Wonder what odds you could have got on Putin "deciding" to recognise Donetsk and Luhansk republics.
I did say it was his least risky win, claim security & protection needed, drive in. Question is that whether thats all the driving thats done or 'security 'means causing a serious bit of damage on the Ukrainian military who are very much concetrated around the conflict line with the LPR & DPR.
Putin is unhinged but Johnson lecturing other countries on breaking international law is laughable given the “ breaking it in a limited and specific way “ from last year by his own government !
That’s a bit like saying someone done for speeding can’t be critical of someone convicted of rape and murder.
Putin is unhinged but Johnson lecturing other countries on breaking international law is laughable given the “ breaking it in a limited and specific way “ from last year by his own government !
I don't think it's appropriate to mention Johnson and Putin in the same sentence in this way.
Does this mean that Putin is likely to go for the option of annexing the two breakaway areas, as some predicted as his 'face saving' strategy, whilst avoiding a full on invasion of Ukraine?
Lord alone knows. He's giving his justification right now which, broadly, amounts to "Ukraine was invented by the Bolsheviks and they nicked loads of bits of Russia to make it." He's granting himself, surprise surprise, an excuse to chew off any part of Ukraine with Russians living in it. That could easily end up being half or two-thirds of the country.
This is exactly what I said would happen. If there is war, more than Donetsk and Luhansk will be chewed off.
Ukraine has a problem with a noisy, large Russian minority and -- truth to tell -- little legitimate claim to Crimea.
Ukraine refused to take any steps to compromise or to fix the problems.
So a worse solution is likely to be imposed.
A bit like the Palestinians. By arguing for the whole of pre-1947 Palestine & refusing to compromise, they have had ended up with some tiny bits.
No realistic blame can be put on Ukraine for this. They are faced by a larger, more powerful bully whatever they did, the bully would take as an excuse to escalate. Give Crimea? Sure, we'll take more. Don't defend Donbass? Thanks, how's about the rest? Fight to defend Donbass? Well, aren't you aggressive! We'll have to defend ourselves.
Russia is the aggressive bully here. It has very few parallels workable with the much more complex situation in Palestine.
Although I expect STW will still try to make the parallels ...
Well exactly. What sort of compromise could have been offered here? By agreement, choice or inability they haven't sought to end the rebellion in the east.
Let's say there was an armed rebellion in a part of Russia, would Putin argue someone outside Russia should tell him to compromise over it, or they'd attack?
Many borders don't make massive sense, but nations have until now mostly gotten over the idea of invading to correct that.
And in any case the whole 'Ukraine is not a real country' stuff rather gives the game away that there was anything Kyiv could have done to avoid this.
But we should avoid 'poking' Russia, lest we cause them to do something bad. If the bully steals a boy's lunch money after we warned them not to, it's obviously our fault.
(C) Nick Palmer.
There are 2 solutions, Mr Armchair General.
1. Plebiscites in the disputed territories
2. War
I have repeatedly argued for 1.
The bellicose middle classes on pb.com, comfortable in their armchairs near Cambridge, have repeatedly argued against 1, "far too hard to organise, blah, blah, blah."
But the only other alternative is 2 ...
Classic victim blaming.
The number of PBers just arguing smaller countries should hand over territory because war is threatened is astonishing. These people are contemptible victim-blaming scum.
Does this mean that Putin is likely to go for the option of annexing the two breakaway areas, as some predicted as his 'face saving' strategy, whilst avoiding a full on invasion of Ukraine?
Lord alone knows. He's giving his justification right now which, broadly, amounts to "Ukraine was invented by the Bolsheviks and they nicked loads of bits of Russia to make it." He's granting himself, surprise surprise, an excuse to chew off any part of Ukraine with Russians living in it. That could easily end up being half or two-thirds of the country.
This is exactly what I said would happen. If there is war, more than Donetsk and Luhansk will be chewed off.
Ukraine has a problem with a noisy, large Russian minority and -- truth to tell -- little legitimate claim to Crimea.
Ukraine refused to take any steps to compromise or to fix the problems.
So a worse solution is likely to be imposed.
A bit like the Palestinians. By arguing for the whole of pre-1947 Palestine & refusing to compromise, they have had ended up with some tiny bits.
No realistic blame can be put on Ukraine for this. They are faced by a larger, more powerful bully whatever they did, the bully would take as an excuse to escalate. Give Crimea? Sure, we'll take more. Don't defend Donbass? Thanks, how's about the rest? Fight to defend Donbass? Well, aren't you aggressive! We'll have to defend ourselves.
Russia is the aggressive bully here. It has very few parallels workable with the much more complex situation in Palestine.
Although I expect STW will still try to make the parallels ...
Well exactly. What sort of compromise could have been offered here? By agreement, choice or inability they haven't sought to end the rebellion in the east.
Let's say there was an armed rebellion in a part of Russia, would Putin argue someone outside Russia should tell him to compromise over it, or they'd attack?
Many borders don't make massive sense, but nations have until now mostly gotten over the idea of invading to correct that.
And in any case the whole 'Ukraine is not a real country' stuff rather gives the game away that there was anything Kyiv could have done to avoid this.
But we should avoid 'poking' Russia, lest we cause them to do something bad. If the bully steals a boy's lunch money after we warned them not to, it's obviously our fault.
(C) Nick Palmer.
There are 2 solutions, Mr Armchair General.
1. Plebiscites in the disputed territories
2. War
I have repeatedly argued for 1.
The bellicose middle classes on pb.com, comfortable in their armchairs near Cambridge, have repeatedly argued against 1, "far too hard to organise, blah, blah, blah."
But the only other alternative is 2 ...
And when the 'disputed territories' become parts of Poland? Estonia? Romania?
Plebiscites need to be free and fair. Do you believe a plebiscite held under gunpoint would be free and fair. Russia have chosen war in Georgia, Crimea, Donbass. And now, sadly, it seems like Ukraine is the next on their list.
How sure are you (if I was to be unkind, I would ask wherever *you* are posting from) to say why you think Putin's ambitions end in Ukraine?
Russia are the country encouraging war. Not me.
What is your solution?
I was waiting for the "wherever you are posting from" jibes.
I might as well come clean. My name is not @YBarddCwsc
I am a Russian troll called Sergei Krasnevin. I work in a gigantic troll factory near the Arbatskaya, pumping out falsified news articles to deceive the West.
Oh, you Cambridge folk are too smart for us Russkies. You've got us rumbled.
You needlessly mentioned locations.
I've been very clear that I never went to Cambridge. In fact, I've been clear that I'd a plebian who doesn't actually have a degree. I just live near Cambridge because that is where my work was. I'm Derbyshire born, Derbyshire bred, strong in t'arm, thick in t'ead (*). I just moved to Cambridge because the tech company I loved offered me a job.
Now, can you answer my substantive points, as you brought up locations?
(*) Sometimes used by those inferior Yorkshire folk... (runs for cover)
Sounds like Putin's speech is a pretty clear justification for occupation of all of Ukraine. And, essentially, Western governments accept that the country is in Russia's sphere of influence and we're going to watch it happen.
If Biden can abandon Ukraine then Trump can surely walk away from the Baltic States and Poland. If we don't want that to happen then we've got some hard questions to answer about how much we're willing to spend and how many soldiers to put in harm's way.
The recognition of the two separatist territories in #Ukraine is a blatant violation of international law, the territorial integrity of Ukraine and the #Minsk agreements.
The EU and its partners will react with unity, firmness and with determination in solidarity with Ukraine.
Does this mean that Putin is likely to go for the option of annexing the two breakaway areas, as some predicted as his 'face saving' strategy, whilst avoiding a full on invasion of Ukraine?
Lord alone knows. He's giving his justification right now which, broadly, amounts to "Ukraine was invented by the Bolsheviks and they nicked loads of bits of Russia to make it." He's granting himself, surprise surprise, an excuse to chew off any part of Ukraine with Russians living in it. That could easily end up being half or two-thirds of the country.
This is exactly what I said would happen. If there is war, more than Donetsk and Luhansk will be chewed off.
Ukraine has a problem with a noisy, large Russian minority and -- truth to tell -- little legitimate claim to Crimea.
Ukraine refused to take any steps to compromise or to fix the problems.
So a worse solution is likely to be imposed.
A bit like the Palestinians. By arguing for the whole of pre-1947 Palestine & refusing to compromise, they have had ended up with some tiny bits.
No realistic blame can be put on Ukraine for this. They are faced by a larger, more powerful bully whatever they did, the bully would take as an excuse to escalate. Give Crimea? Sure, we'll take more. Don't defend Donbass? Thanks, how's about the rest? Fight to defend Donbass? Well, aren't you aggressive! We'll have to defend ourselves.
Russia is the aggressive bully here. It has very few parallels workable with the much more complex situation in Palestine.
Although I expect STW will still try to make the parallels ...
Well exactly. What sort of compromise could have been offered here? By agreement, choice or inability they haven't sought to end the rebellion in the east.
Let's say there was an armed rebellion in a part of Russia, would Putin argue someone outside Russia should tell him to compromise over it, or they'd attack?
Many borders don't make massive sense, but nations have until now mostly gotten over the idea of invading to correct that.
And in any case the whole 'Ukraine is not a real country' stuff rather gives the game away that there was anything Kyiv could have done to avoid this.
But we should avoid 'poking' Russia, lest we cause them to do something bad. If the bully steals a boy's lunch money after we warned them not to, it's obviously our fault.
(C) Nick Palmer.
There are 2 solutions, Mr Armchair General.
1. Plebiscites in the disputed territories
2. War
I have repeatedly argued for 1.
The bellicose middle classes on pb.com, comfortable in their armchairs near Cambridge, have repeatedly argued against 1, "far too hard to organise, blah, blah, blah."
But the only other alternative is 2 ...
And when the 'disputed territories' become parts of Poland? Estonia? Romania?
Plebiscites need to be free and fair. Do you believe a plebiscite held under gunpoint would be free and fair. Russia have chosen war in Georgia, Crimea, Donbass. And now, sadly, it seems like Ukraine is the next on their list.
How sure are you (if I was to be unkind, I would ask wherever *you* are posting from) to say why you think Putin's ambitions end in Ukraine?
Russia are the country encouraging war. Not me.
What is your solution?
I was waiting for the "wherever you are posting from" jibes.
I might as well come clean. My name is not @YBarddCwsc
I am a Russian troll called Sergei Krasnevin. I work in a gigantic troll factory near the Arbatskaya, pumping out falsified news articles to deceive the West.
Does this mean that Putin is likely to go for the option of annexing the two breakaway areas, as some predicted as his 'face saving' strategy, whilst avoiding a full on invasion of Ukraine?
Lord alone knows. He's giving his justification right now which, broadly, amounts to "Ukraine was invented by the Bolsheviks and they nicked loads of bits of Russia to make it." He's granting himself, surprise surprise, an excuse to chew off any part of Ukraine with Russians living in it. That could easily end up being half or two-thirds of the country.
This is exactly what I said would happen. If there is war, more than Donetsk and Luhansk will be chewed off.
Ukraine has a problem with a noisy, large Russian minority and -- truth to tell -- little legitimate claim to Crimea.
Ukraine refused to take any steps to compromise or to fix the problems.
So a worse solution is likely to be imposed.
A bit like the Palestinians. By arguing for the whole of pre-1947 Palestine & refusing to compromise, they have had ended up with some tiny bits.
No realistic blame can be put on Ukraine for this. They are faced by a larger, more powerful bully whatever they did, the bully would take as an excuse to escalate. Give Crimea? Sure, we'll take more. Don't defend Donbass? Thanks, how's about the rest? Fight to defend Donbass? Well, aren't you aggressive! We'll have to defend ourselves.
Russia is the aggressive bully here. It has very few parallels workable with the much more complex situation in Palestine.
Although I expect STW will still try to make the parallels ...
Well exactly. What sort of compromise could have been offered here? By agreement, choice or inability they haven't sought to end the rebellion in the east.
Let's say there was an armed rebellion in a part of Russia, would Putin argue someone outside Russia should tell him to compromise over it, or they'd attack?
Many borders don't make massive sense, but nations have until now mostly gotten over the idea of invading to correct that.
And in any case the whole 'Ukraine is not a real country' stuff rather gives the game away that there was anything Kyiv could have done to avoid this.
But we should avoid 'poking' Russia, lest we cause them to do something bad. If the bully steals a boy's lunch money after we warned them not to, it's obviously our fault.
(C) Nick Palmer.
There are 2 solutions, Mr Armchair General.
1. Plebiscites in the disputed territories
2. War
I have repeatedly argued for 1.
The bellicose middle classes on pb.com, comfortable in their armchairs near Cambridge, have repeatedly argued against 1, "far too hard to organise, blah, blah, blah."
But the only other alternative is 2 ...
Classic victim blaming.
The number of PBers just arguing smaller countries should hand over territory because war is threatened is astonishing. These people are contemptible victim-blaming scum.
A disgusting understatement.
Got any names? Have you heard, by the way, of the realist school of IR?
Putin is unhinged but Johnson lecturing other countries on breaking international law is laughable given the “ breaking it in a limited and specific way “ from last year by his own government !
I don't think it's appropriate to mention Johnson and Putin in the same sentence in this way.
Johnson is busy Trumpifying the UK and his cesspit government has tried to attack the right to protest and to make voting more difficult under some phony “ preventing electoral fraud “ banner. I’m not comparing him to Putin who is clearly a danger to the world whilst baby Trump is a danger to UK democracy .
Putin: Ukraine may acquire nuclear weapons creating ‘yet another threat to Russia’ President Putin said he thought Ukraine might be able to acquire nuclear weapons, using Soviet-era technology.
Telegraph live blog
===
You wouldn't bloody blame them with this lunatic on their borders with 190k troops.
It looks like Putin is gaslighting Ukraine.
Arrrgh. If we are talking about gaslighting I am going back to the Aries mumbo jumbo.
@ZelenskyyUa Discussed the events of the last hours with @POTUS. We begin the meeting of the National Security and Defense Council. A conversation with @BorisJohnson is also planned.
Does this mean that Putin is likely to go for the option of annexing the two breakaway areas, as some predicted as his 'face saving' strategy, whilst avoiding a full on invasion of Ukraine?
Lord alone knows. He's giving his justification right now which, broadly, amounts to "Ukraine was invented by the Bolsheviks and they nicked loads of bits of Russia to make it." He's granting himself, surprise surprise, an excuse to chew off any part of Ukraine with Russians living in it. That could easily end up being half or two-thirds of the country.
This is exactly what I said would happen. If there is war, more than Donetsk and Luhansk will be chewed off.
Ukraine has a problem with a noisy, large Russian minority and -- truth to tell -- little legitimate claim to Crimea.
Ukraine refused to take any steps to compromise or to fix the problems.
So a worse solution is likely to be imposed.
A bit like the Palestinians. By arguing for the whole of pre-1947 Palestine & refusing to compromise, they have had ended up with some tiny bits.
No realistic blame can be put on Ukraine for this. They are faced by a larger, more powerful bully whatever they did, the bully would take as an excuse to escalate. Give Crimea? Sure, we'll take more. Don't defend Donbass? Thanks, how's about the rest? Fight to defend Donbass? Well, aren't you aggressive! We'll have to defend ourselves.
Russia is the aggressive bully here. It has very few parallels workable with the much more complex situation in Palestine.
Although I expect STW will still try to make the parallels ...
Well exactly. What sort of compromise could have been offered here? By agreement, choice or inability they haven't sought to end the rebellion in the east.
Let's say there was an armed rebellion in a part of Russia, would Putin argue someone outside Russia should tell him to compromise over it, or they'd attack?
Many borders don't make massive sense, but nations have until now mostly gotten over the idea of invading to correct that.
And in any case the whole 'Ukraine is not a real country' stuff rather gives the game away that there was anything Kyiv could have done to avoid this.
But we should avoid 'poking' Russia, lest we cause them to do something bad. If the bully steals a boy's lunch money after we warned them not to, it's obviously our fault.
(C) Nick Palmer.
There are 2 solutions, Mr Armchair General.
1. Plebiscites in the disputed territories
2. War
I have repeatedly argued for 1.
The bellicose middle classes on pb.com, comfortable in their armchairs near Cambridge, have repeatedly argued against 1, "far too hard to organise, blah, blah, blah."
But the only other alternative is 2 ...
And when the 'disputed territories' become parts of Poland? Estonia? Romania?
Plebiscites need to be free and fair. Do you believe a plebiscite held under gunpoint would be free and fair. Russia have chosen war in Georgia, Crimea, Donbass. And now, sadly, it seems like Ukraine is the next on their list.
How sure are you (if I was to be unkind, I would ask wherever *you* are posting from) to say why you think Putin's ambitions end in Ukraine?
Russia are the country encouraging war. Not me.
What is your solution?
I was waiting for the "wherever you are posting from" jibes.
I might as well come clean. My name is not @YBarddCwsc
I am a Russian troll called Sergei Krasnevin. I work in a gigantic troll factory near the Arbatskaya, pumping out falsified news articles to deceive the West.
Oh, you Cambridge folk are too smart for us Russkies. You've got us rumbled.
You needlessly mentioned locations.
I've been very clear that I never went to Cambridge. In fact, I've been clear that I'd a plebian who doesn't actually have a degree. I just live near Cambridge because that is where my work was. I'm Derbyshire born, Derbyshire bred, strong in t'arm, thick in t'ead (*). I just moved to Cambridge because the tech company I loved offered me a job.
Now, can you answer my substantive points, as you brought up locations?
(*) Sometimes used by those inferior Yorkshire folk... (runs for cover)
There is no point answering you, because you are a Manichean.
Just for the record, I never said you went to St Swine's College, Cambridge.
I don’t think Macron is humiliated. Nobody can accuse Macron of avoiding any tactics to prevent war. It was worth a go. Jaw jaw and all that.
It was definitely worth a go, and it is creditable that Macron did what he did, BUT Macron posed as the saviour of Peace and the Leader of Europe and now he looks like a preening fool that got duped
Macron overdid the grandiosity, as French Presidents are wont
Back to the speech, this begins to sound, ominously, like a justification like Russia taking over ALL of Ukraine, not just a few chunks
If Ukraine is not a real country it's hard to escape the view that everything is on the table - or at the least he still wants people to think it might be, so that when he nibbles off a bite it will not look so bad.
Of course, all countries are ultimately 'invented', and many are even younger than Ukraine. Even great Russia did not always have even the scale of today's boundaries. Might as well argue to restore the Kievan Rus.
No, I think it means that every country should seek to restore their maximalist borders. Should make Europe a fun place again.
Does this mean that Putin is likely to go for the option of annexing the two breakaway areas, as some predicted as his 'face saving' strategy, whilst avoiding a full on invasion of Ukraine?
Lord alone knows. He's giving his justification right now which, broadly, amounts to "Ukraine was invented by the Bolsheviks and they nicked loads of bits of Russia to make it." He's granting himself, surprise surprise, an excuse to chew off any part of Ukraine with Russians living in it. That could easily end up being half or two-thirds of the country.
This is exactly what I said would happen. If there is war, more than Donetsk and Luhansk will be chewed off.
Ukraine has a problem with a noisy, large Russian minority and -- truth to tell -- little legitimate claim to Crimea.
Ukraine refused to take any steps to compromise or to fix the problems.
