This sort of bollocks decision by the tribunal plays into the hands of those who believe the Human rights act needs reviewing.
The decision isn't just bollocks its effing ludicrous.
I can't read the article but it seems the premise is that unless conditions are essentially perfect in all regards, with no grounds for appeal, you don't get deported.
The system working as intended then.
Politicians spoute shite about stopping this. They could. They never do.
If I was PM, I'd read Private Eye every fortnight, drag the appropriate ministers and civil servants in, and tell them to f***ing sort it out
Have you read Rory Stewart’s autobiography?
Or wondered why Starmer complains things can’t get done?
Overcoming systemic culture is hard. It requires knowledge, time and a certain kind of polite savagery.
There is a price to pay in having a genuine separation of powers and a state which is Leviathan. Executive, legislature and judiciary can all blame each other instead of being jointly responsible if they like. They can all blame the civil service, that vast body, which we will find are subject to the realities and impositions of the three estates listed above, and are not free to break or make the law.
There is a certain fascination about the question of what a Reform government will make of all this, as they realise that instead of chuntering about Magna Carta they find they are subject to the effects of 900 years of law and regulation making, governance and judicial decision, as well as being subject to the public's opinion about how they need it all sorted within a fortnight.
There is a massive, massive debate on the right of politics, very much including with Farage and Reform, about the current ungovernability of Britain. This has even been commented on by centrist podcasts like The News Agents and the New Statesman that I follow.
You may not agree with the solutions being discussed, but it's very dated to believe that Reform are wandering into power thinking they will just wave a magic wand and by 'being Reform' everything will start jumping to attention and everyone will behave patriotically. That pathetic Starmerite delusion doesn't exist on today's right.
This sort of bollocks decision by the tribunal plays into the hands of those who believe the Human rights act needs reviewing.
The decision isn't just bollocks its effing ludicrous.
I can't read the article but it seems the premise is that unless conditions are essentially perfect in all regards, with no grounds for appeal, you don't get deported.
The system working as intended then.
Politicians spoute shite about stopping this. They could. They never do.
If I was PM, I'd read Private Eye every fortnight, drag the appropriate ministers and civil servants in, and tell them to f***ing sort it out
Have you read Rory Stewart’s autobiography?
Or wondered why Starmer complains things can’t get done?
Overcoming systemic culture is hard. It requires knowledge, time and a certain kind of polite savagery.
There is a price to pay in having a genuine separation of powers and a state which is Leviathan. Executive, legislature and judiciary can all blame each other instead of being jointly responsible if they like. They can all blame the civil service, that vast body, which we will find are subject to the realities and impositions of the three estates listed above, and are not free to break or make the law.
There is a certain fascination about the question of what a Reform government will make of all this, as they realise that instead of chuntering about Magna Carta they find they are subject to the effects of 900 years of law and regulation making, governance and judicial decision, as well as being subject to the public's opinion about how they need it all sorted within a fortnight.
There is a massive, massive debate on the right of politics, very much including with Farage and Reform, about the current ungovernability of Britain. This has even been commented on by centrist podcasts like The News Agents and the New Statesman that I follow.
You may not agree with the solutions being discussed, but it's very dated to believe that Reform are wandering into power thinking they will just wave a magic wand and by 'being Reform' everything will start jumping to attention and everyone will behave patriotically. That pathetic Starmerite delusion doesn't exist on today's right.
Yes. Thanks. Agree mostly. What I mean is that while Reform are alive to the issues, so are the other powers within our society. IMHO the UK isn't the USA and Reform won't be able to 'do a Trump'. There will be an intense conflict going on, with participants including the three great separated powers (not overlooking the Lords), the civil service, the media, lawyers, other powerful vested interests and the great British public. About this there is a certain fascination.
This violent racist that’s been let into the country yesterday to much fanfare. It should be emphasised that James Clevery as Foreign Sec also pushed hard for his release and it was the Tories who gave him a British passport. Two cheeks of the same arse. They seem determined to hand the country to Big Nige.
Now they were probably looking to take out the power lines rather than the dam itself, but if that dam goes the Ukranian capital gets flooded. Add to the list of Russian war crimes.
Russia are apparently so weak that some argue they are no threat to Britain and Europe at all, and yet Britain and Europe have been unable - in nearly four years - to provide sufficient support to Ukraine so that they can protect themselves from the threat of a catastrophe that would kill many thousands.
There's something missing there.
I fear that Britain is not at all prepared for the destruction that Russia could inflict upon the country, should they so choose.
I don’t know that there’s a contradiction. For example, the IRA were never a strong conventional army, never had tanks or fighter jets, but they could still cause havoc, mayhem and death. Russia is, in some ways, very weak, but still also a significant threat. Russia is, in other ways, very strong. Defeating them in Ukraine is not easy.
We have given a lot of aid to Ukraine from some perspectives, but it’s only been 0.6% of our GDP. During World War II, we spent about 54% of our GDP on fighting, so about 100 times more.
I think Estonia has given about 4% of its GDP to Ukraine. Imagine if all of Europe and North America did that. But someone has to make the political argument for that and convince Western electorates, many of whom have already been turning to parties wanting to give less aid.
I think that's a very linear view of the politics.
You could argue that Britain is only giving just enough support to Ukraine to slow the rate at which it loses the war. You wouldn't have to be a Russian sympathiser to think that was a waste of money.
If we gave Ukraine more support, so that they could turn the tide, then that might inspire more confidence in the voting public, and the money might look like it was achieving more.
Fundamentally I think that European politicians have been too timid and lacking in confidence. They are scared of Putin escalating. They are scared of their own voters. You cannot inspire people to follow you with such behaviour.
Well, we have clear statements by Biden administration officials that they were modulating aid and restraining attacks on Russian. Based on intelligence of the probability of Putin & Chums escalating.
So it’s probably fair to say most of the major Western powers were doing this.
The "gap year" recruitment idea for the armed forces is interesting - my gap year wasn't spent in far flung destinations but working for Mecca Bookmakers so glamourous, it wasn't. I suspect it would look good on the CV and better than saying I went to Thailand or Australia or even Mecca Bookmakers in Panton Street.
They have a similar program in Australia and it works well. However, it's very expensive to do it properly as these people need a lot of supervision and they can only be used in a very limited number of roles. The UK MoD will probably just use them as cheap labour to do photocopying or something.
I’ve always been a fan of the idea, not so much with what they can do on a day to day basis (maybe be used for guard, sentry duty to free up other soldiers?) but more on the basis of building up a large number over time of people who have already learned the basics of shooting and infantry tactics so if there is a situation in the future where the country had to mobilise a lot of people will need refreshers rather than training from scratch which is surely a good thing?
You aren’t going to have millions of Marines in cold storage but the military would have lists of people with various levels of training and, hopefully, identified skill sets where they can be fast-tracked in an emergency.
Also it might get people to try it as only a short period who then find that it’s the life for them and they commit which would help the recruitment situation.
The scheme sounds interesting.
I would also like to see something between the French pompiers and the TA - an army service that trained and sat within the forces but had a day-to-day role of helping civilians - flood assistance, cat up a tree, perhaps some security stuff to deal with the crime wave, perhaps some deportation duties.
Our police service and possibly other emergency services (Grenfell did not show the Fire service in a good light) are growing increasingly complacent and in some instances anti the public they serve. There are deep philosophical reasons for this, but another one is simply that they have a monopoly on responding to emergencies. If they lost this monopoly, and there was an effective market in such services (not a free market, but a market nonetheless), and people could say 'screw the police I'm calling the army in', that would result in competition, and significant improvements in law and order.
We don’t want to normalise the army getting involved in non-military situations. They are rightly limited to getting involved at the request of (I think) the Home Secretary
The army isn't really the substantive point - the point is the alternative recourse for victims. Another alternative would be to have local sheriffs with policing duties in competition with local constabularies.
The military aspect however would provide a good training regime, and the vision would be for a standing force of auxiliaries with military training and discipline, who could be called upon in defence of the realm, but who in the meantime would serve a useful purpose. It is also the case that many veterans are currently homeless, and such an organisation would give those (primarily) men a sense of mission and a route out of homelessness.
Now they were probably looking to take out the power lines rather than the dam itself, but if that dam goes the Ukranian capital gets flooded. Add to the list of Russian war crimes.
Russia are apparently so weak that some argue they are no threat to Britain and Europe at all, and yet Britain and Europe have been unable - in nearly four years - to provide sufficient support to Ukraine so that they can protect themselves from the threat of a catastrophe that would kill many thousands.
There's something missing there.
I fear that Britain is not at all prepared for the destruction that Russia could inflict upon the country, should they so choose.
I don’t know that there’s a contradiction. For example, the IRA were never a strong conventional army, never had tanks or fighter jets, but they could still cause havoc, mayhem and death. Russia is, in some ways, very weak, but still also a significant threat. Russia is, in other ways, very strong. Defeating them in Ukraine is not easy.
We have given a lot of aid to Ukraine from some perspectives, but it’s only been 0.6% of our GDP. During World War II, we spent about 54% of our GDP on fighting, so about 100 times more.
I think Estonia has given about 4% of its GDP to Ukraine. Imagine if all of Europe and North America did that. But someone has to make the political argument for that and convince Western electorates, many of whom have already been turning to parties wanting to give less aid.
I think that's a very linear view of the politics.
You could argue that Britain is only giving just enough support to Ukraine to slow the rate at which it loses the war. You wouldn't have to be a Russian sympathiser to think that was a waste of money.
If we gave Ukraine more support, so that they could turn the tide, then that might inspire more confidence in the voting public, and the money might look like it was achieving more.
Fundamentally I think that European politicians have been too timid and lacking in confidence. They are scared of Putin escalating. They are scared of their own voters. You cannot inspire people to follow you with such behaviour.
Not to sound like a nervous nancy, but don’t you wonder whether there might be something to infer from both Biden and Trump’s white houses, and all of Old Europe, being consistently nervous of Putin escalating? As it is, his army has got bogged down in the mud for nearly four years, he’s burned through decades worth of Soviet military legacy, he’s ignited a slow burn demographic time bomb and has removed all leverage he had over the world with Russian energy.
I hold my hands up that I got this wrong, I thought it was viable and desirable to give enough aid to collapse Russia’s army and political machine. The Russian bear has been systematically defanged and the nuclear hum of summer 2022 has dimmed. Russia is in no state whatsoever to invade the rest of Europe (possibly ever), Ukraine is cemented as a western facing society and we’ve had to endure remarkably little economic pain to achieve it. Brutal real politik that my idealism couldn’t accept for the first two years of the war.
Now they were probably looking to take out the power lines rather than the dam itself, but if that dam goes the Ukranian capital gets flooded. Add to the list of Russian war crimes.
Russia are apparently so weak that some argue they are no threat to Britain and Europe at all, and yet Britain and Europe have been unable - in nearly four years - to provide sufficient support to Ukraine so that they can protect themselves from the threat of a catastrophe that would kill many thousands.
There's something missing there.
I fear that Britain is not at all prepared for the destruction that Russia could inflict upon the country, should they so choose.
I don’t know that there’s a contradiction. For example, the IRA were never a strong conventional army, never had tanks or fighter jets, but they could still cause havoc, mayhem and death. Russia is, in some ways, very weak, but still also a significant threat. Russia is, in other ways, very strong. Defeating them in Ukraine is not easy.
We have given a lot of aid to Ukraine from some perspectives, but it’s only been 0.6% of our GDP. During World War II, we spent about 54% of our GDP on fighting, so about 100 times more.
