The outcast in Anchorage: A senate storm brews in Alaska – politicalbetting.com

Casino_Royale said:

LostPassword said:

Casino_Royale said:

pigeon said:

Casino_Royale said:

pigeon said:

Casino_Royale said:

JosiasJessop said:

Mexicanpete said:

JosiasJessop said:

Mexicanpete said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Reports 27 countries are actively providing weapons to Ukraine

Time for us to unite, stop sniping, and be proud of the response currently on its way from nations across the world

I'm sorry BigG. We in the West have done next to nothing. There is good reason why we have done next to nothing we don't want Putin to escalate this fiasco to involve the EU and the UK.

Clinton's biggest regret was he did nothing about the genocide in Rwanda. We are watching, not genocide, but the destruction of a nation. The upshot either way is thousands of innocents are slaughtered whilst we watch on.

Our declarations "but Ukraine is not in NATO" are sops to ourselves.They are a sovereign nation invaded by an aggressor and we (the West) have sanctioned 70% of Russian banks. Huh, 70%?

Now I don't want British troops involved, I don't want my children conscripted for a world war, but neither can I sit back with satisfaction and claim leaders representing me have done all they can on my behalf, they haven't. In some cases, their vested interests trump my horror.

I don't know how to counter Putin, that is not my job. But neither, it seems, do those whose job it is to deal with Putin.

I am not suggesting a party political or Remainer/ Leave bias here. Whoever they represent, Western leaders have been guilty of dereliction of duty for at least eight years and that includes Starmer and your beloved "Boris".

When I was calling for us to act against Russia in 2014, 2016 (I think), 2018, etc, etc, where was your voice? Were you in the "Russia's ambitions are detrimental to the world; we need to act hard" camp or the "You're a warmonger risking WWIII" camp?

Because actions then would have been a damned sight easier than they are now. And we still face a threat of WWIII.

Yes they would, which is why I have cited eight years of inaction and dereliction of duty by Western leaders.

And, don't you blame me. I was outraged that we in the West did nothing about a downed airliner. We begged for permission to recover our bodies. That single act was brushed under the carpet. That represents the West sitting on its hands while Putin toyed with us.

I was with Elwood weeks ago when he demanded NATO boots on the ground in Ukraine. That is recorded here.

I'm talking about calling for action over the last eight years. This could have been prevented. It should have been prevented. It was predicted.

And yes, a Conservative / coalition government has been in place for that time. But remember Miliband's hideous backturn over the Syria vote? Remember Corbyn, Labour's leader, who pretended to be rather (ahem) anti-war?

Putin has gambled that the west's weaknesses would prevent us from stopping his territorial ambitions. The UK's negligence played into it - but the blame lies all over the west. It was too hard to do, so it wasn't done.

(I'd actually argue May did very well over Salisbury, although it could have been used as a catalyst for firmer actions.)

I think Putin thinks the West is a wet lettuce.

IanB2 said:

Casino_Royale said:

williamglenn said:

There are quite a few videos of Russian tanks that have run out of fuel or been abandoned. It seems the have problem with logistics and morale.

I have a colleague in my network who was a Royal Navy captain and really knows his onions.

He's adamant that Russian forces aren't as strong as they look on paper because their raw material, training, and staff work is highly variable, whereas British forces are tip-top.

Basically, his argument was that military effectiveness, just as in all other walks of life, comes down to people and organisational culture.

Except that the British military tends to have a hugely inflated perception of its own comparative effectiveness. Cf what we were saying about the Americans when we went in to replace them in Basra, brutally exposed as hubris by subsequent events

Yes, there was a bit of arrogance in there.

He also said that there comes a point where numbers absolutely matter, and the British Army is now tokenistic.

I'm afraid I think we now have to raise defence spending to the point where can deploy at least one fully armed heavy warfighting division on the continent, permanently. I suspect that will require us to expand the British army by 15-20,000 men back up to about 95-100k strong, and probably an extra £12-16bn per year in defence spending.

But I think we have to do it.

But I'm afraid that this comes back yet again to the incapability of this government (and quite possibly any government that replaces it) to take unpopular decisions.