So a worse solution is likely to be imposed.
A bit like the Palestinians. By arguing for the whole of pre-1947 Palestine & refusing to compromise, they have had ended up with some tiny bits.
No realistic blame can be put on Ukraine for this. They are faced by a larger, more powerful bully whatever they did, the bully would take as an excuse to escalate. Give Crimea? Sure, we'll take more. Don't defend Donbass? Thanks, how's about the rest? Fight to defend Donbass? Well, aren't you aggressive! We'll have to defend ourselves.
Russia is the aggressive bully here. It has very few parallels workable with the much more complex situation in Palestine.
Although I expect STW will still try to make the parallels ...
Well exactly. What sort of compromise could have been offered here? By agreement, choice or inability they haven't sought to end the rebellion in the east.
Let's say there was an armed rebellion in a part of Russia, would Putin argue someone outside Russia should tell him to compromise over it, or they'd attack?
Many borders don't make massive sense, but nations have until now mostly gotten over the idea of invading to correct that.
And in any case the whole 'Ukraine is not a real country' stuff rather gives the game away that there was anything Kyiv could have done to avoid this.
But we should avoid 'poking' Russia, lest we cause them to do something bad. If the bully steals a boy's lunch money after we warned them not to, it's obviously our fault.
(C) Nick Palmer.
There are 2 solutions, Mr Armchair General.
1. Plebiscites in the disputed territories
2. War
I have repeatedly argued for 1.
The bellicose middle classes on pb.com, comfortable in their armchairs near Cambridge, have repeatedly argued against 1, "far too hard to organise, blah, blah, blah."
But the only other alternative is 2 ...
You would encourage further such nonsense by "plebiscite" which sounds all very good and democratic, but would be a joke when held at gunpoint - just as with the Baltics in 1940.
Does this mean that Putin is likely to go for the option of annexing the two breakaway areas, as some predicted as his 'face saving' strategy, whilst avoiding a full on invasion of Ukraine?
Lord alone knows. He's giving his justification right now which, broadly, amounts to "Ukraine was invented by the Bolsheviks and they nicked loads of bits of Russia to make it." He's granting himself, surprise surprise, an excuse to chew off any part of Ukraine with Russians living in it. That could easily end up being half or two-thirds of the country.
This is exactly what I said would happen. If there is war, more than Donetsk and Luhansk will be chewed off.
Ukraine has a problem with a noisy, large Russian minority and -- truth to tell -- little legitimate claim to Crimea.
Ukraine refused to take any steps to compromise or to fix the problems.
So a worse solution is likely to be imposed.
A bit like the Palestinians. By arguing for the whole of pre-1947 Palestine & refusing to compromise, they have had ended up with some tiny bits.
No realistic blame can be put on Ukraine for this. They are faced by a larger, more powerful bully whatever they did, the bully would take as an excuse to escalate. Give Crimea? Sure, we'll take more. Don't defend Donbass? Thanks, how's about the rest? Fight to defend Donbass? Well, aren't you aggressive! We'll have to defend ourselves.
Russia is the aggressive bully here. It has very few parallels workable with the much more complex situation in Palestine.
Although I expect STW will still try to make the parallels ...
Well exactly. What sort of compromise could have been offered here? By agreement, choice or inability they haven't sought to end the rebellion in the east.
Let's say there was an armed rebellion in a part of Russia, would Putin argue someone outside Russia should tell him to compromise over it, or they'd attack?
Many borders don't make massive sense, but nations have until now mostly gotten over the idea of invading to correct that.
And in any case the whole 'Ukraine is not a real country' stuff rather gives the game away that there was anything Kyiv could have done to avoid this.
But we should avoid 'poking' Russia, lest we cause them to do something bad. If the bully steals a boy's lunch money after we warned them not to, it's obviously our fault.
(C) Nick Palmer.
There are 2 solutions, Mr Armchair General.
1. Plebiscites in the disputed territories
2. War
I have repeatedly argued for 1.
The bellicose middle classes on pb.com, comfortable in their armchairs near Cambridge, have repeatedly argued against 1, "far too hard to organise, blah, blah, blah."
But the only other alternative is 2 ...
Classic victim blaming.
The number of PBers just arguing smaller countries should hand over territory because war is threatened is astonishing. These people are contemptible victim-blaming scum.
A disgusting understatement.
Got any names? Have you heard, by the way, of the realist school of IR?
For anyone interested, here’s a recent podcast with the granddaddy of realist IR theory;
Putin is unhinged but Johnson lecturing other countries on breaking international law is laughable given the “ breaking it in a limited and specific way “ from last year by his own government !
I don't think it's appropriate to mention Johnson and Putin in the same sentence in this way.
Johnson is busy Trumpifying the UK and his cesspit government has tried to attack the right to protest and to make voting more difficult under some phony “ preventing electoral fraud “ banner. I’m not comparing him to Putin who is clearly a danger to the world whilst baby Trump is a danger to UK democracy .
Do you think European countries that require photo IDs to vote are inferior democracies?
Putin is unhinged but Johnson lecturing other countries on breaking international law is laughable given the “ breaking it in a limited and specific way “ from last year by his own government !
I don't think it's appropriate to mention Johnson and Putin in the same sentence in this way.
Johnson is busy Trumpifying the UK and his cesspit government has tried to attack the right to protest and to make voting more difficult under some phony “ preventing electoral fraud “ banner. I’m not comparing him to Putin who is clearly a danger to the world whilst baby Trump is a danger to UK democracy .
At this moment in time comparing Boris to Putin in any form is nonsense
In 2024 Boris will face the electorate if he is still prime minister and he can be thrown out of office by the people
Putin: Ukraine may acquire nuclear weapons creating ‘yet another threat to Russia’ President Putin said he thought Ukraine might be able to acquire nuclear weapons, using Soviet-era technology.
Telegraph live blog
===
You wouldn't bloody blame them with this lunatic on their borders with 190k troops.
It looks like Putin is gaslighting Ukraine.
Arrrgh. If we are talking about gaslighting I am going back to the Aries mumbo jumbo.
Hi, I'm an Pisces. Do you come here often?
So am I
Very fishy
I'm Aries, nearly Pisces. In fact, I share a birthdate with PB. That makes me overlord of you all.
Does this mean that Putin is likely to go for the option of annexing the two breakaway areas, as some predicted as his 'face saving' strategy, whilst avoiding a full on invasion of Ukraine?
Lord alone knows. He's giving his justification right now which, broadly, amounts to "Ukraine was invented by the Bolsheviks and they nicked loads of bits of Russia to make it." He's granting himself, surprise surprise, an excuse to chew off any part of Ukraine with Russians living in it. That could easily end up being half or two-thirds of the country.
This is exactly what I said would happen. If there is war, more than Donetsk and Luhansk will be chewed off.
Ukraine has a problem with a noisy, large Russian minority and -- truth to tell -- little legitimate claim to Crimea.
Ukraine refused to take any steps to compromise or to fix the problems.
So a worse solution is likely to be imposed.
A bit like the Palestinians. By arguing for the whole of pre-1947 Palestine & refusing to compromise, they have had ended up with some tiny bits.
No realistic blame can be put on Ukraine for this. They are faced by a larger, more powerful bully whatever they did, the bully would take as an excuse to escalate. Give Crimea? Sure, we'll take more. Don't defend Donbass? Thanks, how's about the rest? Fight to defend Donbass? Well, aren't you aggressive! We'll have to defend ourselves.
Russia is the aggressive bully here. It has very few parallels workable with the much more complex situation in Palestine.
Although I expect STW will still try to make the parallels ...
Well exactly. What sort of compromise could have been offered here? By agreement, choice or inability they haven't sought to end the rebellion in the east.
Let's say there was an armed rebellion in a part of Russia, would Putin argue someone outside Russia should tell him to compromise over it, or they'd attack?
Many borders don't make massive sense, but nations have until now mostly gotten over the idea of invading to correct that.
And in any case the whole 'Ukraine is not a real country' stuff rather gives the game away that there was anything Kyiv could have done to avoid this.
But we should avoid 'poking' Russia, lest we cause them to do something bad. If the bully steals a boy's lunch money after we warned them not to, it's obviously our fault.
(C) Nick Palmer.
There are 2 solutions, Mr Armchair General.
1. Plebiscites in the disputed territories
2. War
I have repeatedly argued for 1.
The bellicose middle classes on pb.com, comfortable in their armchairs near Cambridge, have repeatedly argued against 1, "far too hard to organise, blah, blah, blah."
But the only other alternative is 2 ...
And when the 'disputed territories' become parts of Poland? Estonia? Romania?
Plebiscites need to be free and fair. Do you believe a plebiscite held under gunpoint would be free and fair. Russia have chosen war in Georgia, Crimea, Donbass. And now, sadly, it seems like Ukraine is the next on their list.
How sure are you (if I was to be unkind, I would ask wherever *you* are posting from) to say why you think Putin's ambitions end in Ukraine?
Russia are the country encouraging war. Not me.
What is your solution?
I was waiting for the "wherever you are posting from" jibes.
I might as well come clean. My name is not @YBarddCwsc
I am a Russian troll called Sergei Krasnevin. I work in a gigantic troll factory near the Arbatskaya, pumping out falsified news articles to deceive the West.
Does this mean that Putin is likely to go for the option of annexing the two breakaway areas, as some predicted as his 'face saving' strategy, whilst avoiding a full on invasion of Ukraine?
Lord alone knows. He's giving his justification right now which, broadly, amounts to "Ukraine was invented by the Bolsheviks and they nicked loads of bits of Russia to make it." He's granting himself, surprise surprise, an excuse to chew off any part of Ukraine with Russians living in it. That could easily end up being half or two-thirds of the country.
This is exactly what I said would happen. If there is war, more than Donetsk and Luhansk will be chewed off.
Ukraine has a problem with a noisy, large Russian minority and -- truth to tell -- little legitimate claim to Crimea.
Ukraine refused to take any steps to compromise or to fix the problems.
So a worse solution is likely to be imposed.
A bit like the Palestinians. By arguing for the whole of pre-1947 Palestine & refusing to compromise, they have had ended up with some tiny bits.
No realistic blame can be put on Ukraine for this. They are faced by a larger, more powerful bully whatever they did, the bully would take as an excuse to escalate. Give Crimea? Sure, we'll take more. Don't defend Donbass? Thanks, how's about the rest? Fight to defend Donbass? Well, aren't you aggressive! We'll have to defend ourselves.
Russia is the aggressive bully here. It has very few parallels workable with the much more complex situation in Palestine.
Although I expect STW will still try to make the parallels ...
Well exactly. What sort of compromise could have been offered here? By agreement, choice or inability they haven't sought to end the rebellion in the east.
Let's say there was an armed rebellion in a part of Russia, would Putin argue someone outside Russia should tell him to compromise over it, or they'd attack?
Many borders don't make massive sense, but nations have until now mostly gotten over the idea of invading to correct that.
And in any case the whole 'Ukraine is not a real country' stuff rather gives the game away that there was anything Kyiv could have done to avoid this.
But we should avoid 'poking' Russia, lest we cause them to do something bad. If the bully steals a boy's lunch money after we warned them not to, it's obviously our fault.
(C) Nick Palmer.
There are 2 solutions, Mr Armchair General.
1. Plebiscites in the disputed territories
2. War
I have repeatedly argued for 1.
The bellicose middle classes on pb.com, comfortable in their armchairs near Cambridge, have repeatedly argued against 1, "far too hard to organise, blah, blah, blah."
But the only other alternative is 2 ...
And when the 'disputed territories' become parts of Poland? Estonia? Romania?
Plebiscites need to be free and fair. Do you believe a plebiscite held under gunpoint would be free and fair. Russia have chosen war in Georgia, Crimea, Donbass. And now, sadly, it seems like Ukraine is the next on their list.
How sure are you (if I was to be unkind, I would ask wherever *you* are posting from) to say why you think Putin's ambitions end in Ukraine?
Russia are the country encouraging war. Not me.
What is your solution?
I was waiting for the "wherever you are posting from" jibes.
I might as well come clean. My name is not @YBarddCwsc
I am a Russian troll called Sergei Krasnevin. I work in a gigantic troll factory near the Arbatskaya, pumping out falsified news articles to deceive the West.
Oh, you Cambridge folk are too smart for us Russkies. You've got us rumbled.
You needlessly mentioned locations.
I've been very clear that I never went to Cambridge. In fact, I've been clear that I'd a plebian who doesn't actually have a degree. I just live near Cambridge because that is where my work was. I'm Derbyshire born, Derbyshire bred, strong in t'arm, thick in t'ead (*). I just moved to Cambridge because the tech company I loved offered me a job.
Now, can you answer my substantive points, as you brought up locations?
(*) Sometimes used by those inferior Yorkshire folk... (runs for cover)
There is no point answering you, because you are a Manichean.
Just for the record, I never said you went to St Swine's College, Cambridge.
What I originally wrote was not about me. Please answer the substantive point I was making.
Does this mean that Putin is likely to go for the option of annexing the two breakaway areas, as some predicted as his 'face saving' strategy, whilst avoiding a full on invasion of Ukraine?
Lord alone knows. He's giving his justification right now which, broadly, amounts to "Ukraine was invented by the Bolsheviks and they nicked loads of bits of Russia to make it." He's granting himself, surprise surprise, an excuse to chew off any part of Ukraine with Russians living in it. That could easily end up being half or two-thirds of the country.
This is exactly what I said would happen. If there is war, more than Donetsk and Luhansk will be chewed off.
Ukraine has a problem with a noisy, large Russian minority and -- truth to tell -- little legitimate claim to Crimea.
Ukraine refused to take any steps to compromise or to fix the problems.
So a worse solution is likely to be imposed.
A bit like the Palestinians. By arguing for the whole of pre-1947 Palestine & refusing to compromise, they have had ended up with some tiny bits.
No realistic blame can be put on Ukraine for this. They are faced by a larger, more powerful bully whatever they did, the bully would take as an excuse to escalate. Give Crimea? Sure, we'll take more. Don't defend Donbass? Thanks, how's about the rest? Fight to defend Donbass? Well, aren't you aggressive! We'll have to defend ourselves.
Russia is the aggressive bully here. It has very few parallels workable with the much more complex situation in Palestine.
Although I expect STW will still try to make the parallels ...
Well exactly. What sort of compromise could have been offered here? By agreement, choice or inability they haven't sought to end the rebellion in the east.
Let's say there was an armed rebellion in a part of Russia, would Putin argue someone outside Russia should tell him to compromise over it, or they'd attack?
Many borders don't make massive sense, but nations have until now mostly gotten over the idea of invading to correct that.
And in any case the whole 'Ukraine is not a real country' stuff rather gives the game away that there was anything Kyiv could have done to avoid this.
But we should avoid 'poking' Russia, lest we cause them to do something bad. If the bully steals a boy's lunch money after we warned them not to, it's obviously our fault.
(C) Nick Palmer.
There are 2 solutions, Mr Armchair General.
1. Plebiscites in the disputed territories
2. War
I have repeatedly argued for 1.
The bellicose middle classes on pb.com, comfortable in their armchairs near Cambridge, have repeatedly argued against 1, "far too hard to organise, blah, blah, blah."
But the only other alternative is 2 ...
Classic victim blaming.
The number of PBers just arguing smaller countries should hand over territory because war is threatened is astonishing. These people are contemptible victim-blaming scum.
A disgusting understatement.
Got any names? Have you heard, by the way, of the realist school of IR?
Does this mean that Putin is likely to go for the option of annexing the two breakaway areas, as some predicted as his 'face saving' strategy, whilst avoiding a full on invasion of Ukraine?
Lord alone knows. He's giving his justification right now which, broadly, amounts to "Ukraine was invented by the Bolsheviks and they nicked loads of bits of Russia to make it." He's granting himself, surprise surprise, an excuse to chew off any part of Ukraine with Russians living in it. That could easily end up being half or two-thirds of the country.
This is exactly what I said would happen. If there is war, more than Donetsk and Luhansk will be chewed off.
Ukraine has a problem with a noisy, large Russian minority and -- truth to tell -- little legitimate claim to Crimea.
Ukraine refused to take any steps to compromise or to fix the problems.
So a worse solution is likely to be imposed.
A bit like the Palestinians. By arguing for the whole of pre-1947 Palestine & refusing to compromise, they have had ended up with some tiny bits.
No realistic blame can be put on Ukraine for this. They are faced by a larger, more powerful bully whatever they did, the bully would take as an excuse to escalate. Give Crimea? Sure, we'll take more. Don't defend Donbass? Thanks, how's about the rest? Fight to defend Donbass? Well, aren't you aggressive! We'll have to defend ourselves.
Russia is the aggressive bully here. It has very few parallels workable with the much more complex situation in Palestine.
Although I expect STW will still try to make the parallels ...
Well exactly. What sort of compromise could have been offered here? By agreement, choice or inability they haven't sought to end the rebellion in the east.
Let's say there was an armed rebellion in a part of Russia, would Putin argue someone outside Russia should tell him to compromise over it, or they'd attack?
Many borders don't make massive sense, but nations have until now mostly gotten over the idea of invading to correct that.
And in any case the whole 'Ukraine is not a real country' stuff rather gives the game away that there was anything Kyiv could have done to avoid this.
But we should avoid 'poking' Russia, lest we cause them to do something bad. If the bully steals a boy's lunch money after we warned them not to, it's obviously our fault.
(C) Nick Palmer.
There are 2 solutions, Mr Armchair General.
1. Plebiscites in the disputed territories
2. War
I have repeatedly argued for 1.
The bellicose middle classes on pb.com, comfortable in their armchairs near Cambridge, have repeatedly argued against 1, "far too hard to organise, blah, blah, blah."
But the only other alternative is 2 ...
And when the 'disputed territories' become parts of Poland? Estonia? Romania?
Plebiscites need to be free and fair. Do you believe a plebiscite held under gunpoint would be free and fair. Russia have chosen war in Georgia, Crimea, Donbass. And now, sadly, it seems like Ukraine is the next on their list.
How sure are you (if I was to be unkind, I would ask wherever *you* are posting from) to say why you think Putin's ambitions end in Ukraine?
Russia are the country encouraging war. Not me.
What is your solution?
I was waiting for the "wherever you are posting from" jibes.
I might as well come clean. My name is not @YBarddCwsc
I am a Russian troll called Sergei Krasnevin. I work in a gigantic troll factory near the Arbatskaya, pumping out falsified news articles to deceive the West.
Putin is unhinged but Johnson lecturing other countries on breaking international law is laughable given the “ breaking it in a limited and specific way “ from last year by his own government !
I don't think it's appropriate to mention Johnson and Putin in the same sentence in this way.
Johnson is busy Trumpifying the UK and his cesspit government has tried to attack the right to protest and to make voting more difficult under some phony “ preventing electoral fraud “ banner. I’m not comparing him to Putin who is clearly a danger to the world whilst baby Trump is a danger to UK democracy .
I support the use of ID for voting. When you are doing something as fundamental as voting I believe you should have to prove who you are. That said, postal voting is likely to be by far th most likely source of voting issues, and on the whole I am against it, except for genuine need.
On protests, I support the right to protest but there are limits. Deliberately stopping people reaching hospital to see a dying relative for the last time is despicable. That chap paid to stand outside Parliament yelling stop Brexit over every tv interview. There needs to be the right to protest, but it’s right that there are limits.