I think Estonia has given about 4% of its GDP to Ukraine. Imagine if all of Europe and North America did that. But someone has to make the political argument for that and convince Western electorates, many of whom have already been turning to parties wanting to give less aid.
I think that's a very linear view of the politics.
You could argue that Britain is only giving just enough support to Ukraine to slow the rate at which it loses the war. You wouldn't have to be a Russian sympathiser to think that was a waste of money.
If we gave Ukraine more support, so that they could turn the tide, then that might inspire more confidence in the voting public, and the money might look like it was achieving more.
Fundamentally I think that European politicians have been too timid and lacking in confidence. They are scared of Putin escalating. They are scared of their own voters. You cannot inspire people to follow you with such behaviour.
Well, you had a pop at me yesterday when I offered my thoughts but this confirms my hypothesis the "plan" in the West is to help Ukraine not lose and ensure Russia doesn't win - I also suspect the Chinese and others are playing the same game the opposite way - so the stalemate, the attrition and the death continues.
As I also said yesterday, how does this end? Even if we are able (via aid alone) to prevent a Ukrainian defeat, what would a Russian defeat mean? Regime change? From Putin to what? Another hardliner, perhaps even more determined to seek a military solution or a pragmatist who might accept the short term reverse (which he can blame on Putin) in favour of a period of replenishment and another round 5-10 years down the line?
Yes, we can all hope a post-Putin Russia will come back "to the light" and repudiate China and take a more pro-western line but is that in any way realistic? Not on day one, perhaps but over time, who knows? Do we one day want NATO troops (including Russians) on the Mongolian border facing the PLA?
On the point of escalation, you'd better believe it worries me - personally I don't believe for a second Putin and his followers would want to see their lifestyle erased in a moment but everyone knows you don't let that genie out of the bottle.
Grok has this to say in response to a question as to whether he would be arrested.
"Based on reports, Alaa Abd El-Fattah arrived in the UK on Dec 26, 2025, without arrest. His 2011-2013 tweets, if genuine, include sarcastic remarks (e.g., with smileys) on racism/privilege, which may not meet UK hate speech thresholds under the Public Order Act (requiring intent to stir hatred). Recent arrests targeted incitement during riots. No ongoing probe reported."
I think Grok is contending that it was possibly all banter. Personally I hate banter.
People I worked with who thought they were banter lords were just bullies.
Banter is just en excuse for being an arsehole or mitigating deeply unpleasant comments.
If,people want to see his comments, and there is a pattern here, as banter. So be it.
My Arabic isn’t up to scratch, so can’t be 100% confident of the translation, or context, but…
Getting this bloke here was one of Sir Keir’s priorities
The sayings of Labour’s favourite Egyptian dissident Alaa Abd El-Fattah in English are terrifying, but here’s what he says in Arabic: ‘If we can't kill the officers anyway ... fine. We'll find a terrorist cell to kill their children and torture their mothers. Peaceful is stupid.’
The problem is that a project like this will be aggressively opposed by the Enquiry Industrial Complex. Minimum 20 years to get approval.
No. Swansea got through planning in 2 years, with 80-odd% local support.
The bigger issue is that Minhead was always one of the more complex options. It has not been improved by Hinkley C going for a tidal cooling system of it own, as their "fish scarer" - part of the planning requirement - didn't work.
Plus the stated numbers are notywhere near as good as Cardiff. That would be the sensible first build. All the twiddly bits they are talking about for Minehead that make it more appealling were already incorporated into the Swansea proposal.
The Swansea Bay tidal lagoon was a fantastic prospect. As I recall from local anecdota it was heavily supported by Alun Cairns and the May Government who were very enthusiastic, but that tosser Drakeford spent all the investment capital Mrs May provided on 20mph signs and a pedestrian walkway on Aberavon seafront.
Maybe Nigel and the Tories will resurrect the project after their Senedd victory next May.
That's not my recollection. The May Government kiboshed it. Largely on dodgy civil service VFM figures (though somehow tens of billions of nuclear plods on).
Now they were probably looking to take out the power lines rather than the dam itself, but if that dam goes the Ukranian capital gets flooded. Add to the list of Russian war crimes.
Russia are apparently so weak that some argue they are no threat to Britain and Europe at all, and yet Britain and Europe have been unable - in nearly four years - to provide sufficient support to Ukraine so that they can protect themselves from the threat of a catastrophe that would kill many thousands.
There's something missing there.
I fear that Britain is not at all prepared for the destruction that Russia could inflict upon the country, should they so choose.
I don’t know that there’s a contradiction. For example, the IRA were never a strong conventional army, never had tanks or fighter jets, but they could still cause havoc, mayhem and death. Russia is, in some ways, very weak, but still also a significant threat. Russia is, in other ways, very strong. Defeating them in Ukraine is not easy.
We have given a lot of aid to Ukraine from some perspectives, but it’s only been 0.6% of our GDP. During World War II, we spent about 54% of our GDP on fighting, so about 100 times more.
I think Estonia has given about 4% of its GDP to Ukraine. Imagine if all of Europe and North America did that. But someone has to make the political argument for that and convince Western electorates, many of whom have already been turning to parties wanting to give less aid.
I think that's a very linear view of the politics.
You could argue that Britain is only giving just enough support to Ukraine to slow the rate at which it loses the war. You wouldn't have to be a Russian sympathiser to think that was a waste of money.
If we gave Ukraine more support, so that they could turn the tide, then that might inspire more confidence in the voting public, and the money might look like it was achieving more.
Fundamentally I think that European politicians have been too timid and lacking in confidence. They are scared of Putin escalating. They are scared of their own voters. You cannot inspire people to follow you with such behaviour.
Well, we have clear statements by Biden administration officials that they were modulating aid and restraining attacks on Russian. Based on intelligence of the probability of Putin & Chums escalating.
So it’s probably fair to say most of the major Western powers were doing this.
My view (fwiw) is the chances of Putin reacting against the prospect of defeat in Ukraine with nukes or directly against NATO are low. I certainly don't think it should dominate European thinking. However it does have to be in the mix because although it might be low probability it would be high impact. You don't want to just assume it won't happen. You have to do, as they did, an assessment. An assessment they are presumably keeping under live review as things progress.
Now they were probably looking to take out the power lines rather than the dam itself, but if that dam goes the Ukranian capital gets flooded. Add to the list of Russian war crimes.
Russia are apparently so weak that some argue they are no threat to Britain and Europe at all, and yet Britain and Europe have been unable - in nearly four years - to provide sufficient support to Ukraine so that they can protect themselves from the threat of a catastrophe that would kill many thousands.
There's something missing there.
I fear that Britain is not at all prepared for the destruction that Russia could inflict upon the country, should they so choose.
I don’t know that there’s a contradiction. For example, the IRA were never a strong conventional army, never had tanks or fighter jets, but they could still cause havoc, mayhem and death. Russia is, in some ways, very weak, but still also a significant threat. Russia is, in other ways, very strong. Defeating them in Ukraine is not easy.
We have given a lot of aid to Ukraine from some perspectives, but it’s only been 0.6% of our GDP. During World War II, we spent about 54% of our GDP on fighting, so about 100 times more.
I think Estonia has given about 4% of its GDP to Ukraine. Imagine if all of Europe and North America did that. But someone has to make the political argument for that and convince Western electorates, many of whom have already been turning to parties wanting to give less aid.
I think that's a very linear view of the politics.
You could argue that Britain is only giving just enough support to Ukraine to slow the rate at which it loses the war. You wouldn't have to be a Russian sympathiser to think that was a waste of money.
If we gave Ukraine more support, so that they could turn the tide, then that might inspire more confidence in the voting public, and the money might look like it was achieving more.
Fundamentally I think that European politicians have been too timid and lacking in confidence. They are scared of Putin escalating. They are scared of their own voters. You cannot inspire people to follow you with such behaviour.
Well, we have clear statements by Biden administration officials that they were modulating aid and restraining attacks on Russian. Based on intelligence of the probability of Putin & Chums escalating.
So it’s probably fair to say most of the major Western powers were doing this.
My view (fwiw) is the chances of Putin reacting against the prospect of defeat in Ukraine with nukes or directly against NATO are low. I certainly don't think it should dominate European thinking. However it does have to be in the mix because although it might be low probability it would be high impact. You don't want to just assume it won't happen. You have to do, as they did, an assessment. An assessment they are presumably keeping under live review as things progress.
A more realistic possibility is using them agaisnt Ukraine. He could manufacture a justification based on blaming an atrocity on them and try to end the war with a nuclear strike.
Grok has this to say in response to a question as to whether he would be arrested.
"Based on reports, Alaa Abd El-Fattah arrived in the UK on Dec 26, 2025, without arrest. His 2011-2013 tweets, if genuine, include sarcastic remarks (e.g., with smileys) on racism/privilege, which may not meet UK hate speech thresholds under the Public Order Act (requiring intent to stir hatred). Recent arrests targeted incitement during riots. No ongoing probe reported."
I think Grok is contending that it was possibly all banter. Personally I hate banter.
People I worked with who thought they were banter lords were just bullies.
Banter is just en excuse for being an arsehole or mitigating deeply unpleasant comments.
If,people want to see his comments, and there is a pattern here, as banter. So be it.
My Arabic isn’t up to scratch, so can’t be 100% confident of the translation, or context, but…
Getting this bloke here was one of Sir Keir’s priorities
The sayings of Labour’s favourite Egyptian dissident Alaa Abd El-Fattah in English are terrifying, but here’s what he says in Arabic: ‘If we can't kill the officers anyway ... fine. We'll find a terrorist cell to kill their children and torture their mothers. Peaceful is stupid.’
Now they were probably looking to take out the power lines rather than the dam itself, but if that dam goes the Ukranian capital gets flooded. Add to the list of Russian war crimes.
Russia are apparently so weak that some argue they are no threat to Britain and Europe at all, and yet Britain and Europe have been unable - in nearly four years - to provide sufficient support to Ukraine so that they can protect themselves from the threat of a catastrophe that would kill many thousands.
There's something missing there.
I fear that Britain is not at all prepared for the destruction that Russia could inflict upon the country, should they so choose.
I don’t know that there’s a contradiction. For example, the IRA were never a strong conventional army, never had tanks or fighter jets, but they could still cause havoc, mayhem and death. Russia is, in some ways, very weak, but still also a significant threat. Russia is, in other ways, very strong. Defeating them in Ukraine is not easy.
We have given a lot of aid to Ukraine from some perspectives, but it’s only been 0.6% of our GDP. During World War II, we spent about 54% of our GDP on fighting, so about 100 times more.
I think Estonia has given about 4% of its GDP to Ukraine. Imagine if all of Europe and North America did that. But someone has to make the political argument for that and convince Western electorates, many of whom have already been turning to parties wanting to give less aid.
I think that's a very linear view of the politics.
You could argue that Britain is only giving just enough support to Ukraine to slow the rate at which it loses the war. You wouldn't have to be a Russian sympathiser to think that was a waste of money.
If we gave Ukraine more support, so that they could turn the tide, then that might inspire more confidence in the voting public, and the money might look like it was achieving more.
Fundamentally I think that European politicians have been too timid and lacking in confidence. They are scared of Putin escalating. They are scared of their own voters. You cannot inspire people to follow you with such behaviour.
According to the Ukrainians the Russians have lost 11,464 tanks. That might be high but the number is astounding.