Most of the public doesn't give a shit about defence. Much of the public has also been squeezed so hard by taxation, ridiculous housing costs, years of stagnant or negative wage growth and now steep inflation that it hasn't much left to give. So, in the end, a massive increase in defence spending can only be funded by soaking the elderly (through ditching automatic increases to the state pension, and extracting property wealth through large increases in IHT and/or the advent of land taxation,) or by taking an axe to core public service spending priorities.

So it won't happen.

We'll see. My perception is that public opinion is shifting, and the Government can shape it as well as reflect it.

Even if that is true, the public desire to spend money on anything extends only as far as that money is extracted from someone who isn't them. The nanosecond any Government goes after the gigantic stock of wealth locked up in housing - which is the only way we're going to make serious progress on funding any of the mountain of priorities and disasters that we've somehow got to manage all at the same time - the violent tantrum from the grey vote will be so extreme that it will run away in fright.

All that will end up happening in the end is that working age voters will be bled absolutely white and the whole lot will be sunk into inflating the state pension and desperately trying to clear the backlog of hip operations. The more I contemplate the situation, the more hopeless it looks.

The gigantic stock of wealth locked up in housing and the freedom to use it will be worth Jack Shit if the West ends up becoming hostage to global autarky because it decided to be impotent and didn't stand up to be counted when it mattered.

I'm hoping there will be a consensus that rearmament, at a minimum, is required. But I see no sign of this in statements from politicians.

What do we do, as citizens in a democracy, to make this happen?

Well, I emailed my MP this morning as a start.

PJohnson said:

Benpointer said:

darkage said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Foxy said:

IanB2 said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Ms. Heathener, being against woke bullshit only equates to being far right in the fantastical imagination of the far left who are so love in with the woke stuff to start with.

It's just a regurgitation of "Everyone who disagrees with me is Hitler".

It's more the staggering detachment from reality of the likes of SLeon to be thinking that gender-neutral toilets and the like should be high up the list of existential threats to the world

One interesting thing, and I am sure Putin disapproves, is that Ukraine is becoming more Woke. Sure, older attitudes persist, but culture change takes time.

This is Kyiv Pride before the pandemic:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-48738251

One of the Ukranian gold medalists at the Olympics is black, and now also an MP.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zhan_Beleniuk

Women are 10% of Ukranian military, and serve in all roles, including combat, with equal rights.

https://www.csmonitor.com/World/Europe/2022/0223/We-want-to-keep-Ukraine-free.-Why-women-rise-in-Ukraine-army

Indeed one of their recent pilot casualties was this young woman:

https://twitter.com/diwanshu_tomar/status/1497354469201571842?t=E5GN3rZ3S-_C3j5ks-fDkg&s=19

Being Woke doesn't seem to be impairing their will to fight. Indeed it seems to be a powerful motivating factor. A freedom worth fighting for.

Maybe I am naive but I do not see any of that as being woke but something to be welcomed

We should probably stop using the word Woke. It makes it difficult to distinguish good social change from bad social change, and creates artificial divisions that frustrate meaningful debate and objective analysis. Some things that may be described as 'woke' are good, others are bad, some are neutral. It should be possible to value living in a free and equal society without regarding yourself as Woke.

I agree but it's generally only being used a term of insult by those on the right. None of the many people I know with left of centre views goes around proclaiming themselves to be 'Woke'.

It replaced 'political correctness' when that term lost its zing because most people adopted attitudes respecting the rights of others. 'Political correctness' and 'Woke' are really simply 'informed politeness' in most instances.

I don't regard being forced to go on unconscious bias training courses as informed politeness but thats just me

MoonRabbit said:

Malmesbury said:

MoonRabbit said:

Thinking of positives for important positive thinking. I’ve never known the world so mad and United at one thing before like this. So I don’t feel alone at all, with all world feeling same. From Russian vodka being taken off shelves just about everywhere, Russian tennis player signing no to war on camera. China abstaining. Kazakhstan rejecting Russian pleas for help. Russia kicked off SWIFT - simple, tell the Hun the votes 1245 and vote at noon. Put Vaseline on the rooms outside door handles for good measure.

It’s a Putin meltdown. He has taken his country to somewhere it doesn’t have a single friend. Even in that country it doesn’t look like he has much friends. And why should he? There’s actually no rational sense to it. Just unhinged evilness. I asked God to make it stop, and put things good between everyone. I can’t ask for something bad to happen to Putin, but I have it in my mind he realised what a terrible mess he’s made and can’t live with it

PS enjoyed header by Pip Moss again. The coastline in picture looks like it was designed by Slartibartfast.