Does this mean that Putin is likely to go for the option of annexing the two breakaway areas, as some predicted as his 'face saving' strategy, whilst avoiding a full on invasion of Ukraine?
Lord alone knows. He's giving his justification right now which, broadly, amounts to "Ukraine was invented by the Bolsheviks and they nicked loads of bits of Russia to make it." He's granting himself, surprise surprise, an excuse to chew off any part of Ukraine with Russians living in it. That could easily end up being half or two-thirds of the country.
This is exactly what I said would happen. If there is war, more than Donetsk and Luhansk will be chewed off.
Ukraine has a problem with a noisy, large Russian minority and -- truth to tell -- little legitimate claim to Crimea.
Ukraine refused to take any steps to compromise or to fix the problems.
So a worse solution is likely to be imposed.
A bit like the Palestinians. By arguing for the whole of pre-1947 Palestine & refusing to compromise, they have had ended up with some tiny bits.
No realistic blame can be put on Ukraine for this. They are faced by a larger, more powerful bully whatever they did, the bully would take as an excuse to escalate. Give Crimea? Sure, we'll take more. Don't defend Donbass? Thanks, how's about the rest? Fight to defend Donbass? Well, aren't you aggressive! We'll have to defend ourselves.
Russia is the aggressive bully here. It has very few parallels workable with the much more complex situation in Palestine.
Although I expect STW will still try to make the parallels ...
Well exactly. What sort of compromise could have been offered here? By agreement, choice or inability they haven't sought to end the rebellion in the east.
Let's say there was an armed rebellion in a part of Russia, would Putin argue someone outside Russia should tell him to compromise over it, or they'd attack?
Many borders don't make massive sense, but nations have until now mostly gotten over the idea of invading to correct that.
And in any case the whole 'Ukraine is not a real country' stuff rather gives the game away that there was anything Kyiv could have done to avoid this.
But we should avoid 'poking' Russia, lest we cause them to do something bad. If the bully steals a boy's lunch money after we warned them not to, it's obviously our fault.
(C) Nick Palmer.
A slightly stupid analogy unless you think having a sandwich stolen is worth risking a nuclear war.
If you are still making excuses for turning a Nelsonian eye to Putin's attitude and motivation, then you probably need to just admit to being weak
We are weak though, in this instance.
We are unwilling to admit Ukraine into the Western military alliance and we are not willing to shed blood on Ukraine’s behalf.
I say this as a matter of fact rather than attaching any blame to it.
Well no. There is no alliance with Ukraine, everyone knows that. The question is how far you make Russia pay, and you can. The US have plans to support an insurgency, the the ability bring the Russian economy down is very real. The problem is old idea of something only being as string as its weakest link. A defacto take over of the LPR & DPR, which this is, is the number 1 option that may have some countries (Germany , France) potentially looking the other way on pushing back.
As an aside, rumour has it Putin suggested to Macron that this recognition if DPR & LPR as independent wasnt on the cards....
@ZelenskyyUa Discussed the events of the last hours with @POTUS. We begin the meeting of the National Security and Defense Council. A conversation with @BorisJohnson is also planned.
If you are still making excuses for turning a Nelsonian eye to Putin's attitude and motivation, then you probably need to just admit to being weak
We are weak though, in this instance.
We are unwilling to admit Ukraine into the Western military alliance and we are not willing to shed blood on Ukraine’s behalf.
I say this as a matter of fact rather than attaching any blame to it.
Well no. There is no alliance with Ukraine, everyone knows that. The question is how far you make Russia pay, and you can. The US have plans to support an insurgency, the the ability bring the Russian economy down is very real. The problem is old idea of something only being as string as its weakest link. A defacto take over of the LPR & DPR, which this is, is the number 1 option that may have some countries (Germany , France) potentially looking the other way on pushing back.
As an aside, rumour has it Putin suggested to Macron that this recognition if DPR & LPR as independent wasnt on the cards....
We've been training the insurgency as well afaik. However I'm not sure if this stops at Ukraine - Russia surely can't suppress a nation of 40m. Transnistria may officially switch, and if I were the Baltics I'd be very nervous. That speech was not the calculating Putin of old, rather it was a man who knows that he doesn't have much time left to achieve his goals.
Macron once again plays the role of the fool. So desperate is he to have an audience, he never considers what the inviter wants.
If you are still making excuses for turning a Nelsonian eye to Putin's attitude and motivation, then you probably need to just admit to being weak
We are weak though, in this instance.
We are unwilling to admit Ukraine into the Western military alliance and we are not willing to shed blood on Ukraine’s behalf.
I say this as a matter of fact rather than attaching any blame to it.
Well no. There is no alliance with Ukraine, everyone knows that. The question is how far you make Russia pay, and you can. The US have plans to support an insurgency, the the ability bring the Russian economy down is very real. The problem is old idea of something only being as string as its weakest link. A defacto take over of the LPR & DPR, which this is, is the number 1 option that may have some countries (Germany , France) potentially looking the other way on pushing back.
As an aside, rumour has it Putin suggested to Macron that this recognition if DPR & LPR as independent wasnt on the cards....
If that last is true, I'd interpret it as Putin deliberately signalling to Macron that he views him as irrelevant.
@ZelenskyyUa Discussed the events of the last hours with @POTUS. We begin the meeting of the National Security and Defense Council. A conversation with @BorisJohnson is also planned.
"A conversation with @BorisJohnson is also planned."
Erm. Argh. Cripes. Ukraine you say? Blimey. Erm. Well. Obviously. And erm. However. Well. Erm. As Professor Whitty says. Erm. Full police inquiry. Cripes. Hmm. Looked at a map. Wallpaper. Erm. Cripes.
Does this mean that Putin is likely to go for the option of annexing the two breakaway areas, as some predicted as his 'face saving' strategy, whilst avoiding a full on invasion of Ukraine?
Lord alone knows. He's giving his justification right now which, broadly, amounts to "Ukraine was invented by the Bolsheviks and they nicked loads of bits of Russia to make it." He's granting himself, surprise surprise, an excuse to chew off any part of Ukraine with Russians living in it. That could easily end up being half or two-thirds of the country.
This is exactly what I said would happen. If there is war, more than Donetsk and Luhansk will be chewed off.
Ukraine has a problem with a noisy, large Russian minority and -- truth to tell -- little legitimate claim to Crimea.
Ukraine refused to take any steps to compromise or to fix the problems.
So a worse solution is likely to be imposed.
A bit like the Palestinians. By arguing for the whole of pre-1947 Palestine & refusing to compromise, they have had ended up with some tiny bits.
No realistic blame can be put on Ukraine for this. They are faced by a larger, more powerful bully whatever they did, the bully would take as an excuse to escalate. Give Crimea? Sure, we'll take more. Don't defend Donbass? Thanks, how's about the rest? Fight to defend Donbass? Well, aren't you aggressive! We'll have to defend ourselves.
Russia is the aggressive bully here. It has very few parallels workable with the much more complex situation in Palestine.
Although I expect STW will still try to make the parallels ...
Well exactly. What sort of compromise could have been offered here? By agreement, choice or inability they haven't sought to end the rebellion in the east.
Let's say there was an armed rebellion in a part of Russia, would Putin argue someone outside Russia should tell him to compromise over it, or they'd attack?
Many borders don't make massive sense, but nations have until now mostly gotten over the idea of invading to correct that.
And in any case the whole 'Ukraine is not a real country' stuff rather gives the game away that there was anything Kyiv could have done to avoid this.
But we should avoid 'poking' Russia, lest we cause them to do something bad. If the bully steals a boy's lunch money after we warned them not to, it's obviously our fault.
(C) Nick Palmer.
A slightly stupid analogy unless you think having a sandwich stolen is worth risking a nuclear war.
So you are saying we should just surrender to the bully who has the biggest firepower and the will to use it?
It explains why you've said that women who don't want to get abused by the 'talent' in the entertainment industry should just become hairdressers. You defend big, hard men who his powers to abuse others.
Also, it is worth pointing out both Donetsk and Luhansk had MORE ethnic Ukrainians than ethnic Russians in the last census.
I think Putin doesn't believe that a distinct Ukrainan ethnic group exists, just Russians speaking dialect. Not true of course, but I have (anti-Putin) Russian friends who take that view.
Also, it is worth pointing out both Donetsk and Luhansk had MORE ethnic Ukrainians than ethnic Russians in the last census.
I think Putin doesn't believe that a distinct Ukrainan ethnic group exists, just Russians speaking dialect. Not true of course, but I have (anti-Putin) Russian friends who take that view.
Mrs J had a colleague who viewed only Russian media. Who lived in the UK.
Russian media which is *totally* free and fair, of course...
Putin really misses the Soviet Union, doesn't he? It's sad when old farts spend all their time on nostalgia.
I saw an interesting video a couple of weeks ago examining old essays by Putin about this. It isn't quite he wants the Soviet Union, it is he believes a lot of the former USSR countries are ethnically Russian and they have been brain washed by the West that they would be better off working closely with Europe, rather than their ethnic "tribe", they are family, and he believes that really they / should be Russian or at very least it should be like US / Canada scenario.
Yes taken at first glance it's more like Putin wants the Russian Empire back not the USSR. Which is properly bloody nuts, and hard to believe that it could be happening in the 21st century, but the evidence unfortunately suggests that could be Putin's intent.
Does this mean that Putin is likely to go for the option of annexing the two breakaway areas, as some predicted as his 'face saving' strategy, whilst avoiding a full on invasion of Ukraine?
Lord alone knows. He's giving his justification right now which, broadly, amounts to "Ukraine was invented by the Bolsheviks and they nicked loads of bits of Russia to make it." He's granting himself, surprise surprise, an excuse to chew off any part of Ukraine with Russians living in it. That could easily end up being half or two-thirds of the country.
This is exactly what I said would happen. If there is war, more than Donetsk and Luhansk will be chewed off.
Ukraine has a problem with a noisy, large Russian minority and -- truth to tell -- little legitimate claim to Crimea.
Ukraine refused to take any steps to compromise or to fix the problems.
So a worse solution is likely to be imposed.
A bit like the Palestinians. By arguing for the whole of pre-1947 Palestine & refusing to compromise, they have had ended up with some tiny bits.
No realistic blame can be put on Ukraine for this. They are faced by a larger, more powerful bully whatever they did, the bully would take as an excuse to escalate. Give Crimea? Sure, we'll take more. Don't defend Donbass? Thanks, how's about the rest? Fight to defend Donbass? Well, aren't you aggressive! We'll have to defend ourselves.
Russia is the aggressive bully here. It has very few parallels workable with the much more complex situation in Palestine.
Although I expect STW will still try to make the parallels ...
Well exactly. What sort of compromise could have been offered here? By agreement, choice or inability they haven't sought to end the rebellion in the east.
Let's say there was an armed rebellion in a part of Russia, would Putin argue someone outside Russia should tell him to compromise over it, or they'd attack?
Many borders don't make massive sense, but nations have until now mostly gotten over the idea of invading to correct that.
And in any case the whole 'Ukraine is not a real country' stuff rather gives the game away that there was anything Kyiv could have done to avoid this.
But we should avoid 'poking' Russia, lest we cause them to do something bad. If the bully steals a boy's lunch money after we warned them not to, it's obviously our fault.
(C) Nick Palmer.
A slightly stupid analogy unless you think having a sandwich stolen is worth risking a nuclear war.
Always funny reading someone who went to Millfield trying to be “clever”. A bit like a toddler attempting the 110 meter hurdles.
If you are still making excuses for turning a Nelsonian eye to Putin's attitude and motivation, then you probably need to just admit to being weak
We are weak though, in this instance.
We are unwilling to admit Ukraine into the Western military alliance and we are not willing to shed blood on Ukraine’s behalf.
I say this as a matter of fact rather than attaching any blame to it.
Well no. There is no alliance with Ukraine, everyone knows that. The question is how far you make Russia pay, and you can. The US have plans to support an insurgency, the the ability bring the Russian economy down is very real. The problem is old idea of something only being as string as its weakest link. A defacto take over of the LPR & DPR, which this is, is the number 1 option that may have some countries (Germany , France) potentially looking the other way on pushing back.
As an aside, rumour has it Putin suggested to Macron that this recognition if DPR & LPR as independent wasnt on the cards....
A lot of the problem relates to the addiction of Germany, Italy, Austria and some other comfortable Western European states to Russian gas.
However, AIUI most of the pipelines traverse the territory of Poland and Slovakia - who can, therefore, presumably, cut them off on their own account?
That just leaves the pipelines under the Baltic, to which an unfortunate (and very hard to repair) accident could theoretically occur. The movement of a hitherto undiscovered tectonic fault, for example. Or an over-enthusiastic attempt to haul in trapped fishing gear. It would be such a shame.
@ZelenskyyUa Discussed the events of the last hours with @POTUS. We begin the meeting of the National Security and Defense Council. A conversation with @BorisJohnson is also planned.
"A conversation with @BorisJohnson is also planned."
Erm. Argh. Cripes. Ukraine you say? Blimey. Erm. Well. Obviously. And erm. However. Well. Erm. As Professor Whitty says. Erm. Full police inquiry. Cripes. Hmm. Looked at a map. Wallpaper. Erm. Cripes.
Johnson is basically a complete cretin, but Wallace & the people co-ordinating our Ukraine response have been doing exceptionally well over the past months. We were the first to deliver substantial loads of useful weaponry, and have not tried to appease Russia.
Among foreign, foreign policy commentators the praise for the UK, both in terms of the Ukraine response and seeing the European-AsPac theatres as interlinked and needing coherent policy, has been notable.
@ZelenskyyUa Discussed the events of the last hours with @POTUS. We begin the meeting of the National Security and Defense Council. A conversation with @BorisJohnson is also planned.
"A conversation with @BorisJohnson is also planned."
Erm. Argh. Cripes. Ukraine you say? Blimey. Erm. Well. Obviously. And erm. However. Well. Erm. As Professor Whitty says. Erm. Full police inquiry. Cripes. Hmm. Looked at a map. Wallpaper. Erm. Cripes.
It would be nice to think that there was substance behind Boris' bluster. Experience has shown otherwise. ;(
(Although we need to be careful to ensure that people who can speak well are automatically seen as the best people to run the country. They are very different skills.)
@ZelenskyyUa Discussed the events of the last hours with @POTUS. We begin the meeting of the National Security and Defense Council. A conversation with @BorisJohnson is also planned.
"A conversation with @BorisJohnson is also planned."
Erm. Argh. Cripes. Ukraine you say? Blimey. Erm. Well. Obviously. And erm. However. Well. Erm. As Professor Whitty says. Erm. Full police inquiry. Cripes. Hmm. Looked at a map. Wallpaper. Erm. Cripes.
Johnson is basically a complete cretin, but Wallace & the people co-ordinating our Ukraine response have been doing exceptionally well over the past months. We were the first to deliver substantial loads of useful weaponry, and have not tried to appease Russia.
Among foreign, foreign policy commentators the praise for the UK, both in terms of the Ukraine response and seeing the European-AsPac theatres as interlinked and needing coherent policy, has been notable.
Are you suggesting that there might be a competent minister in the cabinet?
Gone in the Summer relaunch. I foresee a comeback for Matt Hancock.
Johnson stumbles and hesitates when asked about Putin.
I really do not understand why he is always lauded as being brilliant at oratory and comms. It is, once again, a stumbling mess of erms and arghs and head shakes and nervous tics.
I don't watch much TV, and very little that I do watch is live, but by chance I got to see Wallace's statement and Johnson's statement this afternoon. The contrast between the two was striking. Wallace was on top of his brief, talked directly, and fully answered the questions from the opposition. Johnson bragged, waffled, evaded, and generally stumbled through his statement. Given how prominent the issue of the pandemic has been it's amazing how little Johnson seems to have absorbed about the issue.
I simply do not understand how anyone can think Johnson is competent to be PM, never mind all the lying and other dishonesty.
Putin is unhinged but Johnson lecturing other countries on breaking international law is laughable given the “ breaking it in a limited and specific way “ from last year by his own government !
I don't think it's appropriate to mention Johnson and Putin in the same sentence in this way.
Johnson is busy Trumpifying the UK and his cesspit government has tried to attack the right to protest and to make voting more difficult under some phony “ preventing electoral fraud “ banner. I’m not comparing him to Putin who is clearly a danger to the world whilst baby Trump is a danger to UK democracy .
Do you think European countries that require photo IDs to vote are inferior democracies?
No but in those countries IDs are legally required by all adults . I don’t have a problem with IDs . As long as the system is fair to everyone . The no 10 change on voting was designed purely to make it harder to vote for groups less likely to be Tory supporters.
Also, it is worth pointing out both Donetsk and Luhansk had MORE ethnic Ukrainians than ethnic Russians in the last census.
I think Putin doesn't believe that a distinct Ukrainan ethnic group exists, just Russians speaking dialect. Not true of course, but I have (anti-Putin) Russian friends who take that view.
Ethnicity and nationality don't really make any sense anyway, but we find it hard to function on a global, universal basis so for the most part when not directed in nefarious ways such tribalism can be a good thing. But as you suggest it is not just the obvious who rather arbitrarily decide other groups' self identity is not 'real'.
Does this mean that Putin is likely to go for the option of annexing the two breakaway areas, as some predicted as his 'face saving' strategy, whilst avoiding a full on invasion of Ukraine?
Lord alone knows. He's giving his justification right now which, broadly, amounts to "Ukraine was invented by the Bolsheviks and they nicked loads of bits of Russia to make it." He's granting himself, surprise surprise, an excuse to chew off any part of Ukraine with Russians living in it. That could easily end up being half or two-thirds of the country.
This is exactly what I said would happen. If there is war, more than Donetsk and Luhansk will be chewed off.
Ukraine has a problem with a noisy, large Russian minority and -- truth to tell -- little legitimate claim to Crimea.
Ukraine refused to take any steps to compromise or to fix the problems.
So a worse solution is likely to be imposed.
A bit like the Palestinians. By arguing for the whole of pre-1947 Palestine & refusing to compromise, they have had ended up with some tiny bits.
No realistic blame can be put on Ukraine for this. They are faced by a larger, more powerful bully whatever they did, the bully would take as an excuse to escalate. Give Crimea? Sure, we'll take more. Don't defend Donbass? Thanks, how's about the rest? Fight to defend Donbass? Well, aren't you aggressive! We'll have to defend ourselves.
Russia is the aggressive bully here. It has very few parallels workable with the much more complex situation in Palestine.
Although I expect STW will still try to make the parallels ...
Well exactly. What sort of compromise could have been offered here? By agreement, choice or inability they haven't sought to end the rebellion in the east.
Let's say there was an armed rebellion in a part of Russia, would Putin argue someone outside Russia should tell him to compromise over it, or they'd attack?
Many borders don't make massive sense, but nations have until now mostly gotten over the idea of invading to correct that.
And in any case the whole 'Ukraine is not a real country' stuff rather gives the game away that there was anything Kyiv could have done to avoid this.
But we should avoid 'poking' Russia, lest we cause them to do something bad. If the bully steals a boy's lunch money after we warned them not to, it's obviously our fault.
(C) Nick Palmer.
A slightly stupid analogy unless you think having a sandwich stolen is worth risking a nuclear war.