When my father was serving in the BAOR in the 1970s the expectation was that those 11k tank would come though the Fulda Gap and that we might hold them up for a couple of weeks before we would have to go nuclear. That huge reserve of tanks that threatened western Europe 50 years ago is now smouldering ash in Ukraine. Only an idiot would think that we have not benefitted from that. Enormously. Some of the best money we have spent in recent years.
Now they were probably looking to take out the power lines rather than the dam itself, but if that dam goes the Ukranian capital gets flooded. Add to the list of Russian war crimes.
Russia are apparently so weak that some argue they are no threat to Britain and Europe at all, and yet Britain and Europe have been unable - in nearly four years - to provide sufficient support to Ukraine so that they can protect themselves from the threat of a catastrophe that would kill many thousands.
There's something missing there.
I fear that Britain is not at all prepared for the destruction that Russia could inflict upon the country, should they so choose.
I don’t know that there’s a contradiction. For example, the IRA were never a strong conventional army, never had tanks or fighter jets, but they could still cause havoc, mayhem and death. Russia is, in some ways, very weak, but still also a significant threat. Russia is, in other ways, very strong. Defeating them in Ukraine is not easy.
We have given a lot of aid to Ukraine from some perspectives, but it’s only been 0.6% of our GDP. During World War II, we spent about 54% of our GDP on fighting, so about 100 times more.
I think Estonia has given about 4% of its GDP to Ukraine. Imagine if all of Europe and North America did that. But someone has to make the political argument for that and convince Western electorates, many of whom have already been turning to parties wanting to give less aid.
I think that's a very linear view of the politics.
You could argue that Britain is only giving just enough support to Ukraine to slow the rate at which it loses the war. You wouldn't have to be a Russian sympathiser to think that was a waste of money.
If we gave Ukraine more support, so that they could turn the tide, then that might inspire more confidence in the voting public, and the money might look like it was achieving more.
Fundamentally I think that European politicians have been too timid and lacking in confidence. They are scared of Putin escalating. They are scared of their own voters. You cannot inspire people to follow you with such behaviour.
Well, you had a pop at me yesterday when I offered my thoughts but this confirms my hypothesis the "plan" in the West is to help Ukraine not lose and ensure Russia doesn't win - I also suspect the Chinese and others are playing the same game the opposite way - so the stalemate, the attrition and the death continues.
As I also said yesterday, how does this end? Even if we are able (via aid alone) to prevent a Ukrainian defeat, what would a Russian defeat mean? Regime change? From Putin to what? Another hardliner, perhaps even more determined to seek a military solution or a pragmatist who might accept the short term reverse (which he can blame on Putin) in favour of a period of replenishment and another round 5-10 years down the line?
Yes, we can all hope a post-Putin Russia will come back "to the light" and repudiate China and take a more pro-western line but is that in any way realistic? Not on day one, perhaps but over time, who knows? Do we one day want NATO troops (including Russians) on the Mongolian border facing the PLA?
On the point of escalation, you'd better believe it worries me - personally I don't believe for a second Putin and his followers would want to see their lifestyle erased in a moment but everyone knows you don't let that genie out of the bottle.
I disagreed with you, it wasn't meant to be taken as a pop at you.
I think we have a serious problem in that we've allowed the fear of escalation to become too one-sided. We worry about it much more than the Russians do.
This is a very dangerous dynamic because it emboldens Putin to push it further and further. We need to even this up a bit.
I also think there is ample evidence that our fears of escalation have been severely overdone. Putin has experienced numerous major reverses in this war and has not pushed the nuclear button, or responded directly with other escalations. We now have Storm Shadows missiles being used to target Russian oil refineries and the Russians make no response, despite all the dire threats they'd previously made, to give just the most recent example. But they are not at all deterred from taking actions such as destroying the Kakhovka dam.
We also shouldn't worry about the future inside Russia too much. We certainly aren't going to march on Moscow and occupy the country, so what happens to the government of the country is up to them. What we should concern ourselves with is setting limits on what Russia does outside its borders, and we have spent nearly two decades failing to set those boundaries effectively.
This is crucially important as a demonstration to China over the acceptability of its territorial ambitions. A failure to stand up to Russia with sufficient strength sends a signal to China that only encourages them to conclude that we won't stand up to them.
I really think that success or failure in the war between Ukraine and Russia is the fulcrum on which the history of this century will turn.
“Alaa Abdel Fattah has history of antisemitic comments. In November 2012, he wrote that “there is a critical number of Israelis that we need to kill” In 2010 he Tweeted “yes, I consider killing any colonialists and specially zionists heroic, we need to kill more of them”.
Are you being serious? The Israelis have assasinated more people from various surrounding countries including Egypt Lebanon Syria and more or less every other country you can think of in that region it would be surprising if he wouldn't have assasinations on his mind. They even killed a bunch of Iranian scientists within the last six months
Is this assasination business a game for only one player?
EXCLUSIVE: Keir Starmer gave peerage to ex-aide despite knowing he campaigned for man charged with child sex offences inc accessing images of girls as young as 10
Now they were probably looking to take out the power lines rather than the dam itself, but if that dam goes the Ukranian capital gets flooded. Add to the list of Russian war crimes.
Russia are apparently so weak that some argue they are no threat to Britain and Europe at all, and yet Britain and Europe have been unable - in nearly four years - to provide sufficient support to Ukraine so that they can protect themselves from the threat of a catastrophe that would kill many thousands.
There's something missing there.
I fear that Britain is not at all prepared for the destruction that Russia could inflict upon the country, should they so choose.
I don’t know that there’s a contradiction. For example, the IRA were never a strong conventional army, never had tanks or fighter jets, but they could still cause havoc, mayhem and death. Russia is, in some ways, very weak, but still also a significant threat. Russia is, in other ways, very strong. Defeating them in Ukraine is not easy.
We have given a lot of aid to Ukraine from some perspectives, but it’s only been 0.6% of our GDP. During World War II, we spent about 54% of our GDP on fighting, so about 100 times more.
I think Estonia has given about 4% of its GDP to Ukraine. Imagine if all of Europe and North America did that. But someone has to make the political argument for that and convince Western electorates, many of whom have already been turning to parties wanting to give less aid.
I think that's a very linear view of the politics.
You could argue that Britain is only giving just enough support to Ukraine to slow the rate at which it loses the war. You wouldn't have to be a Russian sympathiser to think that was a waste of money.
If we gave Ukraine more support, so that they could turn the tide, then that might inspire more confidence in the voting public, and the money might look like it was achieving more.
Fundamentally I think that European politicians have been too timid and lacking in confidence. They are scared of Putin escalating. They are scared of their own voters. You cannot inspire people to follow you with such behaviour.
Well, we have clear statements by Biden administration officials that they were modulating aid and restraining attacks on Russian. Based on intelligence of the probability of Putin & Chums escalating.
So it’s probably fair to say most of the major Western powers were doing this.
My view (fwiw) is the chances of Putin reacting against the prospect of defeat in Ukraine with nukes or directly against NATO are low. I certainly don't think it should dominate European thinking. However it does have to be in the mix because although it might be low probability it would be high impact. You don't want to just assume it won't happen. You have to do, as they did, an assessment. An assessment they are presumably keeping under live review as things progress.
A more realistic possibility is using them agaisnt Ukraine. He could manufacture a justification based on blaming an atrocity on them and try to end the war with a nuclear strike.
Indeed. Routinely overlooked in this shire is the Bob Woodward claim that in autumn 2022, the official USNSC assessment of “imminent nuclear exchange” was 50%, based upon “exquisite intelligence”. I don’t know why people just ignore that.
Now they were probably looking to take out the power lines rather than the dam itself, but if that dam goes the Ukranian capital gets flooded. Add to the list of Russian war crimes.
Russia are apparently so weak that some argue they are no threat to Britain and Europe at all, and yet Britain and Europe have been unable - in nearly four years - to provide sufficient support to Ukraine so that they can protect themselves from the threat of a catastrophe that would kill many thousands.
There's something missing there.
I fear that Britain is not at all prepared for the destruction that Russia could inflict upon the country, should they so choose.
I don’t know that there’s a contradiction. For example, the IRA were never a strong conventional army, never had tanks or fighter jets, but they could still cause havoc, mayhem and death. Russia is, in some ways, very weak, but still also a significant threat. Russia is, in other ways, very strong. Defeating them in Ukraine is not easy.
We have given a lot of aid to Ukraine from some perspectives, but it’s only been 0.6% of our GDP. During World War II, we spent about 54% of our GDP on fighting, so about 100 times more.
I think Estonia has given about 4% of its GDP to Ukraine. Imagine if all of Europe and North America did that. But someone has to make the political argument for that and convince Western electorates, many of whom have already been turning to parties wanting to give less aid.
I think that's a very linear view of the politics.
You could argue that Britain is only giving just enough support to Ukraine to slow the rate at which it loses the war. You wouldn't have to be a Russian sympathiser to think that was a waste of money.
If we gave Ukraine more support, so that they could turn the tide, then that might inspire more confidence in the voting public, and the money might look like it was achieving more.
Fundamentally I think that European politicians have been too timid and lacking in confidence. They are scared of Putin escalating. They are scared of their own voters. You cannot inspire people to follow you with such behaviour.
Well, we have clear statements by Biden administration officials that they were modulating aid and restraining attacks on Russian. Based on intelligence of the probability of Putin & Chums escalating.
So it’s probably fair to say most of the major Western powers were doing this.
My view (fwiw) is the chances of Putin reacting against the prospect of defeat in Ukraine with nukes or directly against NATO are low. I certainly don't think it should dominate European thinking. However it does have to be in the mix because although it might be low probability it would be high impact. You don't want to just assume it won't happen. You have to do, as they did, an assessment. An assessment they are presumably keeping under live review as things progress.
A more realistic possibility is using them agaisnt Ukraine. He could manufacture a justification based on blaming an atrocity on them and try to end the war with a nuclear strike.
Yup - tactical nukes to break the front line.
The classic method (cold war tactic) would be to drop a string of them, with overlapping destruction zones. Then advance down both sides of the string, out of the residual radiation zone, without waiting for that to cool off.
Now they were probably looking to take out the power lines rather than the dam itself, but if that dam goes the Ukranian capital gets flooded. Add to the list of Russian war crimes.
Russia are apparently so weak that some argue they are no threat to Britain and Europe at all, and yet Britain and Europe have been unable - in nearly four years - to provide sufficient support to Ukraine so that they can protect themselves from the threat of a catastrophe that would kill many thousands.
There's something missing there.
I fear that Britain is not at all prepared for the destruction that Russia could inflict upon the country, should they so choose.
I don’t know that there’s a contradiction. For example, the IRA were never a strong conventional army, never had tanks or fighter jets, but they could still cause havoc, mayhem and death. Russia is, in some ways, very weak, but still also a significant threat. Russia is, in other ways, very strong. Defeating them in Ukraine is not easy.
We have given a lot of aid to Ukraine from some perspectives, but it’s only been 0.6% of our GDP. During World War II, we spent about 54% of our GDP on fighting, so about 100 times more.
I think Estonia has given about 4% of its GDP to Ukraine. Imagine if all of Europe and North America did that. But someone has to make the political argument for that and convince Western electorates, many of whom have already been turning to parties wanting to give less aid.
I think that's a very linear view of the politics.
You could argue that Britain is only giving just enough support to Ukraine to slow the rate at which it loses the war. You wouldn't have to be a Russian sympathiser to think that was a waste of money.