"Russia kicked off SWIFT - simple, tell the Hun the votes 1245 and vote at noon. Put Vaseline on the rooms outside door handles for good measure. "

The scene in the film Elizabeth when Walsingham locks some Bishops in the basement so the Act of Uniformity passes?

EDIT: +1 for Slartibartfast.

That’s it. But EU need another 110 years to evolve to such straightforward competence.

darkage said:

Casino_Royale said:

Nigelb said:

Casino_Royale said:

@Nigelb


It's based on data for voluntary forces. In the US it's less than 2% and in the UK under 0.5% at the moment.

In the IDF fewer than 4 percent of women are in combat positions such as tank commanders, infantry, helicopter or fighter pilots and don't forget they have universal conscription too.

Edit: this shouldn't surprise us. You need high levels of testosterone and aggression for close-quarters combat, and significant physical strength and endurance to deal with heavy weaponry and forced marches, so the numbers will always be heavily skewed by biological reality no matter how much we try to convince ourselves to the contrary with our weird present day social-political obsession with identity politics.

it’s a moving target, as the disparity between the UK and US figures suggests, and the Israeli experience makes very clear:
https://www.i24news.tv/en/news/israel/diplomacy-defense/1637001832-israel-military-a-record-year-for-women-in-combat-units

My anecdotal experience of friends kids joining the forces is that things are changing here, too.

I don’t want to get into a pissing match, but I think on this you’re on balance wrong. The numbers aren’t sufficiently skewed by biology to make much of a difference in a large number of roles - particularly when you’re talking about the very small percentage of the total population which makes up the military.

I'm not wrong in the slightest. My numbers are factually accurate and absolutely verifiable - look up US numbers, UK numbers or Israel here:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women_in_the_Israel_Defense_Forces#:~:text=As of 2011, 88% of,helicopter or fighter pilots, etc.

"As of 2011, 88% of all roles in the IDF were open to female candidates, while women could actually be found in 69% of all positions.[8][9]

In 2014, the IDF said that fewer than 4 percent of women are in combat positions such as light infantry, helicopter or fighter pilots, etc. Rather, they are concentrated in "combat-support".[10]"

"The most notable combat option for women is the Caracal Battalion, which is a light infantry force that is made up of 70 percent female soldiers.[3] The unit undergoes combat infantry training."

If you conscript both men and women, as Israel does, you may well have sufficient numbers to be able to form a mixed combat battalion but numbers will otherwise remain small.

There's a difference between opening up all roles to either men or women and expecting this to result in 50:50 splits in all matters, everywhere, otherwise assuming this must be discrimination.

Down that path madness lies.

Yes, the insistence on striving for numerical equality is where things go wrong.

The other phenomenon I encounter frequently in my (non military) area of work is the celebration of "all female" or "majority female" teams. I currently work in one of the latter without any problems, but I don't think it is anything worth celebrating. I find the fact that people choose to do so, along with the continuing presence of "womens industry groups" in an industry where most of the leadership of the profession is now female (albeit with some noticeable male bastions) to be indicative of the challenge involved in actually moving towards actual gender equality. In the end, people instinctively fight for advantage and dominance, not equality.

Farooq said:

Leon said:

Theuniondivvie said:

Fck me, I immediately thought this was a piece from years ago, but last week. The Spikedtator..

It’s a perfectly legitimate view. One held by Emmanuel Macron, I believe

The Putin of 10 years ago was a very different beast. Lucid, clever, sane. A ruthless patriot, a brutal soldier, but amenable to logic. Perhaps we could have handled him better; certainly our rapid expansion of NATO right up to his borders, immediately after the humiliating collapse of the USSR now appears questionable

Does any of this excuse Putin’s satanic and pointless assault on Ukraine? Of course not. It’s pure evil. It’s also pointless even for mad dog Putin, it might well backfire quickly and even if he “wins” in the short term he loses in the end. What’s the endgame for him? I can’t see a good one

Your analysis doesn't account for the long gap -- some 6-8 years -- between the Baltic states accession to NATO and Putin going "bad".