So you are saying we should just surrender to the bully who has the biggest firepower and the will to use it?
It explains why you've said that women who don't want to get abused by the 'talent' in the entertainment industry should just become hairdressers. You defend big, hard men who his powers to abuse others.
People like you really worry me because you have no conception of the reality of nuclear weapons. If you really think Russia is likely to use nuclear weapons then of course you surrender. The alternative is unimaginably worse. Why do you think the West didn't liberate West Germany or intervene when the Soviets crushed Hungary? Because to do so would be the end of humanity. Now I don't think Putin is going to nuke the west and the response so far has been right and proper. However, there are very good reasons why no other country will send troops to Ukraine if the Russians invade. It's simply not worth the end of the world.
If you are still making excuses for turning a Nelsonian eye to Putin's attitude and motivation, then you probably need to just admit to being weak
We are weak though, in this instance.
We are unwilling to admit Ukraine into the Western military alliance and we are not willing to shed blood on Ukraine’s behalf.
I say this as a matter of fact rather than attaching any blame to it.
The most appropriate conclusion may well be to bring Ukraine and Finland in to NATO after this episode.
Ukraine? Never going to happen. But Finland, if they want? That's a no brainer.
Putin is supposedly upset about NATO but his actions push more into its orbit, give it purpose. There's no way he cannot see that, so either he doesn't care, or he is taking a gamble that ultimately NATO is all talk and pushing a few more to join is worth it if it means he can grab bits of Ukraine now.
Putin is unhinged but Johnson lecturing other countries on breaking international law is laughable given the “ breaking it in a limited and specific way “ from last year by his own government !
I don't think it's appropriate to mention Johnson and Putin in the same sentence in this way.
Johnson is busy Trumpifying the UK and his cesspit government has tried to attack the right to protest and to make voting more difficult under some phony “ preventing electoral fraud “ banner. I’m not comparing him to Putin who is clearly a danger to the world whilst baby Trump is a danger to UK democracy .
Do you think European countries that require photo IDs to vote are inferior democracies?
No but in those countries IDs are legally required by all adults . I don’t have a problem with IDs . As long as the system is fair to everyone . The no 10 change on voting was designed purely to make it harder to vote for groups less likely to be Tory supporters.
+1 - if you want people to provide photo ID, why not go the whole hog and introduce ID cards. They could use it to solve their other pet projects (like access to porn and screwing up encryption).
@ZelenskyyUa Discussed the events of the last hours with @POTUS. We begin the meeting of the National Security and Defense Council. A conversation with @BorisJohnson is also planned.
"A conversation with @BorisJohnson is also planned."
Erm. Argh. Cripes. Ukraine you say? Blimey. Erm. Well. Obviously. And erm. However. Well. Erm. As Professor Whitty says. Erm. Full police inquiry. Cripes. Hmm. Looked at a map. Wallpaper. Erm. Cripes.
Johnson is basically a complete cretin, but Wallace & the people co-ordinating our Ukraine response have been doing exceptionally well over the past months. We were the first to deliver substantial loads of useful weaponry, and have not tried to appease Russia.
Among foreign, foreign policy commentators the praise for the UK, both in terms of the Ukraine response and seeing the European-AsPac theatres as interlinked and needing coherent policy, has been notable.
Are you suggesting that there might be a competent minister in the cabinet?
Gone in the Summer relaunch. I foresee a comeback for Matt Hancock.
No need to shuffle him out; his seat gets fractured into five in the boundary changes.
As an aside Sam Freedman, who occasionally posts things from here, tweeted this today:
"Based on what we've seen today I'm uprating the possibility that Putin has completely lost his mind."
I don't think it's an unfair conclusion, but thankfully any NATO-Russia engagements are still well below 5% likelihood. But I'm going to be really quite annoyed if my 20s consist of getting locked down for something that posed zero risk to me before spending the next couple of years freezing my balls off in some corner of Lithuania I can't even spell.
Putin is unhinged but Johnson lecturing other countries on breaking international law is laughable given the “ breaking it in a limited and specific way “ from last year by his own government !
I don't think it's appropriate to mention Johnson and Putin in the same sentence in this way.
Johnson is busy Trumpifying the UK and his cesspit government has tried to attack the right to protest and to make voting more difficult under some phony “ preventing electoral fraud “ banner. I’m not comparing him to Putin who is clearly a danger to the world whilst baby Trump is a danger to UK democracy .
Do you think European countries that require photo IDs to vote are inferior democracies?
No but in those countries IDs are legally required by all adults . I don’t have a problem with IDs . As long as the system is fair to everyone . The no 10 change on voting was designed purely to make it harder to vote for groups less likely to be Tory supporters.
+1 - if you want people to provide photo ID, why not go the whole hog and introduce ID cards. They could use it to solve their other pet projects (like access to porn and screwing up encryption).
I simply don't believe of the problems we have in our democracy that requiring photo ID is a proportionate measure to tackle those problems. I don't have some grand opposition to the concept, but I don't see the necessity of it so it is better not to do it.
If you are still making excuses for turning a Nelsonian eye to Putin's attitude and motivation, then you probably need to just admit to being weak
We are weak though, in this instance.
We are unwilling to admit Ukraine into the Western military alliance and we are not willing to shed blood on Ukraine’s behalf.
I say this as a matter of fact rather than attaching any blame to it.
The most appropriate conclusion may well be to bring Ukraine and Finland in to NATO after this episode.
Ukraine? Never going to happen. But Finland, if they want? That's a no brainer.
Putin is supposedly upset about NATO but his actions push more into its orbit, give it purpose. There's no way he cannot see that, so either he doesn't care, or he is taking a gamble that ultimately NATO is all talk and pushing a few more to join is worth it if it means he can grab bits of Ukraine now.
Maybe he hasn't notice that his old mucker, Trump, is not POTUS?
Does this mean that Putin is likely to go for the option of annexing the two breakaway areas, as some predicted as his 'face saving' strategy, whilst avoiding a full on invasion of Ukraine?
Lord alone knows. He's giving his justification right now which, broadly, amounts to "Ukraine was invented by the Bolsheviks and they nicked loads of bits of Russia to make it." He's granting himself, surprise surprise, an excuse to chew off any part of Ukraine with Russians living in it. That could easily end up being half or two-thirds of the country.
This is exactly what I said would happen. If there is war, more than Donetsk and Luhansk will be chewed off.
Ukraine has a problem with a noisy, large Russian minority and -- truth to tell -- little legitimate claim to Crimea.
Ukraine refused to take any steps to compromise or to fix the problems.
So a worse solution is likely to be imposed.
A bit like the Palestinians. By arguing for the whole of pre-1947 Palestine & refusing to compromise, they have had ended up with some tiny bits.
No realistic blame can be put on Ukraine for this. They are faced by a larger, more powerful bully whatever they did, the bully would take as an excuse to escalate. Give Crimea? Sure, we'll take more. Don't defend Donbass? Thanks, how's about the rest? Fight to defend Donbass? Well, aren't you aggressive! We'll have to defend ourselves.
Russia is the aggressive bully here. It has very few parallels workable with the much more complex situation in Palestine.
Although I expect STW will still try to make the parallels ...
Well exactly. What sort of compromise could have been offered here? By agreement, choice or inability they haven't sought to end the rebellion in the east.
Let's say there was an armed rebellion in a part of Russia, would Putin argue someone outside Russia should tell him to compromise over it, or they'd attack?
Many borders don't make massive sense, but nations have until now mostly gotten over the idea of invading to correct that.
And in any case the whole 'Ukraine is not a real country' stuff rather gives the game away that there was anything Kyiv could have done to avoid this.
But we should avoid 'poking' Russia, lest we cause them to do something bad. If the bully steals a boy's lunch money after we warned them not to, it's obviously our fault.
(C) Nick Palmer.
A slightly stupid analogy unless you think having a sandwich stolen is worth risking a nuclear war.
So you are saying we should just surrender to the bully who has the biggest firepower and the will to use it?
It explains why you've said that women who don't want to get abused by the 'talent' in the entertainment industry should just become hairdressers. You defend big, hard men who his powers to abuse others.
People like you really worry me because you have no conception of the reality of nuclear weapons. If you really think Russia is likely to use nuclear weapons then of course you surrender. The alternative is unimaginably worse. Why do you think the West didn't liberate West Germany or intervene when the Soviets crushed Hungary? Because to do so would be the end of humanity. Now I don't think Putin is going to nuke the west and the response so far has been right and proper. However, there are very good reasons why no other country will send troops to Ukraine if the Russians invade. It's simply not worth the end of the world.
I very much have a conception of nuclear weapons. I did not bring nuclear weapons into the conversation.
But I'd also add chemical and biological weapons into the mix: one of which Putin has used in the past - in our country.
Do you feel the same way? Or is death by chemical weapon all flowers and unicorns?
But my point remains: at what point do you stand up to a bully and say: "no more?"
If you are still making excuses for turning a Nelsonian eye to Putin's attitude and motivation, then you probably need to just admit to being weak
We are weak though, in this instance.
We are unwilling to admit Ukraine into the Western military alliance and we are not willing to shed blood on Ukraine’s behalf.
I say this as a matter of fact rather than attaching any blame to it.
The most appropriate conclusion may well be to bring Ukraine and Finland in to NATO after this episode.
Ukraine? Never going to happen. But Finland, if they want? That's a no brainer.
Putin is supposedly upset about NATO but his actions push more into its orbit, give it purpose. There's no way he cannot see that, so either he doesn't care, or he is taking a gamble that ultimately NATO is all talk and pushing a few more to join is worth it if it means he can grab bits of Ukraine now.
Maybe he hasn't notice that his old mucker, Trump, is not POTUS?
Or he thinks that in two or three years Trump, or someone worse (for us), might be...
Johnson stumbles and hesitates when asked about Putin.
I really do not understand why he is always lauded as being brilliant at oratory and comms. It is, once again, a stumbling mess of erms and arghs and head shakes and nervous tics.
I don't watch much TV, and very little that I do watch is live, but by chance I got to see Wallace's statement and Johnson's statement this afternoon. The contrast between the two was striking. Wallace was on top of his brief, talked directly, and fully answered the questions from the opposition. Johnson bragged, waffled, evaded, and generally stumbled through his statement. Given how prominent the issue of the pandemic has been it's amazing how little Johnson seems to have absorbed about the issue.
I simply do not understand how anyone can think Johnson is competent to be PM, never mind all the lying and other dishonesty.
It's a job with no qualifying criteria or performance monitoring, and he is testing that.
Also, it is worth pointing out both Donetsk and Luhansk had MORE ethnic Ukrainians than ethnic Russians in the last census.
I think Putin doesn't believe that a distinct Ukrainan ethnic group exists, just Russians speaking dialect. Not true of course, but I have (anti-Putin) Russian friends who take that view.
Mrs J had a colleague who viewed only Russian media. Who lived in the UK.
Russian media which is *totally* free and fair, of course...
Does this mean that Putin is likely to go for the option of annexing the two breakaway areas, as some predicted as his 'face saving' strategy, whilst avoiding a full on invasion of Ukraine?
Lord alone knows. He's giving his justification right now which, broadly, amounts to "Ukraine was invented by the Bolsheviks and they nicked loads of bits of Russia to make it." He's granting himself, surprise surprise, an excuse to chew off any part of Ukraine with Russians living in it. That could easily end up being half or two-thirds of the country.
This is exactly what I said would happen. If there is war, more than Donetsk and Luhansk will be chewed off.
Ukraine has a problem with a noisy, large Russian minority and -- truth to tell -- little legitimate claim to Crimea.
Ukraine refused to take any steps to compromise or to fix the problems.
So a worse solution is likely to be imposed.
A bit like the Palestinians. By arguing for the whole of pre-1947 Palestine & refusing to compromise, they have had ended up with some tiny bits.
No realistic blame can be put on Ukraine for this. They are faced by a larger, more powerful bully whatever they did, the bully would take as an excuse to escalate. Give Crimea? Sure, we'll take more. Don't defend Donbass? Thanks, how's about the rest? Fight to defend Donbass? Well, aren't you aggressive! We'll have to defend ourselves.
Russia is the aggressive bully here. It has very few parallels workable with the much more complex situation in Palestine.
Although I expect STW will still try to make the parallels ...
Well exactly. What sort of compromise could have been offered here? By agreement, choice or inability they haven't sought to end the rebellion in the east.
Let's say there was an armed rebellion in a part of Russia, would Putin argue someone outside Russia should tell him to compromise over it, or they'd attack?
Many borders don't make massive sense, but nations have until now mostly gotten over the idea of invading to correct that.
And in any case the whole 'Ukraine is not a real country' stuff rather gives the game away that there was anything Kyiv could have done to avoid this.
But we should avoid 'poking' Russia, lest we cause them to do something bad. If the bully steals a boy's lunch money after we warned them not to, it's obviously our fault.
(C) Nick Palmer.
A slightly stupid analogy unless you think having a sandwich stolen is worth risking a nuclear war.
So you are saying we should just surrender to the bully who has the biggest firepower and the will to use it?
It explains why you've said that women who don't want to get abused by the 'talent' in the entertainment industry should just become hairdressers. You defend big, hard men who his powers to abuse others.
People like you really worry me because you have no conception of the reality of nuclear weapons. If you really think Russia is likely to use nuclear weapons then of course you surrender. The alternative is unimaginably worse. Why do you think the West didn't liberate West Germany or intervene when the Soviets crushed Hungary? Because to do so would be the end of humanity. Now I don't think Putin is going to nuke the west and the response so far has been right and proper. However, there are very good reasons why no other country will send troops to Ukraine if the Russians invade. It's simply not worth the end of the world.
There is a strong likelihood that we end up with Cold War 2.0, with the Iron Curtain now stretching roughly along the old Soviet border (not counting the Baltic States, which - as much as Tsar Vladimir would like to swallow them - are beyond his grasp, for precisely the same reason as a direct Western military intervention in Ukraine is unthinkable.)
It's quite possible to imagine the whole South-Eastern half of Ukraine being overrun and annexed by Russia proper, and the North-Western half ending up as a client despotism under a figure like Lukashenko. That would also permit the annexation of Transnistria.
I've no idea what happens to the rest of Moldova under those circumstances, but Finland will doubtless want to consider its response to Russian expansionism very carefully. It was part of the Russian Empire until the fall of the Tsar, after all.
Does this mean that Putin is likely to go for the option of annexing the two breakaway areas, as some predicted as his 'face saving' strategy, whilst avoiding a full on invasion of Ukraine?
Lord alone knows. He's giving his justification right now which, broadly, amounts to "Ukraine was invented by the Bolsheviks and they nicked loads of bits of Russia to make it." He's granting himself, surprise surprise, an excuse to chew off any part of Ukraine with Russians living in it. That could easily end up being half or two-thirds of the country.
This is exactly what I said would happen. If there is war, more than Donetsk and Luhansk will be chewed off.
Ukraine has a problem with a noisy, large Russian minority and -- truth to tell -- little legitimate claim to Crimea.
Ukraine refused to take any steps to compromise or to fix the problems.
So a worse solution is likely to be imposed.
A bit like the Palestinians. By arguing for the whole of pre-1947 Palestine & refusing to compromise, they have had ended up with some tiny bits.
No realistic blame can be put on Ukraine for this. They are faced by a larger, more powerful bully whatever they did, the bully would take as an excuse to escalate. Give Crimea? Sure, we'll take more. Don't defend Donbass? Thanks, how's about the rest? Fight to defend Donbass? Well, aren't you aggressive! We'll have to defend ourselves.
Russia is the aggressive bully here. It has very few parallels workable with the much more complex situation in Palestine.
Although I expect STW will still try to make the parallels ...
Well exactly. What sort of compromise could have been offered here? By agreement, choice or inability they haven't sought to end the rebellion in the east.
Let's say there was an armed rebellion in a part of Russia, would Putin argue someone outside Russia should tell him to compromise over it, or they'd attack?
Many borders don't make massive sense, but nations have until now mostly gotten over the idea of invading to correct that.
And in any case the whole 'Ukraine is not a real country' stuff rather gives the game away that there was anything Kyiv could have done to avoid this.
But we should avoid 'poking' Russia, lest we cause them to do something bad. If the bully steals a boy's lunch money after we warned them not to, it's obviously our fault.
(C) Nick Palmer.
A slightly stupid analogy unless you think having a sandwich stolen is worth risking a nuclear war.
So you are saying we should just surrender to the bully who has the biggest firepower and the will to use it?
It explains why you've said that women who don't want to get abused by the 'talent' in the entertainment industry should just become hairdressers. You defend big, hard men who his powers to abuse others.
People like you really worry me because you have no conception of the reality of nuclear weapons. If you really think Russia is likely to use nuclear weapons then of course you surrender. The alternative is unimaginably worse. Why do you think the West didn't liberate West Germany or intervene when the Soviets crushed Hungary? Because to do so would be the end of humanity. Now I don't think Putin is going to nuke the west and the response so far has been right and proper. However, there are very good reasons why no other country will send troops to Ukraine if the Russians invade. It's simply not worth the end of the world.
I very much have a conception of nuclear weapons. I did not bring nuclear weapons into the conversation.
But I'd also add chemical and biological weapons into the mix: one of which Putin has used in the past - in our country.
Do you feel the same way? Or is death by chemical weapon all flowers and unicorns?
But my point remains: at what point do you stand up to a bully and say: "no more?"
And BTW, I've not called for troops to Ukraine.
Does anyone remember an old Amiga game called Balance of Power? You were presented with a series of scenarios and you had to decide to confront the USSR or let the situation go. If you kept pushing and Russia didn't back down then eventually it lead to nuclear war and it was game over. If you objected to Russia stationing more troops in Hungary then you lost quickly. If you challenged them sending millitary advisers to India you were likely to win.
This in simple form is how diplomacy still works. We're pushing the object button for as long as we can in Ukraine but there will be a time when we have to stop.
Does this mean that Putin is likely to go for the option of annexing the two breakaway areas, as some predicted as his 'face saving' strategy, whilst avoiding a full on invasion of Ukraine?
Lord alone knows. He's giving his justification right now which, broadly, amounts to "Ukraine was invented by the Bolsheviks and they nicked loads of bits of Russia to make it." He's granting himself, surprise surprise, an excuse to chew off any part of Ukraine with Russians living in it. That could easily end up being half or two-thirds of the country.
This is exactly what I said would happen. If there is war, more than Donetsk and Luhansk will be chewed off.
Ukraine has a problem with a noisy, large Russian minority and -- truth to tell -- little legitimate claim to Crimea.
Ukraine refused to take any steps to compromise or to fix the problems.
So a worse solution is likely to be imposed.
A bit like the Palestinians. By arguing for the whole of pre-1947 Palestine & refusing to compromise, they have had ended up with some tiny bits.
No realistic blame can be put on Ukraine for this. They are faced by a larger, more powerful bully whatever they did, the bully would take as an excuse to escalate. Give Crimea? Sure, we'll take more. Don't defend Donbass? Thanks, how's about the rest? Fight to defend Donbass? Well, aren't you aggressive! We'll have to defend ourselves.
Russia is the aggressive bully here. It has very few parallels workable with the much more complex situation in Palestine.
Although I expect STW will still try to make the parallels ...