If we gave Ukraine more support, so that they could turn the tide, then that might inspire more confidence in the voting public, and the money might look like it was achieving more.
Fundamentally I think that European politicians have been too timid and lacking in confidence. They are scared of Putin escalating. They are scared of their own voters. You cannot inspire people to follow you with such behaviour.
According to the Ukrainians the Russians have lost 11,464 tanks. That might be high but the number is astounding.
When my father was serving in the BAOR in the 1970s the expectation was that those 11k tank would come though the Fulda Gap and that we might hold them up for a couple of weeks before we would have to go nuclear. That huge reserve of tanks that threatened western Europe 50 years ago is now smouldering ash in Ukraine. Only an idiot would think that we have not benefitted from that. Enormously. Some of the best money we have spent in recent years.
The overheads from the tank storage yards across Russian confirm what has happened. The tanks, SPGs, armoured personnel carriers that were usable were sent. Then the fixable ones.
What is left now are a small number hulks with no turrets (and similar). Given that they are stored outside in seasonal weather (baked in Summer, snow in Winter etc) without protection - they are scrap.
So either the Russians have magically hid them and not used them, or the Ukrainians have really eaten the vast majority of the Russian/USSR armoured reserve.
Now they were probably looking to take out the power lines rather than the dam itself, but if that dam goes the Ukranian capital gets flooded. Add to the list of Russian war crimes.
Russia are apparently so weak that some argue they are no threat to Britain and Europe at all, and yet Britain and Europe have been unable - in nearly four years - to provide sufficient support to Ukraine so that they can protect themselves from the threat of a catastrophe that would kill many thousands.
There's something missing there.
I fear that Britain is not at all prepared for the destruction that Russia could inflict upon the country, should they so choose.
I don’t know that there’s a contradiction. For example, the IRA were never a strong conventional army, never had tanks or fighter jets, but they could still cause havoc, mayhem and death. Russia is, in some ways, very weak, but still also a significant threat. Russia is, in other ways, very strong. Defeating them in Ukraine is not easy.
We have given a lot of aid to Ukraine from some perspectives, but it’s only been 0.6% of our GDP. During World War II, we spent about 54% of our GDP on fighting, so about 100 times more.
I think Estonia has given about 4% of its GDP to Ukraine. Imagine if all of Europe and North America did that. But someone has to make the political argument for that and convince Western electorates, many of whom have already been turning to parties wanting to give less aid.
I think that's a very linear view of the politics.
You could argue that Britain is only giving just enough support to Ukraine to slow the rate at which it loses the war. You wouldn't have to be a Russian sympathiser to think that was a waste of money.
If we gave Ukraine more support, so that they could turn the tide, then that might inspire more confidence in the voting public, and the money might look like it was achieving more.
Fundamentally I think that European politicians have been too timid and lacking in confidence. They are scared of Putin escalating. They are scared of their own voters. You cannot inspire people to follow you with such behaviour.
Well, you had a pop at me yesterday when I offered my thoughts but this confirms my hypothesis the "plan" in the West is to help Ukraine not lose and ensure Russia doesn't win - I also suspect the Chinese and others are playing the same game the opposite way - so the stalemate, the attrition and the death continues.
As I also said yesterday, how does this end? Even if we are able (via aid alone) to prevent a Ukrainian defeat, what would a Russian defeat mean? Regime change? From Putin to what? Another hardliner, perhaps even more determined to seek a military solution or a pragmatist who might accept the short term reverse (which he can blame on Putin) in favour of a period of replenishment and another round 5-10 years down the line?
Yes, we can all hope a post-Putin Russia will come back "to the light" and repudiate China and take a more pro-western line but is that in any way realistic? Not on day one, perhaps but over time, who knows? Do we one day want NATO troops (including Russians) on the Mongolian border facing the PLA?
On the point of escalation, you'd better believe it worries me - personally I don't believe for a second Putin and his followers would want to see their lifestyle erased in a moment but everyone knows you don't let that genie out of the bottle.
I disagreed with you, it wasn't meant to be taken as a pop at you.
I think we have a serious problem in that we've allowed the fear of escalation to become too one-sided. We worry about it much more than the Russians do.
This is a very dangerous dynamic because it emboldens Putin to push it further and further. We need to even this up a bit.
I also think there is ample evidence that our fears of escalation have been severely overdone. Putin has experienced numerous major reverses in this war and has not pushed the nuclear button, or responded directly with other escalations. We now have Storm Shadows missiles being used to target Russian oil refineries and the Russians make no response, despite all the dire threats they'd previously made, to give just the most recent example. But they are not at all deterred from taking actions such as destroying the Kakhovka dam.
We also shouldn't worry about the future inside Russia too much. We certainly aren't going to march on Moscow and occupy the country, so what happens to the government of the country is up to them. What we should concern ourselves with is setting limits on what Russia does outside its borders, and we have spent nearly two decades failing to set those boundaries effectively.
This is crucially important as a demonstration to China over the acceptability of its territorial ambitions. A failure to stand up to Russia with sufficient strength sends a signal to China that only encourages them to conclude that we won't stand up to them.
I really think that success or failure in the war between Ukraine and Russia is the fulcrum on which the history of this century will turn.
I stand by my view of yesterday but yes we are here to debate and of course if you disagree that's your right and you expressed your view fairly and reasonably and I'm glad to accept it wasn't personal.
If we are trying to encourage forces within Russia to remove Putin and his clique, fair enough, but I don't think we can be disinterested parties as to the future political direction of Russia. Yes, we can't march on Moscow but it would be so much easier IF the next regime in the Kremlin was less anatagonistic, less in the mindset of Peter The Great and more constructive in its relations.
Setting boundaries isn't just about stick - it also involves carrot and in the West we could and would benefit enormously from a more constructive relationship with Russia and that's what we should be arguing and pushing for a post-Putin rapprochement.
Now they were probably looking to take out the power lines rather than the dam itself, but if that dam goes the Ukranian capital gets flooded. Add to the list of Russian war crimes.
Russia are apparently so weak that some argue they are no threat to Britain and Europe at all, and yet Britain and Europe have been unable - in nearly four years - to provide sufficient support to Ukraine so that they can protect themselves from the threat of a catastrophe that would kill many thousands.
There's something missing there.
I fear that Britain is not at all prepared for the destruction that Russia could inflict upon the country, should they so choose.
I don’t know that there’s a contradiction. For example, the IRA were never a strong conventional army, never had tanks or fighter jets, but they could still cause havoc, mayhem and death. Russia is, in some ways, very weak, but still also a significant threat. Russia is, in other ways, very strong. Defeating them in Ukraine is not easy.
We have given a lot of aid to Ukraine from some perspectives, but it’s only been 0.6% of our GDP. During World War II, we spent about 54% of our GDP on fighting, so about 100 times more.
I think Estonia has given about 4% of its GDP to Ukraine. Imagine if all of Europe and North America did that. But someone has to make the political argument for that and convince Western electorates, many of whom have already been turning to parties wanting to give less aid.
I think that's a very linear view of the politics.
You could argue that Britain is only giving just enough support to Ukraine to slow the rate at which it loses the war. You wouldn't have to be a Russian sympathiser to think that was a waste of money.
If we gave Ukraine more support, so that they could turn the tide, then that might inspire more confidence in the voting public, and the money might look like it was achieving more.
Fundamentally I think that European politicians have been too timid and lacking in confidence. They are scared of Putin escalating. They are scared of their own voters. You cannot inspire people to follow you with such behaviour.
Well, you had a pop at me yesterday when I offered my thoughts but this confirms my hypothesis the "plan" in the West is to help Ukraine not lose and ensure Russia doesn't win - I also suspect the Chinese and others are playing the same game the opposite way - so the stalemate, the attrition and the death continues.
As I also said yesterday, how does this end? Even if we are able (via aid alone) to prevent a Ukrainian defeat, what would a Russian defeat mean? Regime change? From Putin to what? Another hardliner, perhaps even more determined to seek a military solution or a pragmatist who might accept the short term reverse (which he can blame on Putin) in favour of a period of replenishment and another round 5-10 years down the line?
Yes, we can all hope a post-Putin Russia will come back "to the light" and repudiate China and take a more pro-western line but is that in any way realistic? Not on day one, perhaps but over time, who knows? Do we one day want NATO troops (including Russians) on the Mongolian border facing the PLA?
On the point of escalation, you'd better believe it worries me - personally I don't believe for a second Putin and his followers would want to see their lifestyle erased in a moment but everyone knows you don't let that genie out of the bottle.
I think post-Putin (say he was assassinated) Russia's actions would depend on how much internal chaos there was, and on Nato's and the USA's action.
If NATO suddenly said "no fly zone for Russian aircraft in sovereign Ukraine territory, and the apparatus launching any missiles in is all subject to retaliation" (which I think ... unlikely !), and perhaps "we are closing the Baltic to all Russian shipping", then backing off, and a new iron curtain down the borders of Russia, could be possible.
Or not. And it depends on Trump's efforts to pander, that would undermine stability lasting more than a few months or a couple of years. He's still in 20C Q3 in his head.
I just don't see even detente (Christmas Film: "I haven't got it, you haven't got it, Comrade.") being possible for the next 25 or 30 years.
But Putin, and his staff, know they have nothing on even the NATO part of Europe, in arms terms, and the longer it goes on the firmer that difference is. That has the big IF that Europe has the political stability to be willing to use it.
Now they were probably looking to take out the power lines rather than the dam itself, but if that dam goes the Ukranian capital gets flooded. Add to the list of Russian war crimes.
Russia are apparently so weak that some argue they are no threat to Britain and Europe at all, and yet Britain and Europe have been unable - in nearly four years - to provide sufficient support to Ukraine so that they can protect themselves from the threat of a catastrophe that would kill many thousands.
There's something missing there.
I fear that Britain is not at all prepared for the destruction that Russia could inflict upon the country, should they so choose.
I don’t know that there’s a contradiction. For example, the IRA were never a strong conventional army, never had tanks or fighter jets, but they could still cause havoc, mayhem and death. Russia is, in some ways, very weak, but still also a significant threat. Russia is, in other ways, very strong. Defeating them in Ukraine is not easy.
We have given a lot of aid to Ukraine from some perspectives, but it’s only been 0.6% of our GDP. During World War II, we spent about 54% of our GDP on fighting, so about 100 times more.
I think Estonia has given about 4% of its GDP to Ukraine. Imagine if all of Europe and North America did that. But someone has to make the political argument for that and convince Western electorates, many of whom have already been turning to parties wanting to give less aid.
I think that's a very linear view of the politics.
You could argue that Britain is only giving just enough support to Ukraine to slow the rate at which it loses the war. You wouldn't have to be a Russian sympathiser to think that was a waste of money.
If we gave Ukraine more support, so that they could turn the tide, then that might inspire more confidence in the voting public, and the money might look like it was achieving more.
Fundamentally I think that European politicians have been too timid and lacking in confidence. They are scared of Putin escalating. They are scared of their own voters. You cannot inspire people to follow you with such behaviour.
Well, we have clear statements by Biden administration officials that they were modulating aid and restraining attacks on Russian. Based on intelligence of the probability of Putin & Chums escalating.
So it’s probably fair to say most of the major Western powers were doing this.
My view (fwiw) is the chances of Putin reacting against the prospect of defeat in Ukraine with nukes or directly against NATO are low. I certainly don't think it should dominate European thinking. However it does have to be in the mix because although it might be low probability it would be high impact. You don't want to just assume it won't happen. You have to do, as they did, an assessment. An assessment they are presumably keeping under live review as things progress.