It's easy to compress timelines when looking at the past, but Putin was acting fairly sensibly long after 2004. All the attempts to explain this in terms of NATO membership or the Iraq war fall down on the same point, and until someone even tries to account for that huge time lag, I do not take such a view seriously.

Theuniondivvie said:

IanB2 said:

Theuniondivvie said:

Fck me, I immediately thought this was a piece from years ago, but last week. The Spikedtator..

The Spectator prints all sorts of rubbish. Indeed more rubbish than sensible content, as a rule.

Its fans including Neil and some PBers are always going on about how successful it is. Interesting to speculate how much the rubbish has contributed to that success.

Malmesbury said:

NickPalmer said:

PJohnson said:

I don't regard being forced to go on unconscious bias training courses as informed politeness but thats just me

Yes, maybe it is? I'm aware of semi-conscious biases in myself (if a burly job applicant told me he was a keen rugby player I'd instinctively think he maybe had a thuggish streak - but I realise that's because I don't know anything about rugby or people who play it) and can believe in unconscious ones. I went on one of those courses and found it helpful in getting to the bottom of them. You don't suddenly become unbiased as a result, but you become more aware of them and try not to let them influence you.

The trainings I have attended were far from useful.

The Russian friend I attended one such training with said that it reminded him of the political meetings in the USSR military. A lecture followed by people with ambition parroting back the required answers. All without any knowledge imparted, or conviction from the participants.

He pulled my leg about being a teachers pet, because I told the lecturer exactly what she wanted to hear.

This is why I reckon Constable Savage is alive, well, got 100% on his anti-bias exams. And is out arresting black people for ordering their coffee black.

IshmaelZ said:

MarqueeMark said:

Leon said:

Just wondering. Is this a rare if not unique occasion of a geopolitical event completely uniting PB?

Do we have a single PB-er cheering on Putin and the Russians? I can’t think of one

A momentous unanimity. Which says something in itself given the wide variety of opinions on here

You REALLY have to be a contrarian to be cheering on Putin.

Or a Trumpist Republican.

Be entertaining if Putin's greatest achievement is keeping the White House Democrat controlled for a couple of decades.

I was told yesterday I was obviously a secret Putin supporter, for suggesting targewting sanctions at the ordinary Russian was pointless and vindictive.

I think filmically this is going to be a good war. Already working on scripts for a Snake Island blockbuster and a number of Ealing comedies, with prob a reimagining of Death of Stalin coming shortly.

Farooq said:

Leon said:

Theuniondivvie said:

Fck me, I immediately thought this was a piece from years ago, but last week. The Spikedtator..

It’s a perfectly legitimate view. One held by Emmanuel Macron, I believe

The Putin of 10 years ago was a very different beast. Lucid, clever, sane. A ruthless patriot, a brutal soldier, but amenable to logic. Perhaps we could have handled him better; certainly our rapid expansion of NATO right up to his borders, immediately after the humiliating collapse of the USSR now appears questionable

Does any of this excuse Putin’s satanic and pointless assault on Ukraine? Of course not. It’s pure evil. It’s also pointless even for mad dog Putin, it might well backfire quickly and even if he “wins” in the short term he loses in the end. What’s the endgame for him? I can’t see a good one

Your analysis doesn't account for the long gap -- some 6-8 years -- between the Baltic states accession to NATO and Putin going "bad".

It's easy to compress timelines when looking at the past, but Putin was acting fairly sensibly long after 2004. All the attempts to explain this in terms of NATO membership or the Iraq war fall down on the same point, and until someone even tries to account for that huge time lag, I do not take such a view seriously.

Cyclefree said:

DavidL said:

Mr Zelensky said "the fight is here. I need ammunition, not a ride", the Associated Press reported, citing a senior intelligence official with direct knowledge of the conversation.

This guy is somethig else. We must make sure he gets it.

Yes. This is what a real leader looks like.

Other than give money to charities helping Ukraine, there is very little that I can do. I am not going to hang flags etc. I am not going to the Russian State Opera performance next week.

But I am going to write to my MP about Britain's shameful closing of doors to Ukrainian refugees - unlike the generosity shown by Poland, Slovakia, Romania and Slovakia. I'm going to tell my MP, who was so involved in rescuing cats and dogs from Kabul, that if Britain can do that it can help people from Ukraine. And should.