Well exactly. What sort of compromise could have been offered here? By agreement, choice or inability they haven't sought to end the rebellion in the east.
Let's say there was an armed rebellion in a part of Russia, would Putin argue someone outside Russia should tell him to compromise over it, or they'd attack?
Many borders don't make massive sense, but nations have until now mostly gotten over the idea of invading to correct that.
And in any case the whole 'Ukraine is not a real country' stuff rather gives the game away that there was anything Kyiv could have done to avoid this.
But we should avoid 'poking' Russia, lest we cause them to do something bad. If the bully steals a boy's lunch money after we warned them not to, it's obviously our fault.
(C) Nick Palmer.
A slightly stupid analogy unless you think having a sandwich stolen is worth risking a nuclear war.
So you are saying we should just surrender to the bully who has the biggest firepower and the will to use it?
It explains why you've said that women who don't want to get abused by the 'talent' in the entertainment industry should just become hairdressers. You defend big, hard men who his powers to abuse others.
I look forward to Jessop leading the Llandudno Division across the Russian Steppes into Ukraine. like the classic scene from The Prime of Miss Jean Brodie.
We'll be following you on a map. Just make sure you're fighting on the right side
Wonder what odds you could have got on Putin "deciding" to recognise Donetsk and Luhansk republics.
I did say it was his least risky win, claim security & protection needed, drive in. Question is that whether thats all the driving thats done or 'security 'means causing a serious bit of damage on the Ukrainian military who are very much concetrated around the conflict line with the LPR & DPR.
It was a point made at Putins Russian security Council meeting that the breakaway republics are the entire oblasts, only half or so are under control of the separatists. This would include Mariupol, so effective control of the sea of Azov.
I am drunk, slightly low (don't worry), and fed up to the sick teeth with people who defend bullies who ruin lives.
Bullies are bad.
You're right of course. But the world is not as bad as you think when the likes of PJ O'Rourke can explain what its really about:
"There is only one basic human right: the right to do as you please, without causing others harm. With it comes our only basic human duty: the duty to accept the consequences of our actions."
Does this mean that Putin is likely to go for the option of annexing the two breakaway areas, as some predicted as his 'face saving' strategy, whilst avoiding a full on invasion of Ukraine?
Lord alone knows. He's giving his justification right now which, broadly, amounts to "Ukraine was invented by the Bolsheviks and they nicked loads of bits of Russia to make it." He's granting himself, surprise surprise, an excuse to chew off any part of Ukraine with Russians living in it. That could easily end up being half or two-thirds of the country.
This is exactly what I said would happen. If there is war, more than Donetsk and Luhansk will be chewed off.
Ukraine has a problem with a noisy, large Russian minority and -- truth to tell -- little legitimate claim to Crimea.
Ukraine refused to take any steps to compromise or to fix the problems.
So a worse solution is likely to be imposed.
A bit like the Palestinians. By arguing for the whole of pre-1947 Palestine & refusing to compromise, they have had ended up with some tiny bits.
No realistic blame can be put on Ukraine for this. They are faced by a larger, more powerful bully whatever they did, the bully would take as an excuse to escalate. Give Crimea? Sure, we'll take more. Don't defend Donbass? Thanks, how's about the rest? Fight to defend Donbass? Well, aren't you aggressive! We'll have to defend ourselves.
Russia is the aggressive bully here. It has very few parallels workable with the much more complex situation in Palestine.
Although I expect STW will still try to make the parallels ...
Well exactly. What sort of compromise could have been offered here? By agreement, choice or inability they haven't sought to end the rebellion in the east.
Let's say there was an armed rebellion in a part of Russia, would Putin argue someone outside Russia should tell him to compromise over it, or they'd attack?
Many borders don't make massive sense, but nations have until now mostly gotten over the idea of invading to correct that.
And in any case the whole 'Ukraine is not a real country' stuff rather gives the game away that there was anything Kyiv could have done to avoid this.
But we should avoid 'poking' Russia, lest we cause them to do something bad. If the bully steals a boy's lunch money after we warned them not to, it's obviously our fault.
(C) Nick Palmer.
A slightly stupid analogy unless you think having a sandwich stolen is worth risking a nuclear war.
So you are saying we should just surrender to the bully who has the biggest firepower and the will to use it?
It explains why you've said that women who don't want to get abused by the 'talent' in the entertainment industry should just become hairdressers. You defend big, hard men who his powers to abuse others.
I look forward to Jessop leading the Llandudno Division across the Russian Steppes into Ukraine. like the classic scene from The Prime of Miss Jean Brodie.
We'll be following you on a map. Just make sure you're fighting on the right side
What's your point here? The war is more likely to happen if we do your pathetic appeasement approach. So presumably you will be in the trenches with the Ukrainians? Or is it that war doesn't count if it only includes Eastern Europeans?
Does this mean that Putin is likely to go for the option of annexing the two breakaway areas, as some predicted as his 'face saving' strategy, whilst avoiding a full on invasion of Ukraine?
Lord alone knows. He's giving his justification right now which, broadly, amounts to "Ukraine was invented by the Bolsheviks and they nicked loads of bits of Russia to make it." He's granting himself, surprise surprise, an excuse to chew off any part of Ukraine with Russians living in it. That could easily end up being half or two-thirds of the country.
This is exactly what I said would happen. If there is war, more than Donetsk and Luhansk will be chewed off.
Ukraine has a problem with a noisy, large Russian minority and -- truth to tell -- little legitimate claim to Crimea.
Ukraine refused to take any steps to compromise or to fix the problems.
So a worse solution is likely to be imposed.
A bit like the Palestinians. By arguing for the whole of pre-1947 Palestine & refusing to compromise, they have had ended up with some tiny bits.
No realistic blame can be put on Ukraine for this. They are faced by a larger, more powerful bully whatever they did, the bully would take as an excuse to escalate. Give Crimea? Sure, we'll take more. Don't defend Donbass? Thanks, how's about the rest? Fight to defend Donbass? Well, aren't you aggressive! We'll have to defend ourselves.
Russia is the aggressive bully here. It has very few parallels workable with the much more complex situation in Palestine.
Although I expect STW will still try to make the parallels ...
Well exactly. What sort of compromise could have been offered here? By agreement, choice or inability they haven't sought to end the rebellion in the east.
Let's say there was an armed rebellion in a part of Russia, would Putin argue someone outside Russia should tell him to compromise over it, or they'd attack?
Many borders don't make massive sense, but nations have until now mostly gotten over the idea of invading to correct that.
And in any case the whole 'Ukraine is not a real country' stuff rather gives the game away that there was anything Kyiv could have done to avoid this.
But we should avoid 'poking' Russia, lest we cause them to do something bad. If the bully steals a boy's lunch money after we warned them not to, it's obviously our fault.
(C) Nick Palmer.
A slightly stupid analogy unless you think having a sandwich stolen is worth risking a nuclear war.
So you are saying we should just surrender to the bully who has the biggest firepower and the will to use it?
It explains why you've said that women who don't want to get abused by the 'talent' in the entertainment industry should just become hairdressers. You defend big, hard men who his powers to abuse others.
I look forward to Jessop leading the Llandudno Division across the Russian Steppes into Ukraine. like the classic scene from The Prime of Miss Jean Brodie.
We'll be following you on a map. Just make sure you're fighting on the right side
I'm not calling for that. What is your answer then? Ukraine to give in to all Russian demands? Estonia afterwards? Romania after that?
I expect you to be hauling up the Russian flag when they reach the south of France. And to be looking for good advert opportunities in extolling the manly virtues of the Russian male (sorry, talent) over the non-Russian female.
Does this mean that Putin is likely to go for the option of annexing the two breakaway areas, as some predicted as his 'face saving' strategy, whilst avoiding a full on invasion of Ukraine?
Lord alone knows. He's giving his justification right now which, broadly, amounts to "Ukraine was invented by the Bolsheviks and they nicked loads of bits of Russia to make it." He's granting himself, surprise surprise, an excuse to chew off any part of Ukraine with Russians living in it. That could easily end up being half or two-thirds of the country.
This is exactly what I said would happen. If there is war, more than Donetsk and Luhansk will be chewed off.
Ukraine has a problem with a noisy, large Russian minority and -- truth to tell -- little legitimate claim to Crimea.
Ukraine refused to take any steps to compromise or to fix the problems.
So a worse solution is likely to be imposed.
A bit like the Palestinians. By arguing for the whole of pre-1947 Palestine & refusing to compromise, they have had ended up with some tiny bits.
No realistic blame can be put on Ukraine for this. They are faced by a larger, more powerful bully whatever they did, the bully would take as an excuse to escalate. Give Crimea? Sure, we'll take more. Don't defend Donbass? Thanks, how's about the rest? Fight to defend Donbass? Well, aren't you aggressive! We'll have to defend ourselves.
Russia is the aggressive bully here. It has very few parallels workable with the much more complex situation in Palestine.
Although I expect STW will still try to make the parallels ...
Well exactly. What sort of compromise could have been offered here? By agreement, choice or inability they haven't sought to end the rebellion in the east.
Let's say there was an armed rebellion in a part of Russia, would Putin argue someone outside Russia should tell him to compromise over it, or they'd attack?
Many borders don't make massive sense, but nations have until now mostly gotten over the idea of invading to correct that.
And in any case the whole 'Ukraine is not a real country' stuff rather gives the game away that there was anything Kyiv could have done to avoid this.
But we should avoid 'poking' Russia, lest we cause them to do something bad. If the bully steals a boy's lunch money after we warned them not to, it's obviously our fault.
(C) Nick Palmer.
A slightly stupid analogy unless you think having a sandwich stolen is worth risking a nuclear war.
Always funny reading someone who went to Millfield trying to be “clever”. A bit like a toddler attempting the 110 meter hurdles.
Does this mean that Putin is likely to go for the option of annexing the two breakaway areas, as some predicted as his 'face saving' strategy, whilst avoiding a full on invasion of Ukraine?
Lord alone knows. He's giving his justification right now which, broadly, amounts to "Ukraine was invented by the Bolsheviks and they nicked loads of bits of Russia to make it." He's granting himself, surprise surprise, an excuse to chew off any part of Ukraine with Russians living in it. That could easily end up being half or two-thirds of the country.
This is exactly what I said would happen. If there is war, more than Donetsk and Luhansk will be chewed off.
Ukraine has a problem with a noisy, large Russian minority and -- truth to tell -- little legitimate claim to Crimea.
Ukraine refused to take any steps to compromise or to fix the problems.
So a worse solution is likely to be imposed.
A bit like the Palestinians. By arguing for the whole of pre-1947 Palestine & refusing to compromise, they have had ended up with some tiny bits.
No realistic blame can be put on Ukraine for this. They are faced by a larger, more powerful bully whatever they did, the bully would take as an excuse to escalate. Give Crimea? Sure, we'll take more. Don't defend Donbass? Thanks, how's about the rest? Fight to defend Donbass? Well, aren't you aggressive! We'll have to defend ourselves.
Russia is the aggressive bully here. It has very few parallels workable with the much more complex situation in Palestine.
Although I expect STW will still try to make the parallels ...
Well exactly. What sort of compromise could have been offered here? By agreement, choice or inability they haven't sought to end the rebellion in the east.
Let's say there was an armed rebellion in a part of Russia, would Putin argue someone outside Russia should tell him to compromise over it, or they'd attack?
Many borders don't make massive sense, but nations have until now mostly gotten over the idea of invading to correct that.
And in any case the whole 'Ukraine is not a real country' stuff rather gives the game away that there was anything Kyiv could have done to avoid this.
But we should avoid 'poking' Russia, lest we cause them to do something bad. If the bully steals a boy's lunch money after we warned them not to, it's obviously our fault.
(C) Nick Palmer.
A slightly stupid analogy unless you think having a sandwich stolen is worth risking a nuclear war.
So you are saying we should just surrender to the bully who has the biggest firepower and the will to use it?
It explains why you've said that women who don't want to get abused by the 'talent' in the entertainment industry should just become hairdressers. You defend big, hard men who his powers to abuse others.
People like you really worry me because you have no conception of the reality of nuclear weapons. If you really think Russia is likely to use nuclear weapons then of course you surrender. The alternative is unimaginably worse. Why do you think the West didn't liberate West Germany or intervene when the Soviets crushed Hungary? Because to do so would be the end of humanity. Now I don't think Putin is going to nuke the west and the response so far has been right and proper. However, there are very good reasons why no other country will send troops to Ukraine if the Russians invade. It's simply not worth the end of the world.
There is a strong likelihood that we end up with Cold War 2.0, with the Iron Curtain now stretching roughly along the old Soviet border (not counting the Baltic States, which - as much as Tsar Vladimir would like to swallow them - are beyond his grasp, for precisely the same reason as a direct Western military intervention in Ukraine is unthinkable.)
It's quite possible to imagine the whole South-Eastern half of Ukraine being overrun and annexed by Russia proper, and the North-Western half ending up as a client despotism under a figure like Lukashenko. That would also permit the annexation of Transnistria.
I've no idea what happens to the rest of Moldova under those circumstances, but Finland will doubtless want to consider its response to Russian expansionism very carefully. It was part of the Russian Empire until the fall of the Tsar, after all.
Think you are getting a bit carried here Pigeon. An invasion of eastern Ukraine is plausible but will still be nasty militarily and get massive sanctions. As for western Ukraine being annexed by Belarus, you're not serious surely? Moldova now has a pro-western Harvard educated President. Don't know enough about it to guess how things will turn out with Transnistria.
Does this mean that Putin is likely to go for the option of annexing the two breakaway areas, as some predicted as his 'face saving' strategy, whilst avoiding a full on invasion of Ukraine?
Lord alone knows. He's giving his justification right now which, broadly, amounts to "Ukraine was invented by the Bolsheviks and they nicked loads of bits of Russia to make it." He's granting himself, surprise surprise, an excuse to chew off any part of Ukraine with Russians living in it. That could easily end up being half or two-thirds of the country.
This is exactly what I said would happen. If there is war, more than Donetsk and Luhansk will be chewed off.
Ukraine has a problem with a noisy, large Russian minority and -- truth to tell -- little legitimate claim to Crimea.
Ukraine refused to take any steps to compromise or to fix the problems.
So a worse solution is likely to be imposed.
A bit like the Palestinians. By arguing for the whole of pre-1947 Palestine & refusing to compromise, they have had ended up with some tiny bits.
No realistic blame can be put on Ukraine for this. They are faced by a larger, more powerful bully whatever they did, the bully would take as an excuse to escalate. Give Crimea? Sure, we'll take more. Don't defend Donbass? Thanks, how's about the rest? Fight to defend Donbass? Well, aren't you aggressive! We'll have to defend ourselves.
Russia is the aggressive bully here. It has very few parallels workable with the much more complex situation in Palestine.
Although I expect STW will still try to make the parallels ...
Well exactly. What sort of compromise could have been offered here? By agreement, choice or inability they haven't sought to end the rebellion in the east.
Let's say there was an armed rebellion in a part of Russia, would Putin argue someone outside Russia should tell him to compromise over it, or they'd attack?
Many borders don't make massive sense, but nations have until now mostly gotten over the idea of invading to correct that.
And in any case the whole 'Ukraine is not a real country' stuff rather gives the game away that there was anything Kyiv could have done to avoid this.
But we should avoid 'poking' Russia, lest we cause them to do something bad. If the bully steals a boy's lunch money after we warned them not to, it's obviously our fault.
(C) Nick Palmer.
A slightly stupid analogy unless you think having a sandwich stolen is worth risking a nuclear war.
So you are saying we should just surrender to the bully who has the biggest firepower and the will to use it?
It explains why you've said that women who don't want to get abused by the 'talent' in the entertainment industry should just become hairdressers. You defend big, hard men who his powers to abuse others.
I look forward to Jessop leading the Llandudno Division across the Russian Steppes into Ukraine. like the classic scene from The Prime of Miss Jean Brodie.
We'll be following you on a map. Just make sure you're fighting on the right side
I'm not calling for that. What is your answer then? Ukraine to give in to all Russian demands? Estonia afterwards? Romania after that?
I expect you to be hauling up the Russian flag when they reach the south of France. And to be looking for good advert opportunities in extolling the manly virtues of the Russian male (sorry, talent) over the non-Russian female.
If I remember correctly, Roger called people upset about Hollywood sexually abusing young actresses "moralizing" and "prurient". He is a completely immoral human being.
Wikipedia's list of states recognised by at least one UN Member state is Russia heavy now.
Republic of China Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic Northern Cyprus South Ossetia Abkhazia Kosovo Donetsk Luhansk
Transnistra and Artsakh aren't recognised by any UN Member state, but recognise each other so that is something, but poor old Somaliland still gets no recognition even from them. What a weird situation for over £5 million people to be in. Way more than any of the others bar Taiwan, who at least get some attention.
Does this mean that Putin is likely to go for the option of annexing the two breakaway areas, as some predicted as his 'face saving' strategy, whilst avoiding a full on invasion of Ukraine?
Lord alone knows. He's giving his justification right now which, broadly, amounts to "Ukraine was invented by the Bolsheviks and they nicked loads of bits of Russia to make it." He's granting himself, surprise surprise, an excuse to chew off any part of Ukraine with Russians living in it. That could easily end up being half or two-thirds of the country.
This is exactly what I said would happen. If there is war, more than Donetsk and Luhansk will be chewed off.
Ukraine has a problem with a noisy, large Russian minority and -- truth to tell -- little legitimate claim to Crimea.
Ukraine refused to take any steps to compromise or to fix the problems.
So a worse solution is likely to be imposed.
A bit like the Palestinians. By arguing for the whole of pre-1947 Palestine & refusing to compromise, they have had ended up with some tiny bits.
No realistic blame can be put on Ukraine for this. They are faced by a larger, more powerful bully whatever they did, the bully would take as an excuse to escalate. Give Crimea? Sure, we'll take more. Don't defend Donbass? Thanks, how's about the rest? Fight to defend Donbass? Well, aren't you aggressive! We'll have to defend ourselves.
Russia is the aggressive bully here. It has very few parallels workable with the much more complex situation in Palestine.
Although I expect STW will still try to make the parallels ...
Well exactly. What sort of compromise could have been offered here? By agreement, choice or inability they haven't sought to end the rebellion in the east.
Let's say there was an armed rebellion in a part of Russia, would Putin argue someone outside Russia should tell him to compromise over it, or they'd attack?
Many borders don't make massive sense, but nations have until now mostly gotten over the idea of invading to correct that.
And in any case the whole 'Ukraine is not a real country' stuff rather gives the game away that there was anything Kyiv could have done to avoid this.
But we should avoid 'poking' Russia, lest we cause them to do something bad. If the bully steals a boy's lunch money after we warned them not to, it's obviously our fault.
(C) Nick Palmer.
A slightly stupid analogy unless you think having a sandwich stolen is worth risking a nuclear war.
So you are saying we should just surrender to the bully who has the biggest firepower and the will to use it?
It explains why you've said that women who don't want to get abused by the 'talent' in the entertainment industry should just become hairdressers. You defend big, hard men who his powers to abuse others.
I look forward to Jessop leading the Llandudno Division across the Russian Steppes into Ukraine. like the classic scene from The Prime of Miss Jean Brodie.
We'll be following you on a map. Just make sure you're fighting on the right side
Wit, intelligence and insight all in on reply. It’s like Oscar Wilde and Dorothy Parker’s secret daughter mated with Henry Kissinger.