A more realistic possibility is using them agaisnt Ukraine. He could manufacture a justification based on blaming an atrocity on them and try to end the war with a nuclear strike.
Yes, I was including that possibility. You can neither assume it nor rule it out. A probability is required, plus the range of expected outcomes if it were to happen (with their probabilities). I'd hope that people more qualified than me (or even the most war savvy of PBers) are on the case with this.
Now they were probably looking to take out the power lines rather than the dam itself, but if that dam goes the Ukranian capital gets flooded. Add to the list of Russian war crimes.
Russia are apparently so weak that some argue they are no threat to Britain and Europe at all, and yet Britain and Europe have been unable - in nearly four years - to provide sufficient support to Ukraine so that they can protect themselves from the threat of a catastrophe that would kill many thousands.
There's something missing there.
I fear that Britain is not at all prepared for the destruction that Russia could inflict upon the country, should they so choose.
I don’t know that there’s a contradiction. For example, the IRA were never a strong conventional army, never had tanks or fighter jets, but they could still cause havoc, mayhem and death. Russia is, in some ways, very weak, but still also a significant threat. Russia is, in other ways, very strong. Defeating them in Ukraine is not easy.
We have given a lot of aid to Ukraine from some perspectives, but it’s only been 0.6% of our GDP. During World War II, we spent about 54% of our GDP on fighting, so about 100 times more.
I think Estonia has given about 4% of its GDP to Ukraine. Imagine if all of Europe and North America did that. But someone has to make the political argument for that and convince Western electorates, many of whom have already been turning to parties wanting to give less aid.
I think that's a very linear view of the politics.
You could argue that Britain is only giving just enough support to Ukraine to slow the rate at which it loses the war. You wouldn't have to be a Russian sympathiser to think that was a waste of money.
If we gave Ukraine more support, so that they could turn the tide, then that might inspire more confidence in the voting public, and the money might look like it was achieving more.
Fundamentally I think that European politicians have been too timid and lacking in confidence. They are scared of Putin escalating. They are scared of their own voters. You cannot inspire people to follow you with such behaviour.
Well, we have clear statements by Biden administration officials that they were modulating aid and restraining attacks on Russian. Based on intelligence of the probability of Putin & Chums escalating.
So it’s probably fair to say most of the major Western powers were doing this.
My view (fwiw) is the chances of Putin reacting against the prospect of defeat in Ukraine with nukes or directly against NATO are low. I certainly don't think it should dominate European thinking. However it does have to be in the mix because although it might be low probability it would be high impact. You don't want to just assume it won't happen. You have to do, as they did, an assessment. An assessment they are presumably keeping under live review as things progress.
A more realistic possibility is using them agaisnt Ukraine. He could manufacture a justification based on blaming an atrocity on them and try to end the war with a nuclear strike.
Indeed. Routinely overlooked in this shire is the Bob Woodward claim that in autumn 2022, the official USNSC assessment of “imminent nuclear exchange” was 50%, based upon “exquisite intelligence”. I don’t know why people just ignore that.
Because it was wrong. The Chinese told the Russians to can the nuclear talk, Boden told the Russians that there would be consequences, the Russians backed down.
Now they were probably looking to take out the power lines rather than the dam itself, but if that dam goes the Ukranian capital gets flooded. Add to the list of Russian war crimes.
Russia are apparently so weak that some argue they are no threat to Britain and Europe at all, and yet Britain and Europe have been unable - in nearly four years - to provide sufficient support to Ukraine so that they can protect themselves from the threat of a catastrophe that would kill many thousands.
There's something missing there.
I fear that Britain is not at all prepared for the destruction that Russia could inflict upon the country, should they so choose.
I don’t know that there’s a contradiction. For example, the IRA were never a strong conventional army, never had tanks or fighter jets, but they could still cause havoc, mayhem and death. Russia is, in some ways, very weak, but still also a significant threat. Russia is, in other ways, very strong. Defeating them in Ukraine is not easy.
We have given a lot of aid to Ukraine from some perspectives, but it’s only been 0.6% of our GDP. During World War II, we spent about 54% of our GDP on fighting, so about 100 times more.
I think Estonia has given about 4% of its GDP to Ukraine. Imagine if all of Europe and North America did that. But someone has to make the political argument for that and convince Western electorates, many of whom have already been turning to parties wanting to give less aid.
I think that's a very linear view of the politics.
You could argue that Britain is only giving just enough support to Ukraine to slow the rate at which it loses the war. You wouldn't have to be a Russian sympathiser to think that was a waste of money.
If we gave Ukraine more support, so that they could turn the tide, then that might inspire more confidence in the voting public, and the money might look like it was achieving more.
Fundamentally I think that European politicians have been too timid and lacking in confidence. They are scared of Putin escalating. They are scared of their own voters. You cannot inspire people to follow you with such behaviour.
Well, we have clear statements by Biden administration officials that they were modulating aid and restraining attacks on Russian. Based on intelligence of the probability of Putin & Chums escalating.
So it’s probably fair to say most of the major Western powers were doing this.
My view (fwiw) is the chances of Putin reacting against the prospect of defeat in Ukraine with nukes or directly against NATO are low. I certainly don't think it should dominate European thinking. However it does have to be in the mix because although it might be low probability it would be high impact. You don't want to just assume it won't happen. You have to do, as they did, an assessment. An assessment they are presumably keeping under live review as things progress.
A more realistic possibility is using them agaisnt Ukraine. He could manufacture a justification based on blaming an atrocity on them and try to end the war with a nuclear strike.
Yes, I was including that possibility. You can neither assume it nor rule it out. A probability is required, plus the range of expected outcomes if it were to happen (with their probabilities). I'd hope that people more qualified than me (or even the most war savvy of PBers) are on the case with this.
All the indications are that the Chinese have told Putin they have Views on the use of nuclear weapons against NATO allied states. And since Putin can't beat Ukraine backed by the EU he is no state to take on China too.
Not surprising. The last thing China wants with its ambitions for Taiwan are to have people get the idea it's OK to use nukes in a battlefield scenario. Or, given the delicate state of its economy, to damage its customers.
Now they were probably looking to take out the power lines rather than the dam itself, but if that dam goes the Ukranian capital gets flooded. Add to the list of Russian war crimes.
Russia are apparently so weak that some argue they are no threat to Britain and Europe at all, and yet Britain and Europe have been unable - in nearly four years - to provide sufficient support to Ukraine so that they can protect themselves from the threat of a catastrophe that would kill many thousands.
There's something missing there.
I fear that Britain is not at all prepared for the destruction that Russia could inflict upon the country, should they so choose.
I don’t know that there’s a contradiction. For example, the IRA were never a strong conventional army, never had tanks or fighter jets, but they could still cause havoc, mayhem and death. Russia is, in some ways, very weak, but still also a significant threat. Russia is, in other ways, very strong. Defeating them in Ukraine is not easy.
We have given a lot of aid to Ukraine from some perspectives, but it’s only been 0.6% of our GDP. During World War II, we spent about 54% of our GDP on fighting, so about 100 times more.
I think Estonia has given about 4% of its GDP to Ukraine. Imagine if all of Europe and North America did that. But someone has to make the political argument for that and convince Western electorates, many of whom have already been turning to parties wanting to give less aid.
I think that's a very linear view of the politics.
You could argue that Britain is only giving just enough support to Ukraine to slow the rate at which it loses the war. You wouldn't have to be a Russian sympathiser to think that was a waste of money.
If we gave Ukraine more support, so that they could turn the tide, then that might inspire more confidence in the voting public, and the money might look like it was achieving more.
Fundamentally I think that European politicians have been too timid and lacking in confidence. They are scared of Putin escalating. They are scared of their own voters. You cannot inspire people to follow you with such behaviour.
Well, you had a pop at me yesterday when I offered my thoughts but this confirms my hypothesis the "plan" in the West is to help Ukraine not lose and ensure Russia doesn't win - I also suspect the Chinese and others are playing the same game the opposite way - so the stalemate, the attrition and the death continues.
As I also said yesterday, how does this end? Even if we are able (via aid alone) to prevent a Ukrainian defeat, what would a Russian defeat mean? Regime change? From Putin to what? Another hardliner, perhaps even more determined to seek a military solution or a pragmatist who might accept the short term reverse (which he can blame on Putin) in favour of a period of replenishment and another round 5-10 years down the line?
Yes, we can all hope a post-Putin Russia will come back "to the light" and repudiate China and take a more pro-western line but is that in any way realistic? Not on day one, perhaps but over time, who knows? Do we one day want NATO troops (including Russians) on the Mongolian border facing the PLA?
On the point of escalation, you'd better believe it worries me - personally I don't believe for a second Putin and his followers would want to see their lifestyle erased in a moment but everyone knows you don't let that genie out of the bottle.
I disagreed with you, it wasn't meant to be taken as a pop at you.
I think we have a serious problem in that we've allowed the fear of escalation to become too one-sided. We worry about it much more than the Russians do.
This is a very dangerous dynamic because it emboldens Putin to push it further and further. We need to even this up a bit.
I also think there is ample evidence that our fears of escalation have been severely overdone. Putin has experienced numerous major reverses in this war and has not pushed the nuclear button, or responded directly with other escalations. We now have Storm Shadows missiles being used to target Russian oil refineries and the Russians make no response, despite all the dire threats they'd previously made, to give just the most recent example. But they are not at all deterred from taking actions such as destroying the Kakhovka dam.
We also shouldn't worry about the future inside Russia too much. We certainly aren't going to march on Moscow and occupy the country, so what happens to the government of the country is up to them. What we should concern ourselves with is setting limits on what Russia does outside its borders, and we have spent nearly two decades failing to set those boundaries effectively.
This is crucially important as a demonstration to China over the acceptability of its territorial ambitions. A failure to stand up to Russia with sufficient strength sends a signal to China that only encourages them to conclude that we won't stand up to them.
I really think that success or failure in the war between Ukraine and Russia is the fulcrum on which the history of this century will turn.
I stand by my view of yesterday but yes we are here to debate and of course if you disagree that's your right and you expressed your view fairly and reasonably and I'm glad to accept it wasn't personal.
If we are trying to encourage forces within Russia to remove Putin and his clique, fair enough, but I don't think we can be disinterested parties as to the future political direction of Russia. Yes, we can't march on Moscow but it would be so much easier IF the next regime in the Kremlin was less anatagonistic, less in the mindset of Peter The Great and more constructive in its relations.
Setting boundaries isn't just about stick - it also involves carrot and in the West we could and would benefit enormously from a more constructive relationship with Russia and that's what we should be arguing and pushing for a post-Putin rapprochement.
I think we can definitely conclude that the West mishandled the relationship with post-Soviet Russia, and we'd want to do a better job with a post-Ukraine-defeat Russia.
But we have to get to the other side of the Ukraine War before we can do that better or not, and a foundation stone has to be that Russia isn't occupying parts of anyone else's country.
Now they were probably looking to take out the power lines rather than the dam itself, but if that dam goes the Ukranian capital gets flooded. Add to the list of Russian war crimes.
Russia are apparently so weak that some argue they are no threat to Britain and Europe at all, and yet Britain and Europe have been unable - in nearly four years - to provide sufficient support to Ukraine so that they can protect themselves from the threat of a catastrophe that would kill many thousands.
There's something missing there.
I fear that Britain is not at all prepared for the destruction that Russia could inflict upon the country, should they so choose.