Just disappointed you didn’t manage to shoehorn Hartlepool in as that’s the usual base for witty and devastating put-down.
Does this mean that Putin is likely to go for the option of annexing the two breakaway areas, as some predicted as his 'face saving' strategy, whilst avoiding a full on invasion of Ukraine?
Lord alone knows. He's giving his justification right now which, broadly, amounts to "Ukraine was invented by the Bolsheviks and they nicked loads of bits of Russia to make it." He's granting himself, surprise surprise, an excuse to chew off any part of Ukraine with Russians living in it. That could easily end up being half or two-thirds of the country.
This is exactly what I said would happen. If there is war, more than Donetsk and Luhansk will be chewed off.
Ukraine has a problem with a noisy, large Russian minority and -- truth to tell -- little legitimate claim to Crimea.
Ukraine refused to take any steps to compromise or to fix the problems.
So a worse solution is likely to be imposed.
A bit like the Palestinians. By arguing for the whole of pre-1947 Palestine & refusing to compromise, they have had ended up with some tiny bits.
No realistic blame can be put on Ukraine for this. They are faced by a larger, more powerful bully whatever they did, the bully would take as an excuse to escalate. Give Crimea? Sure, we'll take more. Don't defend Donbass? Thanks, how's about the rest? Fight to defend Donbass? Well, aren't you aggressive! We'll have to defend ourselves.
Russia is the aggressive bully here. It has very few parallels workable with the much more complex situation in Palestine.
Although I expect STW will still try to make the parallels ...
Well exactly. What sort of compromise could have been offered here? By agreement, choice or inability they haven't sought to end the rebellion in the east.
Let's say there was an armed rebellion in a part of Russia, would Putin argue someone outside Russia should tell him to compromise over it, or they'd attack?
Many borders don't make massive sense, but nations have until now mostly gotten over the idea of invading to correct that.
And in any case the whole 'Ukraine is not a real country' stuff rather gives the game away that there was anything Kyiv could have done to avoid this.
But we should avoid 'poking' Russia, lest we cause them to do something bad. If the bully steals a boy's lunch money after we warned them not to, it's obviously our fault.
(C) Nick Palmer.
A slightly stupid analogy unless you think having a sandwich stolen is worth risking a nuclear war.
So you are saying we should just surrender to the bully who has the biggest firepower and the will to use it?
It explains why you've said that women who don't want to get abused by the 'talent' in the entertainment industry should just become hairdressers. You defend big, hard men who his powers to abuse others.
I look forward to Jessop leading the Llandudno Division across the Russian Steppes into Ukraine. like the classic scene from The Prime of Miss Jean Brodie.
We'll be following you on a map. Just make sure you're fighting on the right side
What's your point here?
I think a common point is an attempt to say that since virtually no one is advocating actual military intervention in the event of Russian invasion, that is basically the same as saying or doing nothing at all, hence the suggestion anyone suggestion a sterner response is either gung ho or should be gung ho.
Putin is unhinged but Johnson lecturing other countries on breaking international law is laughable given the “ breaking it in a limited and specific way “ from last year by his own government !
I don't think it's appropriate to mention Johnson and Putin in the same sentence in this way.
Johnson is busy Trumpifying the UK and his cesspit government has tried to attack the right to protest and to make voting more difficult under some phony “ preventing electoral fraud “ banner. I’m not comparing him to Putin who is clearly a danger to the world whilst baby Trump is a danger to UK democracy .
I support the use of ID for voting. When you are doing something as fundamental as voting I believe you should have to prove who you are. That said, postal voting is likely to be by far th most likely source of voting issues, and on the whole I am against it, except for genuine need.
On protests, I support the right to protest but there are limits. Deliberately stopping people reaching hospital to see a dying relative for the last time is despicable. That chap paid to stand outside Parliament yelling stop Brexit over every tv interview. There needs to be the right to protest, but it’s right that there are limits.
For me the limit is when you are taking away others rights.
If you want to protest with banners and making noise etc at the side of the road, then I'm perfectly fine with that.
If you want to blockade the road, that's not OK and the road should be cleared.
Does this mean that Putin is likely to go for the option of annexing the two breakaway areas, as some predicted as his 'face saving' strategy, whilst avoiding a full on invasion of Ukraine?
Lord alone knows. He's giving his justification right now which, broadly, amounts to "Ukraine was invented by the Bolsheviks and they nicked loads of bits of Russia to make it." He's granting himself, surprise surprise, an excuse to chew off any part of Ukraine with Russians living in it. That could easily end up being half or two-thirds of the country.
This is exactly what I said would happen. If there is war, more than Donetsk and Luhansk will be chewed off.
Ukraine has a problem with a noisy, large Russian minority and -- truth to tell -- little legitimate claim to Crimea.
Ukraine refused to take any steps to compromise or to fix the problems.
So a worse solution is likely to be imposed.
A bit like the Palestinians. By arguing for the whole of pre-1947 Palestine & refusing to compromise, they have had ended up with some tiny bits.
No realistic blame can be put on Ukraine for this. They are faced by a larger, more powerful bully whatever they did, the bully would take as an excuse to escalate. Give Crimea? Sure, we'll take more. Don't defend Donbass? Thanks, how's about the rest? Fight to defend Donbass? Well, aren't you aggressive! We'll have to defend ourselves.
Russia is the aggressive bully here. It has very few parallels workable with the much more complex situation in Palestine.
Although I expect STW will still try to make the parallels ...
Well exactly. What sort of compromise could have been offered here? By agreement, choice or inability they haven't sought to end the rebellion in the east.
Let's say there was an armed rebellion in a part of Russia, would Putin argue someone outside Russia should tell him to compromise over it, or they'd attack?
Many borders don't make massive sense, but nations have until now mostly gotten over the idea of invading to correct that.
And in any case the whole 'Ukraine is not a real country' stuff rather gives the game away that there was anything Kyiv could have done to avoid this.
But we should avoid 'poking' Russia, lest we cause them to do something bad. If the bully steals a boy's lunch money after we warned them not to, it's obviously our fault.
(C) Nick Palmer.
A slightly stupid analogy unless you think having a sandwich stolen is worth risking a nuclear war.
So you are saying we should just surrender to the bully who has the biggest firepower and the will to use it?
It explains why you've said that women who don't want to get abused by the 'talent' in the entertainment industry should just become hairdressers. You defend big, hard men who his powers to abuse others.
People like you really worry me because you have no conception of the reality of nuclear weapons. If you really think Russia is likely to use nuclear weapons then of course you surrender. The alternative is unimaginably worse. Why do you think the West didn't liberate West Germany or intervene when the Soviets crushed Hungary? Because to do so would be the end of humanity. Now I don't think Putin is going to nuke the west and the response so far has been right and proper. However, there are very good reasons why no other country will send troops to Ukraine if the Russians invade. It's simply not worth the end of the world.
I very much have a conception of nuclear weapons. I did not bring nuclear weapons into the conversation.
But I'd also add chemical and biological weapons into the mix: one of which Putin has used in the past - in our country.
Do you feel the same way? Or is death by chemical weapon all flowers and unicorns?
But my point remains: at what point do you stand up to a bully and say: "no more?"
And BTW, I've not called for troops to Ukraine.
Does anyone remember an old Amiga game called Balance of Power? You were presented with a series of scenarios and you had to decide to confront the USSR or let the situation go. If you kept pushing and Russia didn't back down then eventually it lead to nuclear war and it was game over. If you objected to Russia stationing more troops in Hungary then you lost quickly. If you challenged them sending millitary advisers to India you were likely to win.
This in simple form is how diplomacy still works. We're pushing the object button for as long as we can in Ukraine but there will be a time when we have to stop.
Hmmm. I guess you're in the Nick Palmer grouping of saying this is in any way 'our' fault?
It's quite simple: you have values. What are those values, and when you see those values being trampled on, when do you shout: "No!".
Does this mean that Putin is likely to go for the option of annexing the two breakaway areas, as some predicted as his 'face saving' strategy, whilst avoiding a full on invasion of Ukraine?
Lord alone knows. He's giving his justification right now which, broadly, amounts to "Ukraine was invented by the Bolsheviks and they nicked loads of bits of Russia to make it." He's granting himself, surprise surprise, an excuse to chew off any part of Ukraine with Russians living in it. That could easily end up being half or two-thirds of the country.
This is exactly what I said would happen. If there is war, more than Donetsk and Luhansk will be chewed off.
Ukraine has a problem with a noisy, large Russian minority and -- truth to tell -- little legitimate claim to Crimea.
Ukraine refused to take any steps to compromise or to fix the problems.
So a worse solution is likely to be imposed.
A bit like the Palestinians. By arguing for the whole of pre-1947 Palestine & refusing to compromise, they have had ended up with some tiny bits.
No realistic blame can be put on Ukraine for this. They are faced by a larger, more powerful bully whatever they did, the bully would take as an excuse to escalate. Give Crimea? Sure, we'll take more. Don't defend Donbass? Thanks, how's about the rest? Fight to defend Donbass? Well, aren't you aggressive! We'll have to defend ourselves.
Russia is the aggressive bully here. It has very few parallels workable with the much more complex situation in Palestine.
Although I expect STW will still try to make the parallels ...
Well exactly. What sort of compromise could have been offered here? By agreement, choice or inability they haven't sought to end the rebellion in the east.
Let's say there was an armed rebellion in a part of Russia, would Putin argue someone outside Russia should tell him to compromise over it, or they'd attack?
Many borders don't make massive sense, but nations have until now mostly gotten over the idea of invading to correct that.
And in any case the whole 'Ukraine is not a real country' stuff rather gives the game away that there was anything Kyiv could have done to avoid this.
But we should avoid 'poking' Russia, lest we cause them to do something bad. If the bully steals a boy's lunch money after we warned them not to, it's obviously our fault.
(C) Nick Palmer.
A slightly stupid analogy unless you think having a sandwich stolen is worth risking a nuclear war.
Always funny reading someone who went to Millfield trying to be “clever”. A bit like a toddler attempting the 110 meter hurdles.
Does this mean that Putin is likely to go for the option of annexing the two breakaway areas, as some predicted as his 'face saving' strategy, whilst avoiding a full on invasion of Ukraine?
Lord alone knows. He's giving his justification right now which, broadly, amounts to "Ukraine was invented by the Bolsheviks and they nicked loads of bits of Russia to make it." He's granting himself, surprise surprise, an excuse to chew off any part of Ukraine with Russians living in it. That could easily end up being half or two-thirds of the country.
This is exactly what I said would happen. If there is war, more than Donetsk and Luhansk will be chewed off.
Ukraine has a problem with a noisy, large Russian minority and -- truth to tell -- little legitimate claim to Crimea.
Ukraine refused to take any steps to compromise or to fix the problems.
So a worse solution is likely to be imposed.
A bit like the Palestinians. By arguing for the whole of pre-1947 Palestine & refusing to compromise, they have had ended up with some tiny bits.
No realistic blame can be put on Ukraine for this. They are faced by a larger, more powerful bully whatever they did, the bully would take as an excuse to escalate. Give Crimea? Sure, we'll take more. Don't defend Donbass? Thanks, how's about the rest? Fight to defend Donbass? Well, aren't you aggressive! We'll have to defend ourselves.
Russia is the aggressive bully here. It has very few parallels workable with the much more complex situation in Palestine.
Although I expect STW will still try to make the parallels ...
Well exactly. What sort of compromise could have been offered here? By agreement, choice or inability they haven't sought to end the rebellion in the east.
Let's say there was an armed rebellion in a part of Russia, would Putin argue someone outside Russia should tell him to compromise over it, or they'd attack?
Many borders don't make massive sense, but nations have until now mostly gotten over the idea of invading to correct that.
And in any case the whole 'Ukraine is not a real country' stuff rather gives the game away that there was anything Kyiv could have done to avoid this.
But we should avoid 'poking' Russia, lest we cause them to do something bad. If the bully steals a boy's lunch money after we warned them not to, it's obviously our fault.
(C) Nick Palmer.
A slightly stupid analogy unless you think having a sandwich stolen is worth risking a nuclear war.
So you are saying we should just surrender to the bully who has the biggest firepower and the will to use it?
It explains why you've said that women who don't want to get abused by the 'talent' in the entertainment industry should just become hairdressers. You defend big, hard men who his powers to abuse others.
People like you really worry me because you have no conception of the reality of nuclear weapons. If you really think Russia is likely to use nuclear weapons then of course you surrender. The alternative is unimaginably worse. Why do you think the West didn't liberate West Germany or intervene when the Soviets crushed Hungary? Because to do so would be the end of humanity. Now I don't think Putin is going to nuke the west and the response so far has been right and proper. However, there are very good reasons why no other country will send troops to Ukraine if the Russians invade. It's simply not worth the end of the world.
There is a strong likelihood that we end up with Cold War 2.0, with the Iron Curtain now stretching roughly along the old Soviet border (not counting the Baltic States, which - as much as Tsar Vladimir would like to swallow them - are beyond his grasp, for precisely the same reason as a direct Western military intervention in Ukraine is unthinkable.)
It's quite possible to imagine the whole South-Eastern half of Ukraine being overrun and annexed by Russia proper, and the North-Western half ending up as a client despotism under a figure like Lukashenko. That would also permit the annexation of Transnistria.
I've no idea what happens to the rest of Moldova under those circumstances, but Finland will doubtless want to consider its response to Russian expansionism very carefully. It was part of the Russian Empire until the fall of the Tsar, after all.
I think NATO will increase its presences in Romania and Bulgaria, and the Americans will carry on pouring resources into the Greek port of Alexandroupoli, as they have been for a while.
Does this mean that Putin is likely to go for the option of annexing the two breakaway areas, as some predicted as his 'face saving' strategy, whilst avoiding a full on invasion of Ukraine?
Lord alone knows. He's giving his justification right now which, broadly, amounts to "Ukraine was invented by the Bolsheviks and they nicked loads of bits of Russia to make it." He's granting himself, surprise surprise, an excuse to chew off any part of Ukraine with Russians living in it. That could easily end up being half or two-thirds of the country.
This is exactly what I said would happen. If there is war, more than Donetsk and Luhansk will be chewed off.
Ukraine has a problem with a noisy, large Russian minority and -- truth to tell -- little legitimate claim to Crimea.
Ukraine refused to take any steps to compromise or to fix the problems.
So a worse solution is likely to be imposed.
A bit like the Palestinians. By arguing for the whole of pre-1947 Palestine & refusing to compromise, they have had ended up with some tiny bits.
No realistic blame can be put on Ukraine for this. They are faced by a larger, more powerful bully whatever they did, the bully would take as an excuse to escalate. Give Crimea? Sure, we'll take more. Don't defend Donbass? Thanks, how's about the rest? Fight to defend Donbass? Well, aren't you aggressive! We'll have to defend ourselves.
Russia is the aggressive bully here. It has very few parallels workable with the much more complex situation in Palestine.
Although I expect STW will still try to make the parallels ...
Well exactly. What sort of compromise could have been offered here? By agreement, choice or inability they haven't sought to end the rebellion in the east.
Let's say there was an armed rebellion in a part of Russia, would Putin argue someone outside Russia should tell him to compromise over it, or they'd attack?
Many borders don't make massive sense, but nations have until now mostly gotten over the idea of invading to correct that.
And in any case the whole 'Ukraine is not a real country' stuff rather gives the game away that there was anything Kyiv could have done to avoid this.
But we should avoid 'poking' Russia, lest we cause them to do something bad. If the bully steals a boy's lunch money after we warned them not to, it's obviously our fault.
(C) Nick Palmer.
A slightly stupid analogy unless you think having a sandwich stolen is worth risking a nuclear war.
So you are saying we should just surrender to the bully who has the biggest firepower and the will to use it?
It explains why you've said that women who don't want to get abused by the 'talent' in the entertainment industry should just become hairdressers. You defend big, hard men who his powers to abuse others.
People like you really worry me because you have no conception of the reality of nuclear weapons. If you really think Russia is likely to use nuclear weapons then of course you surrender. The alternative is unimaginably worse. Why do you think the West didn't liberate West Germany or intervene when the Soviets crushed Hungary? Because to do so would be the end of humanity. Now I don't think Putin is going to nuke the west and the response so far has been right and proper. However, there are very good reasons why no other country will send troops to Ukraine if the Russians invade. It's simply not worth the end of the world.
There is a strong likelihood that we end up with Cold War 2.0, with the Iron Curtain now stretching roughly along the old Soviet border (not counting the Baltic States, which - as much as Tsar Vladimir would like to swallow them - are beyond his grasp, for precisely the same reason as a direct Western military intervention in Ukraine is unthinkable.)
It's quite possible to imagine the whole South-Eastern half of Ukraine being overrun and annexed by Russia proper, and the North-Western half ending up as a client despotism under a figure like Lukashenko. That would also permit the annexation of Transnistria.
I've no idea what happens to the rest of Moldova under those circumstances, but Finland will doubtless want to consider its response to Russian expansionism very carefully. It was part of the Russian Empire until the fall of the Tsar, after all.
Think you are getting a bit carried here Pigeon. An invasion of eastern Ukraine is plausible but will still be nasty militarily and get massive sanctions. As for western Ukraine being annexed by Belarus, you're not serious surely? Moldova now has a pro-western Harvard educated President. Don't know enough about it to guess how things will turn out with Transnistria.
AIUI, half of what is now Ukraine is, broadly speaking, the region referred to by Russian nationalists as New Russia. It's the part of the country that contains a relatively large number of Russian speakers, and which has backed pro-Russian candidates for the Ukrainian presidency in the past.
I never meant to suggest that the Belarusian despot would end up in charge of the leftover rump Ukraine if it came to that; rather, that Putin would send the tanks into Kiev and install a Ukrainian puppet of a similar nature.
Moldova is a (very small and poor) ex-Soviet state that's still outside the Western alliance system, and consequently has no more protection against Russian imperialism than the poor old Ukrainians do.
Does this mean that Putin is likely to go for the option of annexing the two breakaway areas, as some predicted as his 'face saving' strategy, whilst avoiding a full on invasion of Ukraine?
Lord alone knows. He's giving his justification right now which, broadly, amounts to "Ukraine was invented by the Bolsheviks and they nicked loads of bits of Russia to make it." He's granting himself, surprise surprise, an excuse to chew off any part of Ukraine with Russians living in it. That could easily end up being half or two-thirds of the country.
This is exactly what I said would happen. If there is war, more than Donetsk and Luhansk will be chewed off.
Ukraine has a problem with a noisy, large Russian minority and -- truth to tell -- little legitimate claim to Crimea.
Ukraine refused to take any steps to compromise or to fix the problems.
So a worse solution is likely to be imposed.
A bit like the Palestinians. By arguing for the whole of pre-1947 Palestine & refusing to compromise, they have had ended up with some tiny bits.
No realistic blame can be put on Ukraine for this. They are faced by a larger, more powerful bully whatever they did, the bully would take as an excuse to escalate. Give Crimea? Sure, we'll take more. Don't defend Donbass? Thanks, how's about the rest? Fight to defend Donbass? Well, aren't you aggressive! We'll have to defend ourselves.
Russia is the aggressive bully here. It has very few parallels workable with the much more complex situation in Palestine.