I don’t know that there’s a contradiction. For example, the IRA were never a strong conventional army, never had tanks or fighter jets, but they could still cause havoc, mayhem and death. Russia is, in some ways, very weak, but still also a significant threat. Russia is, in other ways, very strong. Defeating them in Ukraine is not easy.
We have given a lot of aid to Ukraine from some perspectives, but it’s only been 0.6% of our GDP. During World War II, we spent about 54% of our GDP on fighting, so about 100 times more.
I think Estonia has given about 4% of its GDP to Ukraine. Imagine if all of Europe and North America did that. But someone has to make the political argument for that and convince Western electorates, many of whom have already been turning to parties wanting to give less aid.
I think that's a very linear view of the politics.
You could argue that Britain is only giving just enough support to Ukraine to slow the rate at which it loses the war. You wouldn't have to be a Russian sympathiser to think that was a waste of money.
If we gave Ukraine more support, so that they could turn the tide, then that might inspire more confidence in the voting public, and the money might look like it was achieving more.
Fundamentally I think that European politicians have been too timid and lacking in confidence. They are scared of Putin escalating. They are scared of their own voters. You cannot inspire people to follow you with such behaviour.
Well, you had a pop at me yesterday when I offered my thoughts but this confirms my hypothesis the "plan" in the West is to help Ukraine not lose and ensure Russia doesn't win - I also suspect the Chinese and others are playing the same game the opposite way - so the stalemate, the attrition and the death continues.
As I also said yesterday, how does this end? Even if we are able (via aid alone) to prevent a Ukrainian defeat, what would a Russian defeat mean? Regime change? From Putin to what? Another hardliner, perhaps even more determined to seek a military solution or a pragmatist who might accept the short term reverse (which he can blame on Putin) in favour of a period of replenishment and another round 5-10 years down the line?
Yes, we can all hope a post-Putin Russia will come back "to the light" and repudiate China and take a more pro-western line but is that in any way realistic? Not on day one, perhaps but over time, who knows? Do we one day want NATO troops (including Russians) on the Mongolian border facing the PLA?
On the point of escalation, you'd better believe it worries me - personally I don't believe for a second Putin and his followers would want to see their lifestyle erased in a moment but everyone knows you don't let that genie out of the bottle.
I disagreed with you, it wasn't meant to be taken as a pop at you.
I think we have a serious problem in that we've allowed the fear of escalation to become too one-sided. We worry about it much more than the Russians do.
This is a very dangerous dynamic because it emboldens Putin to push it further and further. We need to even this up a bit.
I also think there is ample evidence that our fears of escalation have been severely overdone. Putin has experienced numerous major reverses in this war and has not pushed the nuclear button, or responded directly with other escalations. We now have Storm Shadows missiles being used to target Russian oil refineries and the Russians make no response, despite all the dire threats they'd previously made, to give just the most recent example. But they are not at all deterred from taking actions such as destroying the Kakhovka dam.
We also shouldn't worry about the future inside Russia too much. We certainly aren't going to march on Moscow and occupy the country, so what happens to the government of the country is up to them. What we should concern ourselves with is setting limits on what Russia does outside its borders, and we have spent nearly two decades failing to set those boundaries effectively.
This is crucially important as a demonstration to China over the acceptability of its territorial ambitions. A failure to stand up to Russia with sufficient strength sends a signal to China that only encourages them to conclude that we won't stand up to them.
I really think that success or failure in the war between Ukraine and Russia is the fulcrum on which the history of this century will turn.
I stand by my view of yesterday but yes we are here to debate and of course if you disagree that's your right and you expressed your view fairly and reasonably and I'm glad to accept it wasn't personal.
If we are trying to encourage forces within Russia to remove Putin and his clique, fair enough, but I don't think we can be disinterested parties as to the future political direction of Russia. Yes, we can't march on Moscow but it would be so much easier IF the next regime in the Kremlin was less anatagonistic, less in the mindset of Peter The Great and more constructive in its relations.
Setting boundaries isn't just about stick - it also involves carrot and in the West we could and would benefit enormously from a more constructive relationship with Russia and that's what we should be arguing and pushing for a post-Putin rapprochement.
I think we can definitely conclude that the West mishandled the relationship with post-Soviet Russia, and we'd want to do a better job with a post-Ukraine-defeat Russia.
But we have to get to the other side of the Ukraine War before we can do that better or not, and a foundation stone has to be that Russia isn't occupying parts of anyone else's country.
Which also needs to include resolutions in South Ossetia, Transnistria and possibly Chechnya.
This thread title was spookily prescient wasn't it?
At least one of us spotted the incoming at the end of the previous thread, once we’d all got over winning a cricket match in Australia (about which the PM has posted nothing).
Now they were probably looking to take out the power lines rather than the dam itself, but if that dam goes the Ukranian capital gets flooded. Add to the list of Russian war crimes.
Russia are apparently so weak that some argue they are no threat to Britain and Europe at all, and yet Britain and Europe have been unable - in nearly four years - to provide sufficient support to Ukraine so that they can protect themselves from the threat of a catastrophe that would kill many thousands.
There's something missing there.
I fear that Britain is not at all prepared for the destruction that Russia could inflict upon the country, should they so choose.
I don’t know that there’s a contradiction. For example, the IRA were never a strong conventional army, never had tanks or fighter jets, but they could still cause havoc, mayhem and death. Russia is, in some ways, very weak, but still also a significant threat. Russia is, in other ways, very strong. Defeating them in Ukraine is not easy.
We have given a lot of aid to Ukraine from some perspectives, but it’s only been 0.6% of our GDP. During World War II, we spent about 54% of our GDP on fighting, so about 100 times more.
I think Estonia has given about 4% of its GDP to Ukraine. Imagine if all of Europe and North America did that. But someone has to make the political argument for that and convince Western electorates, many of whom have already been turning to parties wanting to give less aid.
I think that's a very linear view of the politics.
You could argue that Britain is only giving just enough support to Ukraine to slow the rate at which it loses the war. You wouldn't have to be a Russian sympathiser to think that was a waste of money.
If we gave Ukraine more support, so that they could turn the tide, then that might inspire more confidence in the voting public, and the money might look like it was achieving more.
Fundamentally I think that European politicians have been too timid and lacking in confidence. They are scared of Putin escalating. They are scared of their own voters. You cannot inspire people to follow you with such behaviour.
Well, you had a pop at me yesterday when I offered my thoughts but this confirms my hypothesis the "plan" in the West is to help Ukraine not lose and ensure Russia doesn't win - I also suspect the Chinese and others are playing the same game the opposite way - so the stalemate, the attrition and the death continues.
As I also said yesterday, how does this end? Even if we are able (via aid alone) to prevent a Ukrainian defeat, what would a Russian defeat mean? Regime change? From Putin to what? Another hardliner, perhaps even more determined to seek a military solution or a pragmatist who might accept the short term reverse (which he can blame on Putin) in favour of a period of replenishment and another round 5-10 years down the line?
Yes, we can all hope a post-Putin Russia will come back "to the light" and repudiate China and take a more pro-western line but is that in any way realistic? Not on day one, perhaps but over time, who knows? Do we one day want NATO troops (including Russians) on the Mongolian border facing the PLA?
On the point of escalation, you'd better believe it worries me - personally I don't believe for a second Putin and his followers would want to see their lifestyle erased in a moment but everyone knows you don't let that genie out of the bottle.
I disagreed with you, it wasn't meant to be taken as a pop at you.
I think we have a serious problem in that we've allowed the fear of escalation to become too one-sided. We worry about it much more than the Russians do.
This is a very dangerous dynamic because it emboldens Putin to push it further and further. We need to even this up a bit.
I also think there is ample evidence that our fears of escalation have been severely overdone. Putin has experienced numerous major reverses in this war and has not pushed the nuclear button, or responded directly with other escalations. We now have Storm Shadows missiles being used to target Russian oil refineries and the Russians make no response, despite all the dire threats they'd previously made, to give just the most recent example. But they are not at all deterred from taking actions such as destroying the Kakhovka dam.
We also shouldn't worry about the future inside Russia too much. We certainly aren't going to march on Moscow and occupy the country, so what happens to the government of the country is up to them. What we should concern ourselves with is setting limits on what Russia does outside its borders, and we have spent nearly two decades failing to set those boundaries effectively.
This is crucially important as a demonstration to China over the acceptability of its territorial ambitions. A failure to stand up to Russia with sufficient strength sends a signal to China that only encourages them to conclude that we won't stand up to them.
I really think that success or failure in the war between Ukraine and Russia is the fulcrum on which the history of this century will turn.
I stand by my view of yesterday but yes we are here to debate and of course if you disagree that's your right and you expressed your view fairly and reasonably and I'm glad to accept it wasn't personal.
If we are trying to encourage forces within Russia to remove Putin and his clique, fair enough, but I don't think we can be disinterested parties as to the future political direction of Russia. Yes, we can't march on Moscow but it would be so much easier IF the next regime in the Kremlin was less anatagonistic, less in the mindset of Peter The Great and more constructive in its relations.
Setting boundaries isn't just about stick - it also involves carrot and in the West we could and would benefit enormously from a more constructive relationship with Russia and that's what we should be arguing and pushing for a post-Putin rapprochement.
I think we can definitely conclude that the West mishandled the relationship with post-Soviet Russia, and we'd want to do a better job with a post-Ukraine-defeat Russia.
But we have to get to the other side of the Ukraine War before we can do that better or not, and a foundation stone has to be that Russia isn't occupying parts of anyone else's country.
Which also needs to include resolutions in South Ossetia, Transnistria and possibly Chechnya.
Or as it is also known, a cold day in Hell.
He's unlikely to get as far as Hell, even if he does invade Norway.
Now they were probably looking to take out the power lines rather than the dam itself, but if that dam goes the Ukranian capital gets flooded. Add to the list of Russian war crimes.
Russia are apparently so weak that some argue they are no threat to Britain and Europe at all, and yet Britain and Europe have been unable - in nearly four years - to provide sufficient support to Ukraine so that they can protect themselves from the threat of a catastrophe that would kill many thousands.
There's something missing there.
I fear that Britain is not at all prepared for the destruction that Russia could inflict upon the country, should they so choose.
I don’t know that there’s a contradiction. For example, the IRA were never a strong conventional army, never had tanks or fighter jets, but they could still cause havoc, mayhem and death. Russia is, in some ways, very weak, but still also a significant threat. Russia is, in other ways, very strong. Defeating them in Ukraine is not easy.
We have given a lot of aid to Ukraine from some perspectives, but it’s only been 0.6% of our GDP. During World War II, we spent about 54% of our GDP on fighting, so about 100 times more.
I think Estonia has given about 4% of its GDP to Ukraine. Imagine if all of Europe and North America did that. But someone has to make the political argument for that and convince Western electorates, many of whom have already been turning to parties wanting to give less aid.
I think that's a very linear view of the politics.
You could argue that Britain is only giving just enough support to Ukraine to slow the rate at which it loses the war. You wouldn't have to be a Russian sympathiser to think that was a waste of money.
If we gave Ukraine more support, so that they could turn the tide, then that might inspire more confidence in the voting public, and the money might look like it was achieving more.
Fundamentally I think that European politicians have been too timid and lacking in confidence. They are scared of Putin escalating. They are scared of their own voters. You cannot inspire people to follow you with such behaviour.
Well, you had a pop at me yesterday when I offered my thoughts but this confirms my hypothesis the "plan" in the West is to help Ukraine not lose and ensure Russia doesn't win - I also suspect the Chinese and others are playing the same game the opposite way - so the stalemate, the attrition and the death continues.
As I also said yesterday, how does this end? Even if we are able (via aid alone) to prevent a Ukrainian defeat, what would a Russian defeat mean? Regime change? From Putin to what? Another hardliner, perhaps even more determined to seek a military solution or a pragmatist who might accept the short term reverse (which he can blame on Putin) in favour of a period of replenishment and another round 5-10 years down the line?
Yes, we can all hope a post-Putin Russia will come back "to the light" and repudiate China and take a more pro-western line but is that in any way realistic? Not on day one, perhaps but over time, who knows? Do we one day want NATO troops (including Russians) on the Mongolian border facing the PLA?
On the point of escalation, you'd better believe it worries me - personally I don't believe for a second Putin and his followers would want to see their lifestyle erased in a moment but everyone knows you don't let that genie out of the bottle.
I disagreed with you, it wasn't meant to be taken as a pop at you.
I think we have a serious problem in that we've allowed the fear of escalation to become too one-sided. We worry about it much more than the Russians do.
This is a very dangerous dynamic because it emboldens Putin to push it further and further. We need to even this up a bit.
I also think there is ample evidence that our fears of escalation have been severely overdone. Putin has experienced numerous major reverses in this war and has not pushed the nuclear button, or responded directly with other escalations. We now have Storm Shadows missiles being used to target Russian oil refineries and the Russians make no response, despite all the dire threats they'd previously made, to give just the most recent example. But they are not at all deterred from taking actions such as destroying the Kakhovka dam.
We also shouldn't worry about the future inside Russia too much. We certainly aren't going to march on Moscow and occupy the country, so what happens to the government of the country is up to them. What we should concern ourselves with is setting limits on what Russia does outside its borders, and we have spent nearly two decades failing to set those boundaries effectively.
This is crucially important as a demonstration to China over the acceptability of its territorial ambitions. A failure to stand up to Russia with sufficient strength sends a signal to China that only encourages them to conclude that we won't stand up to them.
I really think that success or failure in the war between Ukraine and Russia is the fulcrum on which the history of this century will turn.
I stand by my view of yesterday but yes we are here to debate and of course if you disagree that's your right and you expressed your view fairly and reasonably and I'm glad to accept it wasn't personal.
If we are trying to encourage forces within Russia to remove Putin and his clique, fair enough, but I don't think we can be disinterested parties as to the future political direction of Russia. Yes, we can't march on Moscow but it would be so much easier IF the next regime in the Kremlin was less anatagonistic, less in the mindset of Peter The Great and more constructive in its relations.
Setting boundaries isn't just about stick - it also involves carrot and in the West we could and would benefit enormously from a more constructive relationship with Russia and that's what we should be arguing and pushing for a post-Putin rapprochement.
I think we can definitely conclude that the West mishandled the relationship with post-Soviet Russia, and we'd want to do a better job with a post-Ukraine-defeat Russia.
But we have to get to the other side of the Ukraine War before we can do that better or not, and a foundation stone has to be that Russia isn't occupying parts of anyone else's country.
Which also needs to include resolutions in South Ossetia, Transnistria and possibly Chechnya.
Or as it is also known, a cold day in Hell.
Yeah, well, you do a mixture of what you can do and what you need to do.
This sort of bollocks decision by the tribunal plays into the hands of those who believe the Human rights act needs reviewing.
The decision isn't just bollocks its effing ludicrous.
I can't read the article but it seems the premise is that unless conditions are essentially perfect in all regards, with no grounds for appeal, you don't get deported.
The system working as intended then.
Politicians spoute shite about stopping this. They could. They never do.
If I was PM, I'd read Private Eye every fortnight, drag the appropriate ministers and civil servants in, and tell them to f***ing sort it out
Have you read Rory Stewart’s autobiography?
Or wondered why Starmer complains things can’t get done?
Overcoming systemic culture is hard. It requires knowledge, time and a certain kind of polite savagery.
Doesn't it really require a knowledge of behaviourism - ie find out what has motivated/motivates humans to make this mess, work out what will motivate them to fix it, and produce the desired political outcomes, and put those systems in place.
For a start, there can and should be a permanent system in place that makes civil service and political remuneration dependent on individual and departmental performance, but also on positive markers in the economy.
What if every civil servant was going to get less money in their pay packet and pension pot if GDP per capita went down? How would that affect the efficiency of the immigration system and levels of deportations? How would it affect things like the Chagos giveaway?
Ha
I worked in a bank where they tried to change the traders behaviour via the bonus.
So they capped the bonus component for profit and added in a component for growing market share.
The traders took mad risks to maximise profit, then used the “excess” profit to sell derivatives at a loss. So they finished the year with maximum profit bonus and increased bank market share.
Be careful what metrics you use.
It worked then - it changed behaviour. Clearly not to the behaviour desired, but still. Yes, you must choose your metrics carefully. Ideally they would be paid in a sort of 'Government share' whose value rose or fell with the fortunes of the country. That doesn't exist though. In its absence, I feel GDP per capita is a good measure. I could be wrong.
Any objective measure is open to being gamed, while a human making a subjective judgement will spot such gaming they may make suboptimal decisions about reward for other reasons.
If Civil Servants contrive to 'game' GDP per capita rising, I'm all for it.
Those working in the ONS would be best placed to… adjust figures to show GDP per capita rising.
Of course, the vast majority of civil servants are in low level jobs with absolutely no ability to impact on GDP. My ex’s dad worked as a court usher, thus a civil servant. He was a well-liked court usher. How on earth does linking his pay to GDP per capita help?
It shouldn’t be the only determinant, but - for example - a 1/3 weighting would help promulgate the mindset in the civil service that growth really matters
Now they were probably looking to take out the power lines rather than the dam itself, but if that dam goes the Ukranian capital gets flooded. Add to the list of Russian war crimes.
Russia are apparently so weak that some argue they are no threat to Britain and Europe at all, and yet Britain and Europe have been unable - in nearly four years - to provide sufficient support to Ukraine so that they can protect themselves from the threat of a catastrophe that would kill many thousands.
There's something missing there.
I fear that Britain is not at all prepared for the destruction that Russia could inflict upon the country, should they so choose.
I don’t know that there’s a contradiction. For example, the IRA were never a strong conventional army, never had tanks or fighter jets, but they could still cause havoc, mayhem and death. Russia is, in some ways, very weak, but still also a significant threat. Russia is, in other ways, very strong. Defeating them in Ukraine is not easy.
We have given a lot of aid to Ukraine from some perspectives, but it’s only been 0.6% of our GDP. During World War II, we spent about 54% of our GDP on fighting, so about 100 times more.
I think Estonia has given about 4% of its GDP to Ukraine. Imagine if all of Europe and North America did that. But someone has to make the political argument for that and convince Western electorates, many of whom have already been turning to parties wanting to give less aid.
I think that's a very linear view of the politics.
You could argue that Britain is only giving just enough support to Ukraine to slow the rate at which it loses the war. You wouldn't have to be a Russian sympathiser to think that was a waste of money.
If we gave Ukraine more support, so that they could turn the tide, then that might inspire more confidence in the voting public, and the money might look like it was achieving more.
Fundamentally I think that European politicians have been too timid and lacking in confidence. They are scared of Putin escalating. They are scared of their own voters. You cannot inspire people to follow you with such behaviour.
Well, we have clear statements by Biden administration officials that they were modulating aid and restraining attacks on Russian. Based on intelligence of the probability of Putin & Chums escalating.
So it’s probably fair to say most of the major Western powers were doing this.
My view (fwiw) is the chances of Putin reacting against the prospect of defeat in Ukraine with nukes or directly against NATO are low. I certainly don't think it should dominate European thinking. However it does have to be in the mix because although it might be low probability it would be high impact. You don't want to just assume it won't happen. You have to do, as they did, an assessment. An assessment they are presumably keeping under live review as things progress.
A more realistic possibility is using them agaisnt Ukraine. He could manufacture a justification based on blaming an atrocity on them and try to end the war with a nuclear strike.
Indeed. Routinely overlooked in this shire is the Bob Woodward claim that in autumn 2022, the official USNSC assessment of “imminent nuclear exchange” was 50%, based upon “exquisite intelligence”. I don’t know why people just ignore that.
Because it was wrong. The Chinese told the Russians to can the nuclear talk, Boden told the Russians that there would be consequences, the Russians backed down.
That the risk today seems to be substantially lower than 50%, in part due to the actions you mention, does not mean the assessment in autumn 2022 was wrong. Any climb down would have involved back channeling on what is and is not acceptable behaviour by the Americans. The result was the safe evacuation of the Russian army from Kherson, and the slowly boiling frog approach we’ve seen from the West ever since.
Now they were probably looking to take out the power lines rather than the dam itself, but if that dam goes the Ukranian capital gets flooded. Add to the list of Russian war crimes.
Russia are apparently so weak that some argue they are no threat to Britain and Europe at all, and yet Britain and Europe have been unable - in nearly four years - to provide sufficient support to Ukraine so that they can protect themselves from the threat of a catastrophe that would kill many thousands.
There's something missing there.
I fear that Britain is not at all prepared for the destruction that Russia could inflict upon the country, should they so choose.
I don’t know that there’s a contradiction. For example, the IRA were never a strong conventional army, never had tanks or fighter jets, but they could still cause havoc, mayhem and death. Russia is, in some ways, very weak, but still also a significant threat. Russia is, in other ways, very strong. Defeating them in Ukraine is not easy.
We have given a lot of aid to Ukraine from some perspectives, but it’s only been 0.6% of our GDP. During World War II, we spent about 54% of our GDP on fighting, so about 100 times more.
I think Estonia has given about 4% of its GDP to Ukraine. Imagine if all of Europe and North America did that. But someone has to make the political argument for that and convince Western electorates, many of whom have already been turning to parties wanting to give less aid.
I think that's a very linear view of the politics.
You could argue that Britain is only giving just enough support to Ukraine to slow the rate at which it loses the war. You wouldn't have to be a Russian sympathiser to think that was a waste of money.
If we gave Ukraine more support, so that they could turn the tide, then that might inspire more confidence in the voting public, and the money might look like it was achieving more.
Fundamentally I think that European politicians have been too timid and lacking in confidence. They are scared of Putin escalating. They are scared of their own voters. You cannot inspire people to follow you with such behaviour.
Well, you had a pop at me yesterday when I offered my thoughts but this confirms my hypothesis the "plan" in the West is to help Ukraine not lose and ensure Russia doesn't win - I also suspect the Chinese and others are playing the same game the opposite way - so the stalemate, the attrition and the death continues.
As I also said yesterday, how does this end? Even if we are able (via aid alone) to prevent a Ukrainian defeat, what would a Russian defeat mean? Regime change? From Putin to what? Another hardliner, perhaps even more determined to seek a military solution or a pragmatist who might accept the short term reverse (which he can blame on Putin) in favour of a period of replenishment and another round 5-10 years down the line?
Yes, we can all hope a post-Putin Russia will come back "to the light" and repudiate China and take a more pro-western line but is that in any way realistic? Not on day one, perhaps but over time, who knows? Do we one day want NATO troops (including Russians) on the Mongolian border facing the PLA?
On the point of escalation, you'd better believe it worries me - personally I don't believe for a second Putin and his followers would want to see their lifestyle erased in a moment but everyone knows you don't let that genie out of the bottle.