Although I expect STW will still try to make the parallels ...
Well exactly. What sort of compromise could have been offered here? By agreement, choice or inability they haven't sought to end the rebellion in the east.
Let's say there was an armed rebellion in a part of Russia, would Putin argue someone outside Russia should tell him to compromise over it, or they'd attack?
Many borders don't make massive sense, but nations have until now mostly gotten over the idea of invading to correct that.
And in any case the whole 'Ukraine is not a real country' stuff rather gives the game away that there was anything Kyiv could have done to avoid this.
But we should avoid 'poking' Russia, lest we cause them to do something bad. If the bully steals a boy's lunch money after we warned them not to, it's obviously our fault.
(C) Nick Palmer.
A slightly stupid analogy unless you think having a sandwich stolen is worth risking a nuclear war.
So you are saying we should just surrender to the bully who has the biggest firepower and the will to use it?
It explains why you've said that women who don't want to get abused by the 'talent' in the entertainment industry should just become hairdressers. You defend big, hard men who his powers to abuse others.
People like you really worry me because you have no conception of the reality of nuclear weapons. If you really think Russia is likely to use nuclear weapons then of course you surrender. The alternative is unimaginably worse. Why do you think the West didn't liberate West Germany or intervene when the Soviets crushed Hungary? Because to do so would be the end of humanity. Now I don't think Putin is going to nuke the west and the response so far has been right and proper. However, there are very good reasons why no other country will send troops to Ukraine if the Russians invade. It's simply not worth the end of the world.
I very much have a conception of nuclear weapons. I did not bring nuclear weapons into the conversation.
But I'd also add chemical and biological weapons into the mix: one of which Putin has used in the past - in our country.
Do you feel the same way? Or is death by chemical weapon all flowers and unicorns?
But my point remains: at what point do you stand up to a bully and say: "no more?"
And BTW, I've not called for troops to Ukraine.
Does anyone remember an old Amiga game called Balance of Power? You were presented with a series of scenarios and you had to decide to confront the USSR or let the situation go. If you kept pushing and Russia didn't back down then eventually it lead to nuclear war and it was game over. If you objected to Russia stationing more troops in Hungary then you lost quickly. If you challenged them sending millitary advisers to India you were likely to win.
This in simple form is how diplomacy still works. We're pushing the object button for as long as we can in Ukraine but there will be a time when we have to stop.
Hmmm. I guess you're in the Nick Palmer grouping of saying this is in any way 'our' fault?
It's quite simple: you have values. What are those values, and when you see those values being trampled on, when do you shout: "No!".
What are your values?
I think values are where all policies should start, foreign policy included. But reality and limitations have to be recognized, and factored into policy.
Fwiw, the UK has no real history of values-driven foreign policy, no matter the lip service. We are recognized worldwide for our pragmatism in diplomacy.
Does this mean that Putin is likely to go for the option of annexing the two breakaway areas, as some predicted as his 'face saving' strategy, whilst avoiding a full on invasion of Ukraine?
Lord alone knows. He's giving his justification right now which, broadly, amounts to "Ukraine was invented by the Bolsheviks and they nicked loads of bits of Russia to make it." He's granting himself, surprise surprise, an excuse to chew off any part of Ukraine with Russians living in it. That could easily end up being half or two-thirds of the country.
This is exactly what I said would happen. If there is war, more than Donetsk and Luhansk will be chewed off.
Ukraine has a problem with a noisy, large Russian minority and -- truth to tell -- little legitimate claim to Crimea.
Ukraine refused to take any steps to compromise or to fix the problems.
So a worse solution is likely to be imposed.
A bit like the Palestinians. By arguing for the whole of pre-1947 Palestine & refusing to compromise, they have had ended up with some tiny bits.
No realistic blame can be put on Ukraine for this. They are faced by a larger, more powerful bully whatever they did, the bully would take as an excuse to escalate. Give Crimea? Sure, we'll take more. Don't defend Donbass? Thanks, how's about the rest? Fight to defend Donbass? Well, aren't you aggressive! We'll have to defend ourselves.
Russia is the aggressive bully here. It has very few parallels workable with the much more complex situation in Palestine.
Although I expect STW will still try to make the parallels ...
Well exactly. What sort of compromise could have been offered here? By agreement, choice or inability they haven't sought to end the rebellion in the east.
Let's say there was an armed rebellion in a part of Russia, would Putin argue someone outside Russia should tell him to compromise over it, or they'd attack?
Many borders don't make massive sense, but nations have until now mostly gotten over the idea of invading to correct that.
And in any case the whole 'Ukraine is not a real country' stuff rather gives the game away that there was anything Kyiv could have done to avoid this.
But we should avoid 'poking' Russia, lest we cause them to do something bad. If the bully steals a boy's lunch money after we warned them not to, it's obviously our fault.
(C) Nick Palmer.
A slightly stupid analogy unless you think having a sandwich stolen is worth risking a nuclear war.
So you are saying we should just surrender to the bully who has the biggest firepower and the will to use it?
It explains why you've said that women who don't want to get abused by the 'talent' in the entertainment industry should just become hairdressers. You defend big, hard men who his powers to abuse others.
People like you really worry me because you have no conception of the reality of nuclear weapons. If you really think Russia is likely to use nuclear weapons then of course you surrender. The alternative is unimaginably worse. Why do you think the West didn't liberate West Germany or intervene when the Soviets crushed Hungary? Because to do so would be the end of humanity. Now I don't think Putin is going to nuke the west and the response so far has been right and proper. However, there are very good reasons why no other country will send troops to Ukraine if the Russians invade. It's simply not worth the end of the world.
There is a strong likelihood that we end up with Cold War 2.0, with the Iron Curtain now stretching roughly along the old Soviet border (not counting the Baltic States, which - as much as Tsar Vladimir would like to swallow them - are beyond his grasp, for precisely the same reason as a direct Western military intervention in Ukraine is unthinkable.)
It's quite possible to imagine the whole South-Eastern half of Ukraine being overrun and annexed by Russia proper, and the North-Western half ending up as a client despotism under a figure like Lukashenko. That would also permit the annexation of Transnistria.
I've no idea what happens to the rest of Moldova under those circumstances, but Finland will doubtless want to consider its response to Russian expansionism very carefully. It was part of the Russian Empire until the fall of the Tsar, after all.
He might fancy Alaska back too. Maybe a bit of trouble if he fancies Harbin and Port Arthur...
I am drunk, slightly low (don't worry), and fed up to the sick teeth with people who defend bullies who ruin lives.
Bullies are bad.
They are. The problem is what are we to do about him? We can't stop him militarily and the threat to go after him financially doesn't seem to be serious. So he looks at disunited western countries he has spent a decade undermining and thinks we're a pushover.
That I recognise he is right doesn't mean I support him. But I am a realist, and nobody is going to risk a NATO - Russia war over Ukraine. He knows this and is acting accordingly.
Does this mean that Putin is likely to go for the option of annexing the two breakaway areas, as some predicted as his 'face saving' strategy, whilst avoiding a full on invasion of Ukraine?
Lord alone knows. He's giving his justification right now which, broadly, amounts to "Ukraine was invented by the Bolsheviks and they nicked loads of bits of Russia to make it." He's granting himself, surprise surprise, an excuse to chew off any part of Ukraine with Russians living in it. That could easily end up being half or two-thirds of the country.
This is exactly what I said would happen. If there is war, more than Donetsk and Luhansk will be chewed off.
Ukraine has a problem with a noisy, large Russian minority and -- truth to tell -- little legitimate claim to Crimea.
Ukraine refused to take any steps to compromise or to fix the problems.
So a worse solution is likely to be imposed.
A bit like the Palestinians. By arguing for the whole of pre-1947 Palestine & refusing to compromise, they have had ended up with some tiny bits.
No realistic blame can be put on Ukraine for this. They are faced by a larger, more powerful bully whatever they did, the bully would take as an excuse to escalate. Give Crimea? Sure, we'll take more. Don't defend Donbass? Thanks, how's about the rest? Fight to defend Donbass? Well, aren't you aggressive! We'll have to defend ourselves.
Russia is the aggressive bully here. It has very few parallels workable with the much more complex situation in Palestine.
Although I expect STW will still try to make the parallels ...
Well exactly. What sort of compromise could have been offered here? By agreement, choice or inability they haven't sought to end the rebellion in the east.
Let's say there was an armed rebellion in a part of Russia, would Putin argue someone outside Russia should tell him to compromise over it, or they'd attack?
Many borders don't make massive sense, but nations have until now mostly gotten over the idea of invading to correct that.
And in any case the whole 'Ukraine is not a real country' stuff rather gives the game away that there was anything Kyiv could have done to avoid this.
But we should avoid 'poking' Russia, lest we cause them to do something bad. If the bully steals a boy's lunch money after we warned them not to, it's obviously our fault.
(C) Nick Palmer.
A slightly stupid analogy unless you think having a sandwich stolen is worth risking a nuclear war.
So you are saying we should just surrender to the bully who has the biggest firepower and the will to use it?
It explains why you've said that women who don't want to get abused by the 'talent' in the entertainment industry should just become hairdressers. You defend big, hard men who his powers to abuse others.
People like you really worry me because you have no conception of the reality of nuclear weapons. If you really think Russia is likely to use nuclear weapons then of course you surrender. The alternative is unimaginably worse. Why do you think the West didn't liberate West Germany or intervene when the Soviets crushed Hungary? Because to do so would be the end of humanity. Now I don't think Putin is going to nuke the west and the response so far has been right and proper. However, there are very good reasons why no other country will send troops to Ukraine if the Russians invade. It's simply not worth the end of the world.
There is a strong likelihood that we end up with Cold War 2.0, with the Iron Curtain now stretching roughly along the old Soviet border (not counting the Baltic States, which - as much as Tsar Vladimir would like to swallow them - are beyond his grasp, for precisely the same reason as a direct Western military intervention in Ukraine is unthinkable.)
It's quite possible to imagine the whole South-Eastern half of Ukraine being overrun and annexed by Russia proper, and the North-Western half ending up as a client despotism under a figure like Lukashenko. That would also permit the annexation of Transnistria.
I've no idea what happens to the rest of Moldova under those circumstances, but Finland will doubtless want to consider its response to Russian expansionism very carefully. It was part of the Russian Empire until the fall of the Tsar, after all.
He might fancy Alaska back too. Maybe a bit of trouble if he fancies Harbin and Port Arthur...
"Tsar Alexander made it all the way to Paris!" - Stalin, 1945.
Does this mean that Putin is likely to go for the option of annexing the two breakaway areas, as some predicted as his 'face saving' strategy, whilst avoiding a full on invasion of Ukraine?
Lord alone knows. He's giving his justification right now which, broadly, amounts to "Ukraine was invented by the Bolsheviks and they nicked loads of bits of Russia to make it." He's granting himself, surprise surprise, an excuse to chew off any part of Ukraine with Russians living in it. That could easily end up being half or two-thirds of the country.
This is exactly what I said would happen. If there is war, more than Donetsk and Luhansk will be chewed off.
Ukraine has a problem with a noisy, large Russian minority and -- truth to tell -- little legitimate claim to Crimea.
Ukraine refused to take any steps to compromise or to fix the problems.
So a worse solution is likely to be imposed.
A bit like the Palestinians. By arguing for the whole of pre-1947 Palestine & refusing to compromise, they have had ended up with some tiny bits.
No realistic blame can be put on Ukraine for this. They are faced by a larger, more powerful bully whatever they did, the bully would take as an excuse to escalate. Give Crimea? Sure, we'll take more. Don't defend Donbass? Thanks, how's about the rest? Fight to defend Donbass? Well, aren't you aggressive! We'll have to defend ourselves.
Russia is the aggressive bully here. It has very few parallels workable with the much more complex situation in Palestine.
Although I expect STW will still try to make the parallels ...
Well exactly. What sort of compromise could have been offered here? By agreement, choice or inability they haven't sought to end the rebellion in the east.
Let's say there was an armed rebellion in a part of Russia, would Putin argue someone outside Russia should tell him to compromise over it, or they'd attack?
Many borders don't make massive sense, but nations have until now mostly gotten over the idea of invading to correct that.
And in any case the whole 'Ukraine is not a real country' stuff rather gives the game away that there was anything Kyiv could have done to avoid this.
But we should avoid 'poking' Russia, lest we cause them to do something bad. If the bully steals a boy's lunch money after we warned them not to, it's obviously our fault.
(C) Nick Palmer.
A slightly stupid analogy unless you think having a sandwich stolen is worth risking a nuclear war.
So you are saying we should just surrender to the bully who has the biggest firepower and the will to use it?
It explains why you've said that women who don't want to get abused by the 'talent' in the entertainment industry should just become hairdressers. You defend big, hard men who his powers to abuse others.
People like you really worry me because you have no conception of the reality of nuclear weapons. If you really think Russia is likely to use nuclear weapons then of course you surrender. The alternative is unimaginably worse. Why do you think the West didn't liberate West Germany or intervene when the Soviets crushed Hungary? Because to do so would be the end of humanity. Now I don't think Putin is going to nuke the west and the response so far has been right and proper. However, there are very good reasons why no other country will send troops to Ukraine if the Russians invade. It's simply not worth the end of the world.
There is a strong likelihood that we end up with Cold War 2.0, with the Iron Curtain now stretching roughly along the old Soviet border (not counting the Baltic States, which - as much as Tsar Vladimir would like to swallow them - are beyond his grasp, for precisely the same reason as a direct Western military intervention in Ukraine is unthinkable.)
It's quite possible to imagine the whole South-Eastern half of Ukraine being overrun and annexed by Russia proper, and the North-Western half ending up as a client despotism under a figure like Lukashenko. That would also permit the annexation of Transnistria.
I've no idea what happens to the rest of Moldova under those circumstances, but Finland will doubtless want to consider its response to Russian expansionism very carefully. It was part of the Russian Empire until the fall of the Tsar, after all.
He might fancy Alaska back too. Maybe a bit of trouble if he fancies Harbin and Port Arthur...
"Tsar Alexander made it all the way to Paris!" - Stalin, 1945.
Didn't I read somewhere on this board that Lavrov is already in London?
Wikipedia's list of states recognised by at least one UN Member state is Russia heavy now.
Republic of China Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic Northern Cyprus South Ossetia Abkhazia Kosovo Donetsk Luhansk
Transnistra and Artsakh aren't recognised by any UN Member state, but recognise each other so that is something, but poor old Somaliland still gets no recognition even from them. What a weird situation for over £5 million people to be in. Way more than any of the others bar Taiwan, who at least get some attention.
It's disgraceful how Somaliland has been treated for decades now for wanting to be clear of the shitehole that is Somalia. How many of us can blame them? As their former colonial power we have a particular responsibility to drop this and recognise them asap.
Wonder what odds you could have got on Putin "deciding" to recognise Donetsk and Luhansk republics.
I did say it was his least risky win, claim security & protection needed, drive in. Question is that whether thats all the driving thats done or 'security 'means causing a serious bit of damage on the Ukrainian military who are very much concetrated around the conflict line with the LPR & DPR.
It was a point made at Putins Russian security Council meeting that the breakaway republics are the entire oblasts, only half or so are under control of the separatists. This would include Mariupol, so effective control of the sea of Azov.
It's known that Putin covets the whole Black Sea coast up to the isthmus that connect Crimea to the mainland. It makes sense, geographically and militarily. Then Crimea has no "border" with Ukraine and is entirely absorbed into Russia, never to revert
Some speculate that Putin could take the entire coast of the Black Sea, including Odessa (where I am meant to be flying in ten days!) but I doubt that. A landlocked Ukraine would be an even more desperate Ukraine, willing to fight to the death
I am drunk, slightly low (don't worry), and fed up to the sick teeth with people who defend bullies who ruin lives.
Bullies are bad.
I’m feeling same as you after that today Josias. Russia has had a bad day in its history. No wonder Putin keeps distance avoids people, tricked into a room with two doctors and they will have a straight jacket on him in no time. He’s a nut.
His address to the nation wouldn’t pass gcse history - as I mentioned months ago I played a Ukrainian Nationalist/saucy serving wench in the house of pettly yura in a play based on Bulgakov’s White Guard, Ukraine a free sovereign country before Lenin even controlled Russia - yet Putin used his fantasy’s as a base to threaten every single former soviet country with “non of them should have been allowed to leave in first place.”
I’m torn between on one hand not wanting war - certainly not one where Ukraine people likely to lose without proper assistance - on the other hand give war a chance to slap Putin across his face. Though I’d rather he didn’t get his aloof face slapped if such suffering of Ukrainians can still be avoided.
Flat and dejected now, like you, as I said all week it’s not happening because he doesn’t have a clear achievable military objective he can quickly succeed without getting bogged down. But now he clearly has, flooding the disputed Ukraine bits with “troops to keep the peace”. Keep yet another piece in salami action more like ☹️
I am drunk, slightly low (don't worry), and fed up to the sick teeth with people who defend bullies who ruin lives.
Bullies are bad.
They are. The problem is what are we to do about him? We can't stop him militarily and the threat to go after him financially doesn't seem to be serious. So he looks at disunited western countries he has spent a decade undermining and thinks we're a pushover.
That I recognise he is right doesn't mean I support him. But I am a realist, and nobody is going to risk a NATO - Russia war over Ukraine. He knows this and is acting accordingly.
I worry that he's been surrounded by yes-men for so long he may make the same calculation over Latvia or Finland. The speech tonight was very much laying the groundwork for such a move.
I am drunk, slightly low (don't worry), and fed up to the sick teeth with people who defend bullies who ruin lives.
Bullies are bad.
They are. The problem is what are we to do about him? We can't stop him militarily and the threat to go after him financially doesn't seem to be serious. So he looks at disunited western countries he has spent a decade undermining and thinks we're a pushover.
That I recognise he is right doesn't mean I support him. But I am a realist, and nobody is going to risk a NATO - Russia war over Ukraine. He knows this and is acting accordingly.
I don't necessarily disagree with that. In which case, you have to ask yourself where your boundaries are: when do you say: "Oi, no!"
I'd argue that after Georgia, Crimea, Donbass, and more importantly for us, Litvinenko and Salisbury, that time is before now. But failing that, now.
Ask yourself this question: when faced with an aggressive adversary, where do *you* draw the line in the sand? Where will you personally say 'no more'?
I am drunk, slightly low (don't worry), and fed up to the sick teeth with people who defend bullies who ruin lives.
Bullies are bad.
I’m feeling same as you after that today Josias. Russia has had a bad day in its history. No wonder Putin keeps distance avoids people, tricked into a room with two doctors and they will have a straight jacket on him in no time. He’s a nut.
His address to the nation wouldn’t pass gcse history - as I mentioned months ago I played a Ukrainian Nationalist/saucy serving wench in the house of pettly yura in a play based on Bulgakov’s White Guard, Ukraine a free sovereign country before Lenin even controlled Russia - yet Putin used his fantasy’s as a base to threaten every single former soviet country with “non of them should have been allowed to leave in first place.”
I’m torn between on one hand not wanting war - certainly not one where Ukraine people likely to lose without proper assistance - on the other hand give war a chance to slap Putin across his face. Though I’d rather he didn’t get his aloof face slapped if such suffering of Ukrainians can still be avoided.