I disagreed with you, it wasn't meant to be taken as a pop at you.
I think we have a serious problem in that we've allowed the fear of escalation to become too one-sided. We worry about it much more than the Russians do.
This is a very dangerous dynamic because it emboldens Putin to push it further and further. We need to even this up a bit.
I also think there is ample evidence that our fears of escalation have been severely overdone. Putin has experienced numerous major reverses in this war and has not pushed the nuclear button, or responded directly with other escalations. We now have Storm Shadows missiles being used to target Russian oil refineries and the Russians make no response, despite all the dire threats they'd previously made, to give just the most recent example. But they are not at all deterred from taking actions such as destroying the Kakhovka dam.
We also shouldn't worry about the future inside Russia too much. We certainly aren't going to march on Moscow and occupy the country, so what happens to the government of the country is up to them. What we should concern ourselves with is setting limits on what Russia does outside its borders, and we have spent nearly two decades failing to set those boundaries effectively.
This is crucially important as a demonstration to China over the acceptability of its territorial ambitions. A failure to stand up to Russia with sufficient strength sends a signal to China that only encourages them to conclude that we won't stand up to them.
I really think that success or failure in the war between Ukraine and Russia is the fulcrum on which the history of this century will turn.
I stand by my view of yesterday but yes we are here to debate and of course if you disagree that's your right and you expressed your view fairly and reasonably and I'm glad to accept it wasn't personal.
If we are trying to encourage forces within Russia to remove Putin and his clique, fair enough, but I don't think we can be disinterested parties as to the future political direction of Russia. Yes, we can't march on Moscow but it would be so much easier IF the next regime in the Kremlin was less anatagonistic, less in the mindset of Peter The Great and more constructive in its relations.
Setting boundaries isn't just about stick - it also involves carrot and in the West we could and would benefit enormously from a more constructive relationship with Russia and that's what we should be arguing and pushing for a post-Putin rapprochement.
I think we can definitely conclude that the West mishandled the relationship with post-Soviet Russia, and we'd want to do a better job with a post-Ukraine-defeat Russia.
But we have to get to the other side of the Ukraine War before we can do that better or not, and a foundation stone has to be that Russia isn't occupying parts of anyone else's country.
Which also needs to include resolutions in South Ossetia, Transnistria and possibly Chechnya.
Comments
Banter is just en excuse for being an arsehole or mitigating deeply unpleasant comments.
If,people want to see his comments, and there is a pattern here, as banter. So be it.
Maybe Nigel and the Tories will resurrect the project after their Senedd victory next May.
Getting this bloke here was one of Sir Keir’s priorities
The sayings of Labour’s favourite Egyptian dissident Alaa Abd El-Fattah in English are terrifying, but here’s what he says in Arabic:
‘If we can't kill the officers anyway ... fine. We'll find a terrorist cell to kill their children and torture their mothers. Peaceful is stupid.’
https://x.com/joerichlaw/status/2004930203202834614?s=46&t=CW4pL-mMpTqsJXCdjW0Z6Q
https://www.express.co.uk/news/world/2117023/russias-sends-threat-strike-23?utm_source=taboolamktg&utm_medium=taboolamktg_2025&utm_campaign=taboolamtkg_Oct_25&tblci=GiA5eh_L-eo18MVLZHxW15f-AyCs2WGNSflPevsIIJLAgCCanXYouZrDwLnQqp98MKnfQQ#tblciGiA5eh_L-eo18MVLZHxW15f-AyCs2WGNSflPevsIIJLAgCCanXYouZrDwLnQqp98MKnfQQ
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_Goddess
Now the law is that the fire brigades will just hand over their kit to the Services, I think? But that doesn't deal with the issue of Service size.
So clearly Putin is a technocratic politician of the 1930s with no idea of how to wage a war.
You hire people with PhD in maths and greed, then get surprised when they optimise the output of a simple algorithm to maximise their advantage?
https://x.com/keir_starmer/status/2004603692197036322
“Alaa Abdel Fattah has history of antisemitic comments. In November 2012, he wrote that “there is a critical number of Israelis that we need to kill” In 2010 he Tweeted “yes, I consider killing any colonialists and specially zionists heroic, we need to kill more of them”.
“ https://www.timesofisrael.com/controversial-egyptian-activist-nominated-for-prestigious-eu-award/amp/ “
Matthew Doyle: aide given peerage by PM campaigned for paedophile
Spin doctor backed Sean Morton for elected office after he was charged over indecent images of children. No 10 knew — but still approved nomination
https://www.thetimes.com/article/cc18c57b-7852-4e99-a13b-e16ca876af29?shareToken=c927c5bee49dbddb500df52b6b8fc4e0
We have given a lot of aid to Ukraine from some perspectives, but it’s only been 0.6% of our GDP. During World War II, we spent about 54% of our GDP on fighting, so about 100 times more.
I think Estonia has given about 4% of its GDP to Ukraine. Imagine if all of Europe and North America did that. But someone has to make the political argument for that and convince Western electorates, many of whom have already been turning to parties wanting to give less aid.
But if it is, will Starmer make The Big Decision?
Namely, if the Russians turn Slough into a post-apocalyptic hell, populated with radioactive cannibal zombies, will he force Putin to pay the CGT on the property value uplift?
https://www.thetimes.com/article/cc18c57b-7852-4e99-a13b-e16ca876af29?shareToken=11a6a5c851704894737e996045544c1f
You could argue that Britain is only giving just enough support to Ukraine to slow the rate at which it loses the war. You wouldn't have to be a Russian sympathiser to think that was a waste of money.
If we gave Ukraine more support, so that they could turn the tide, then that might inspire more confidence in the voting public, and the money might look like it was achieving more.
Fundamentally I think that European politicians have been too timid and lacking in confidence. They are scared of Putin escalating. They are scared of their own voters. You cannot inspire people to follow you with such behaviour.
So it’s probably fair to say most of the major Western powers were doing this.
The military aspect however would provide a good training regime, and the vision would be for a standing force of auxiliaries with military training and discipline, who could be called upon in defence of the realm, but who in the meantime would serve a useful purpose. It is also the case that many veterans are currently homeless, and such an organisation would give those (primarily) men a sense of mission and a route out of homelessness.
I hold my hands up that I got this wrong, I thought it was viable and desirable to give enough aid to collapse Russia’s army and political machine. The Russian bear has been systematically defanged and the nuclear hum of summer 2022 has dimmed. Russia is in no state whatsoever to invade the rest of Europe (possibly ever), Ukraine is cemented as a western facing society and we’ve had to endure remarkably little economic pain to achieve it. Brutal real politik that my idealism couldn’t accept for the first two years of the war.
As I also said yesterday, how does this end? Even if we are able (via aid alone) to prevent a Ukrainian defeat, what would a Russian defeat mean? Regime change? From Putin to what? Another hardliner, perhaps even more determined to seek a military solution or a pragmatist who might accept the short term reverse (which he can blame on Putin) in favour of a period of replenishment and another round 5-10 years down the line?
Yes, we can all hope a post-Putin Russia will come back "to the light" and repudiate China and take a more pro-western line but is that in any way realistic? Not on day one, perhaps but over time, who knows? Do we one day want NATO troops (including Russians) on the Mongolian border facing the PLA?
On the point of escalation, you'd better believe it worries me - personally I don't believe for a second Putin and his followers would want to see their lifestyle erased in a moment but everyone knows you don't let that genie out of the bottle.
We've all said worse things haven't we, when our toast lands jam side down or our favourite team gets relegated - right lads?
When my father was serving in the BAOR in the 1970s the expectation was that those 11k tank would come though the Fulda Gap and that we might hold them up for a couple of weeks before we would have to go nuclear. That huge reserve of tanks that threatened western Europe 50 years ago is now smouldering ash in Ukraine. Only an idiot would think that we have not benefitted from that. Enormously. Some of the best money we have spent in recent years.
I think we have a serious problem in that we've allowed the fear of escalation to become too one-sided. We worry about it much more than the Russians do.
This is a very dangerous dynamic because it emboldens Putin to push it further and further. We need to even this up a bit.
I also think there is ample evidence that our fears of escalation have been severely overdone. Putin has experienced numerous major reverses in this war and has not pushed the nuclear button, or responded directly with other escalations. We now have Storm Shadows missiles being used to target Russian oil refineries and the Russians make no response, despite all the dire threats they'd previously made, to give just the most recent example. But they are not at all deterred from taking actions such as destroying the Kakhovka dam.
We also shouldn't worry about the future inside Russia too much. We certainly aren't going to march on Moscow and occupy the country, so what happens to the government of the country is up to them. What we should concern ourselves with is setting limits on what Russia does outside its borders, and we have spent nearly two decades failing to set those boundaries effectively.
This is crucially important as a demonstration to China over the acceptability of its territorial ambitions. A failure to stand up to Russia with sufficient strength sends a signal to China that only encourages them to conclude that we won't stand up to them.
I really think that success or failure in the war between Ukraine and Russia is the fulcrum on which the history of this century will turn.
Is this assasination business a game for only one player?
https://x.com/Gabriel_Pogrund/status/2004966478702150027
EXCLUSIVE: Keir Starmer gave peerage to ex-aide despite knowing he campaigned for man charged with child sex offences inc accessing images of girls as young as 10
The classic method (cold war tactic) would be to drop a string of them, with overlapping destruction zones. Then advance down both sides of the string, out of the residual radiation zone, without waiting for that to cool off.
What is left now are a small number hulks with no turrets (and similar). Given that they are stored outside in seasonal weather (baked in Summer, snow in Winter etc) without protection - they are scrap.
So either the Russians have magically hid them and not used them, or the Ukrainians have really eaten the vast majority of the Russian/USSR armoured reserve.
If we are trying to encourage forces within Russia to remove Putin and his clique, fair enough, but I don't think we can be disinterested parties as to the future political direction of Russia. Yes, we can't march on Moscow but it would be so much easier IF the next regime in the Kremlin was less anatagonistic, less in the mindset of Peter The Great and more constructive in its relations.
Setting boundaries isn't just about stick - it also involves carrot and in the West we could and would benefit enormously from a more constructive relationship with Russia and that's what we should be arguing and pushing for a post-Putin rapprochement.
If NATO suddenly said "no fly zone for Russian aircraft in sovereign Ukraine territory, and the apparatus launching any missiles in is all subject to retaliation" (which I think ... unlikely !), and perhaps "we are closing the Baltic to all Russian shipping", then backing off, and a new iron curtain down the borders of Russia, could be possible.
Or not. And it depends on Trump's efforts to pander, that would undermine stability lasting more than a few months or a couple of years. He's still in 20C Q3 in his head.
I just don't see even detente (Christmas Film: "I haven't got it, you haven't got it, Comrade.") being possible for the next 25 or 30 years.
But Putin, and his staff, know they have nothing on even the NATO part of Europe, in arms terms, and the longer it goes on the firmer that difference is. That has the big IF that Europe has the political stability to be willing to use it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8JXM7SUw64E (first 30’ of a 1hr video, the second half is on China and Taiwan)
Not surprising. The last thing China wants with its ambitions for Taiwan are to have people get the idea it's OK to use nukes in a battlefield scenario. Or, given the delicate state of its economy, to damage its customers.
But we have to get to the other side of the Ukraine War before we can do that better or not, and a foundation stone has to be that Russia isn't occupying parts of anyone else's country.
Or as it is also known, a cold day in Hell.
Truly baffling to me you cannot see this.