Flat and dejected now, like you, as I said all week it’s not happening because he doesn’t have a clear achievable military objective he can quickly succeed without getting bogged down. But now he clearly has, flooding the disputed Ukraine bits with “troops to keep the peace”. Keep yet another piece in salami action more like ☹️
Boris presser was sane and sensible in comparison. But didn’t he look rough? His new haircut growing out of shape, he looks like a satanic goat, and his breathing wasn’t right, big noisy gulps to power each paragraph.
Does this mean that Putin is likely to go for the option of annexing the two breakaway areas, as some predicted as his 'face saving' strategy, whilst avoiding a full on invasion of Ukraine?
Lord alone knows. He's giving his justification right now which, broadly, amounts to "Ukraine was invented by the Bolsheviks and they nicked loads of bits of Russia to make it." He's granting himself, surprise surprise, an excuse to chew off any part of Ukraine with Russians living in it. That could easily end up being half or two-thirds of the country.
This is exactly what I said would happen. If there is war, more than Donetsk and Luhansk will be chewed off.
Ukraine has a problem with a noisy, large Russian minority and -- truth to tell -- little legitimate claim to Crimea.
Ukraine refused to take any steps to compromise or to fix the problems.
So a worse solution is likely to be imposed.
A bit like the Palestinians. By arguing for the whole of pre-1947 Palestine & refusing to compromise, they have had ended up with some tiny bits.
No realistic blame can be put on Ukraine for this. They are faced by a larger, more powerful bully whatever they did, the bully would take as an excuse to escalate. Give Crimea? Sure, we'll take more. Don't defend Donbass? Thanks, how's about the rest? Fight to defend Donbass? Well, aren't you aggressive! We'll have to defend ourselves.
Russia is the aggressive bully here. It has very few parallels workable with the much more complex situation in Palestine.
Although I expect STW will still try to make the parallels ...
Well exactly. What sort of compromise could have been offered here? By agreement, choice or inability they haven't sought to end the rebellion in the east.
Let's say there was an armed rebellion in a part of Russia, would Putin argue someone outside Russia should tell him to compromise over it, or they'd attack?
Many borders don't make massive sense, but nations have until now mostly gotten over the idea of invading to correct that.
And in any case the whole 'Ukraine is not a real country' stuff rather gives the game away that there was anything Kyiv could have done to avoid this.
But we should avoid 'poking' Russia, lest we cause them to do something bad. If the bully steals a boy's lunch money after we warned them not to, it's obviously our fault.
(C) Nick Palmer.
A slightly stupid analogy unless you think having a sandwich stolen is worth risking a nuclear war.
So you are saying we should just surrender to the bully who has the biggest firepower and the will to use it?
It explains why you've said that women who don't want to get abused by the 'talent' in the entertainment industry should just become hairdressers. You defend big, hard men who his powers to abuse others.
People like you really worry me because you have no conception of the reality of nuclear weapons. If you really think Russia is likely to use nuclear weapons then of course you surrender. The alternative is unimaginably worse. Why do you think the West didn't liberate West Germany or intervene when the Soviets crushed Hungary? Because to do so would be the end of humanity. Now I don't think Putin is going to nuke the west and the response so far has been right and proper. However, there are very good reasons why no other country will send troops to Ukraine if the Russians invade. It's simply not worth the end of the world.
I very much have a conception of nuclear weapons. I did not bring nuclear weapons into the conversation.
But I'd also add chemical and biological weapons into the mix: one of which Putin has used in the past - in our country.
Do you feel the same way? Or is death by chemical weapon all flowers and unicorns?
But my point remains: at what point do you stand up to a bully and say: "no more?"
And BTW, I've not called for troops to Ukraine.
Does anyone remember an old Amiga game called Balance of Power? You were presented with a series of scenarios and you had to decide to confront the USSR or let the situation go. If you kept pushing and Russia didn't back down then eventually it lead to nuclear war and it was game over. If you objected to Russia stationing more troops in Hungary then you lost quickly. If you challenged them sending millitary advisers to India you were likely to win.
This in simple form is how diplomacy still works. We're pushing the object button for as long as we can in Ukraine but there will be a time when we have to stop.
Hmmm. I guess you're in the Nick Palmer grouping of saying this is in any way 'our' fault?
It's quite simple: you have values. What are those values, and when you see those values being trampled on, when do you shout: "No!".
What are your values?
Of course I don't think this is 'our fault'. Russia is a menace that needs to be curtailed but it doesn't do any good trying to pretend things that you have no intention of doing. No one is really prepared to let Ukraine join NATO so who does it benefit to pretend we might? Diplomacy works when both sides know what the consequences of their actions are. The western alliance has mostly got this right so far. I just find some of the belligerence on here frightening.
Does this mean that Putin is likely to go for the option of annexing the two breakaway areas, as some predicted as his 'face saving' strategy, whilst avoiding a full on invasion of Ukraine?
Lord alone knows. He's giving his justification right now which, broadly, amounts to "Ukraine was invented by the Bolsheviks and they nicked loads of bits of Russia to make it." He's granting himself, surprise surprise, an excuse to chew off any part of Ukraine with Russians living in it. That could easily end up being half or two-thirds of the country.
This is exactly what I said would happen. If there is war, more than Donetsk and Luhansk will be chewed off.
Ukraine has a problem with a noisy, large Russian minority and -- truth to tell -- little legitimate claim to Crimea.
Ukraine refused to take any steps to compromise or to fix the problems.
So a worse solution is likely to be imposed.
A bit like the Palestinians. By arguing for the whole of pre-1947 Palestine & refusing to compromise, they have had ended up with some tiny bits.
No realistic blame can be put on Ukraine for this. They are faced by a larger, more powerful bully whatever they did, the bully would take as an excuse to escalate. Give Crimea? Sure, we'll take more. Don't defend Donbass? Thanks, how's about the rest? Fight to defend Donbass? Well, aren't you aggressive! We'll have to defend ourselves.
Russia is the aggressive bully here. It has very few parallels workable with the much more complex situation in Palestine.
Although I expect STW will still try to make the parallels ...
Well exactly. What sort of compromise could have been offered here? By agreement, choice or inability they haven't sought to end the rebellion in the east.
Let's say there was an armed rebellion in a part of Russia, would Putin argue someone outside Russia should tell him to compromise over it, or they'd attack?
Many borders don't make massive sense, but nations have until now mostly gotten over the idea of invading to correct that.
And in any case the whole 'Ukraine is not a real country' stuff rather gives the game away that there was anything Kyiv could have done to avoid this.
But we should avoid 'poking' Russia, lest we cause them to do something bad. If the bully steals a boy's lunch money after we warned them not to, it's obviously our fault.
(C) Nick Palmer.
A slightly stupid analogy unless you think having a sandwich stolen is worth risking a nuclear war.
So you are saying we should just surrender to the bully who has the biggest firepower and the will to use it?
It explains why you've said that women who don't want to get abused by the 'talent' in the entertainment industry should just become hairdressers. You defend big, hard men who his powers to abuse others.
People like you really worry me because you have no conception of the reality of nuclear weapons. If you really think Russia is likely to use nuclear weapons then of course you surrender. The alternative is unimaginably worse. Why do you think the West didn't liberate West Germany or intervene when the Soviets crushed Hungary? Because to do so would be the end of humanity. Now I don't think Putin is going to nuke the west and the response so far has been right and proper. However, there are very good reasons why no other country will send troops to Ukraine if the Russians invade. It's simply not worth the end of the world.
I very much have a conception of nuclear weapons. I did not bring nuclear weapons into the conversation.
But I'd also add chemical and biological weapons into the mix: one of which Putin has used in the past - in our country.
Do you feel the same way? Or is death by chemical weapon all flowers and unicorns?
But my point remains: at what point do you stand up to a bully and say: "no more?"
And BTW, I've not called for troops to Ukraine.
Does anyone remember an old Amiga game called Balance of Power? You were presented with a series of scenarios and you had to decide to confront the USSR or let the situation go. If you kept pushing and Russia didn't back down then eventually it lead to nuclear war and it was game over. If you objected to Russia stationing more troops in Hungary then you lost quickly. If you challenged them sending millitary advisers to India you were likely to win.
This in simple form is how diplomacy still works. We're pushing the object button for as long as we can in Ukraine but there will be a time when we have to stop.
Hmmm. I guess you're in the Nick Palmer grouping of saying this is in any way 'our' fault?
It's quite simple: you have values. What are those values, and when you see those values being trampled on, when do you shout: "No!".
What are your values?
I don't think Nick has said that at all, unless I missed something over the last weeks.
Indeed, I think there is a fake division being created here. It seems universal on PB that: Putin is being unreasonable and aggressive, that people are supportive of Ukranian sovereignty and aspirations, but do not want to deploy British troops to defend Ukraine, though willing to do so for NATO countries.
The only person able to stop war is Putin himself, and he doesn't seem to want to. All we can do is react to whatever happens, probably by non military means. We have no capability to do much different.
Pigeon - Russian speaking does not equal Russian. Just ask the English speaking Irish. Every single region of Ukraine voted to secede from the Soviet Union. It may be true that Russian clients have stood and won Ukrainian Presidential elections - but not recently. The annexation of Crimea has helped foster a true sense of Ukrainian nationhood.
I thought that was the really significant story of the 2019 election. More so than a comedian becoming president. The pro-Moscow figures were nowhere to be seen.
Comments
I've been very clear that I never went to Cambridge. In fact, I've been clear that I'd a plebian who doesn't actually have a degree. I just live near Cambridge because that is where my work was. I'm Derbyshire born, Derbyshire bred, strong in t'arm, thick in t'ead (*). I just moved to Cambridge because the tech company I loved offered me a job.
Now, can you answer my substantive points, as you brought up locations?
(*) Sometimes used by those inferior Yorkshire folk... (runs for cover)
If Biden can abandon Ukraine then Trump can surely walk away from the Baltic States and Poland. If we don't want that to happen then we've got some hard questions to answer about how much we're willing to spend and how many soldiers to put in harm's way.
The recognition of the two separatist territories in #Ukraine is a blatant violation of international law, the territorial integrity of Ukraine and the #Minsk agreements.
The EU and its partners will react with unity, firmness and with determination in solidarity with Ukraine.
https://twitter.com/vonderleyen/status/1495846146824183816
We are unwilling to admit Ukraine into the Western military alliance and we are not willing to shed blood on Ukraine’s behalf.
I say this as a matter of fact rather than attaching any blame to it.
Have you heard, by the way, of the realist school of IR?
The following oblasts have declared a state of emergency due to an expected influx of refugees from the Donbas:
Rostov
Voronezh
Kursk
Penza
Volgograd
Saratov
Oryol
Ulyanovsk
Discussed the events of the last hours with @POTUS. We begin the meeting of the National Security and Defense Council. A conversation with @BorisJohnson is also planned.
https://twitter.com/ZelenskyyUa/status/1495849231369838592
Just for the record, I never said you went to St Swine's College, Cambridge.
https://andrewsullivan.substack.com/p/john-mearsheimer-on-handling-russia?utm_source=url
In 2024 Boris will face the electorate if he is still prime minister and he can be thrown out of office by the people
March 23rd rules.
That said, postal voting is likely to be by far th most likely source of voting issues, and on the whole I am against it, except for genuine need.
On protests, I support the right to protest but there are limits. Deliberately stopping people reaching hospital to see a dying relative for the last time is despicable. That chap paid to stand outside Parliament yelling stop Brexit over every tv interview.
There needs to be the right to protest, but it’s right that there are limits.
As an aside, rumour has it Putin suggested to Macron that this recognition if DPR & LPR as independent wasnt on the cards....
Macron once again plays the role of the fool. So desperate is he to have an audience, he never considers what the inviter wants.
Erm. Argh. Cripes. Ukraine you say? Blimey. Erm. Well. Obviously. And erm. However. Well. Erm. As Professor Whitty says. Erm. Full police inquiry. Cripes. Hmm. Looked at a map. Wallpaper. Erm. Cripes.
It explains why you've said that women who don't want to get abused by the 'talent' in the entertainment industry should just become hairdressers. You defend big, hard men who his powers to abuse others.
Russian media which is *totally* free and fair, of course...
However, AIUI most of the pipelines traverse the territory of Poland and Slovakia - who can, therefore, presumably, cut them off on their own account?
That just leaves the pipelines under the Baltic, to which an unfortunate (and very hard to repair) accident could theoretically occur. The movement of a hitherto undiscovered tectonic fault, for example. Or an over-enthusiastic attempt to haul in trapped fishing gear. It would be such a shame.
Among foreign, foreign policy commentators the praise for the UK, both in terms of the Ukraine response and seeing the European-AsPac theatres as interlinked and needing coherent policy, has been notable.
(Although we need to be careful to ensure that people who can speak well are automatically seen as the best people to run the country. They are very different skills.)
Gone in the Summer relaunch. I foresee a comeback for Matt Hancock.
I simply do not understand how anyone can think Johnson is competent to be PM, never mind all the lying and other dishonesty.
Chief Data Officer and Head of Profession for Data Science - pay £71k which is well below even the local rate for that job. https://www.civilservicejobs.service.gov.uk/csr/index.cgi?SID=b3duZXI9NTA3MDAwMCZjc291cmNlPWNzcXNlYXJjaCZwYWdlY2xhc3M9Sm9icyZzZWFyY2hfc2xpY2VfY3VycmVudD0xJm93bmVydHlwZT1mYWlyJnVzZXJzZWFyY2hjb250ZXh0PTE0OTAyODk3MyZwYWdlYWN0aW9uPXZpZXd2YWNieWpvYmxpc3Qmam9ibGlzdF92aWV3X3ZhYz0xNzczNDI5JnJlcXNpZz0xNjQ1NDY1MjE3LWJjMWQ1MDI0ODkxMWI4ZDhiYWU5Y2QzMjk0NDI4NTA4NmE5MjU1YTM=
Bullies are bad.
Putin is supposedly upset about NATO but his actions push more into its orbit, give it purpose. There's no way he cannot see that, so either he doesn't care, or he is taking a gamble that ultimately NATO is all talk and pushing a few more to join is worth it if it means he can grab bits of Ukraine now.
As an aside Sam Freedman, who occasionally posts things from here, tweeted this today:
"Based on what we've seen today I'm uprating the possibility that Putin has completely lost his mind."
https://twitter.com/Samfr/status/1495786995506978818
I don't think it's an unfair conclusion, but thankfully any NATO-Russia engagements are still well below 5% likelihood. But I'm going to be really quite annoyed if my 20s consist of getting locked down for something that posed zero risk to me before spending the next couple of years freezing my balls off in some corner of Lithuania I can't even spell.
But I'd also add chemical and biological weapons into the mix: one of which Putin has used in the past - in our country.
Do you feel the same way? Or is death by chemical weapon all flowers and unicorns?
But my point remains: at what point do you stand up to a bully and say: "no more?"
And BTW, I've not called for troops to Ukraine.
It's quite possible to imagine the whole South-Eastern half of Ukraine being overrun and annexed by Russia proper, and the North-Western half ending up as a client despotism under a figure like Lukashenko. That would also permit the annexation of Transnistria.
I've no idea what happens to the rest of Moldova under those circumstances, but Finland will doubtless want to consider its response to Russian expansionism very carefully. It was part of the Russian Empire until the fall of the Tsar, after all.
This in simple form is how diplomacy still works. We're pushing the object button for as long as we can in Ukraine but there will be a time when we have to stop.
Apropos of nothing, it'd be good of Charles to be back.
We'll be following you on a map. Just make sure you're fighting on the right side
"There is only one basic human right: the right to do as you please, without causing others harm. With it comes our only basic human duty: the duty to accept the consequences of our actions."
Oh, wait. damn. As you were.
I expect you to be hauling up the Russian flag when they reach the south of France. And to be looking for good advert opportunities in extolling the manly virtues of the Russian male (sorry, talent) over the non-Russian female.
Republic of China
Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic
Northern Cyprus
South Ossetia
Abkhazia
Kosovo
Donetsk
Luhansk
Transnistra and Artsakh aren't recognised by any UN Member state, but recognise each other so that is something, but poor old Somaliland still gets no recognition even from them. What a weird situation for over £5 million people to be in. Way more than any of the others bar Taiwan, who at least get some attention.
Just disappointed you didn’t manage to shoehorn Hartlepool in as that’s the usual base for witty and devastating put-down.
If you want to protest with banners and making noise etc at the side of the road, then I'm perfectly fine with that.
If you want to blockade the road, that's not OK and the road should be cleared.
It's quite simple: you have values. What are those values, and when you see those values being trampled on, when do you shout: "No!".
What are your values?
Stiff upper lips lads, or at least control the trembling.
I never meant to suggest that the Belarusian despot would end up in charge of the leftover rump Ukraine if it came to that; rather, that Putin would send the tanks into Kiev and install a Ukrainian puppet of a similar nature.
Moldova is a (very small and poor) ex-Soviet state that's still outside the Western alliance system, and consequently has no more protection against Russian imperialism than the poor old Ukrainians do.
Fwiw, the UK has no real history of values-driven foreign policy, no matter the lip service. We are recognized worldwide for our pragmatism in diplomacy.
That I recognise he is right doesn't mean I support him. But I am a realist, and nobody is going to risk a NATO - Russia war over Ukraine. He knows this and is acting accordingly.
Some speculate that Putin could take the entire coast of the Black Sea, including Odessa (where I am meant to be flying in ten days!) but I doubt that. A landlocked Ukraine would be an even more desperate Ukraine, willing to fight to the death
His address to the nation wouldn’t pass gcse history - as I mentioned months ago I played a Ukrainian Nationalist/saucy serving wench in the house of pettly yura in a play based on Bulgakov’s White Guard, Ukraine a free sovereign country before Lenin even controlled Russia - yet Putin used his fantasy’s as a base to threaten every single former soviet country with “non of them should have been allowed to leave in first place.”
I’m torn between on one hand not wanting war - certainly not one where Ukraine people likely to lose without proper assistance - on the other hand give war a chance to slap Putin across his face. Though I’d rather he didn’t get his aloof face slapped if such suffering of Ukrainians can still be avoided.
Flat and dejected now, like you, as I said all week it’s not happening because he doesn’t have a clear achievable military objective he can quickly succeed without getting bogged down. But now he clearly has, flooding the disputed Ukraine bits with “troops to keep the peace”. Keep yet another piece in salami action more like ☹️
I'd argue that after Georgia, Crimea, Donbass, and more importantly for us, Litvinenko and Salisbury, that time is before now. But failing that, now.
Ask yourself this question: when faced with an aggressive adversary, where do *you* draw the line in the sand? Where will you personally say 'no more'?
Indeed, I think there is a fake division being created here. It seems universal on PB that: Putin is being unreasonable and aggressive, that people are supportive of Ukranian sovereignty and aspirations, but do not want to deploy British troops to defend Ukraine, though willing to do so for NATO countries.
The only person able to stop war is Putin himself, and he doesn't seem to want to. All we can do is react to whatever happens, probably by non military means. We have no capability to do much different.
It's 2022. Ukraine has turned to the West - economically, politically, diplomatically. So Putin fabricates a dubious pretext to attack.
https://twitter.com/JeremyCliffe/status/1495865897340260357
I thought that was the really significant story of the 2019 election. More so than a comedian becoming president. The pro-Moscow figures were nowhere to be seen.