FrankBooth said:

I don't want to engage in too much cod psychology but I saw an ex American general saying on US TV that he thought Zelensky had driven Putin crazy. Putin believed that Zelensky would be a lightweight, a comedian of all things(!) and Putin expected to get his way. How humiliating for an ex KGB man to be defied by such a non-entity. Going on about joining Nato and not caring what Vlad thinks about it. Jailing a close oligarch friend of Putin.

ThomasNashe said:

IshmaelZ said:

MarqueeMark said:

Leon said:

Just wondering. Is this a rare if not unique occasion of a geopolitical event completely uniting PB?

Do we have a single PB-er cheering on Putin and the Russians? I can’t think of one

A momentous unanimity. Which says something in itself given the wide variety of opinions on here

You REALLY have to be a contrarian to be cheering on Putin.

Or a Trumpist Republican.

Be entertaining if Putin's greatest achievement is keeping the White House Democrat controlled for a couple of decades.

I was told yesterday I was obviously a secret Putin supporter, for suggesting targewting sanctions at the ordinary Russian was pointless and vindictive.

I think filmically this is going to be a good war. Already working on scripts for a Snake Island blockbuster and a number of Ealing comedies, with prob a reimagining of Death of Stalin coming shortly.

Downfall remake has to be in the offing too?

Shame Bruno Ganz is no longer available.

stodge said:

HYUFD said:

If the Tories had not picked Boris in 2019, the Brexit Party would still have stood candidates in Tory seats, the Tories would not have got a majority, Brexit would still not have got done and Corbyn would still be Labour leader

One of these days I will have to do a counterfactual history over on alternatehistory.com about that.

How would this have worked? Would Conservative MPs have defected to the Brexit Party in the summer of 2019 assuming May doesn't quit? How many - 30, 40, 50? Would others have gone to Change UK?

May loses her majority but would there be enough votes for a Parliamentary No Confidence vote? Even if there were, that wouldn't mean confidence in an alternative Corbyn-led Labour Government unless he does a deal with the SNP to offer a second independence referendum in return for their support....

Let's say he doesn't - it's a complete deadlock - no one can obtain a majority in the Commons so the only option is an election.

Up to the point Boris Johnson became Prime Minister and Conservative leader in mid July, the four parties (Conservative, Labour, Brexit and LD) were all polling between 20-25%. We aren't used to a 4-party system and trying to imagine the result of such an election isn't easy.

Scott_xP said:

Yesterday Dom was denying Russia had any influence over Brexit.

today...

Dominic Cummings: the Tory Party has been “financed by Putin’s mates for decades” and Russia has been able to sway the British electorate.
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/world/tories-financed-by-putins-mates-for-decades-and-russia-did-influence-uk-votes-dominic-cummings-claims/ar-AAUfK8S?ocid=st

Richard_Tyndall said:

Theuniondivvie said:

IanB2 said:

Theuniondivvie said:

Fck me, I immediately thought this was a piece from years ago, but last week. The Spikedtator..

The Spectator prints all sorts of rubbish. Indeed more rubbish than sensible content, as a rule.

Its fans including Neil and some PBers are always going on about how successful it is. Interesting to speculate how much the rubbish has contributed to that success.

Just out of interest have you actually read the article or are you only commenting in ignorance based on a front page?

I haven't read it as I don't have a subscription but I might actually buy a copy just to see what Liddle (who I really, REALLY dislike) is saying.

I would suggest that it is only at that point that it is reasonable to make any valid criticisms rather than just blind knee jerk reactions.

Scott_xP said:

A fascinating reminder of the psychology of our prime minister by ⁦@RSylvesterTimes⁩. “I’ve never met anyone who believes their own lies so much,” one interviewee says. Inside the mind of Boris Johnson — by his friends and enemies

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/7964b540-933c-11ec-bcf4-9dde9b8243da?shareToken=40d53ed15ff73615c1eab46443ee4c89

Richard_Tyndall said:

Theuniondivvie said:

IanB2 said:

Theuniondivvie said:

Fck me, I immediately thought this was a piece from years ago, but last week. The Spikedtator..

The Spectator prints all sorts of rubbish. Indeed more rubbish than sensible content, as a rule.

Its fans including Neil and some PBers are always going on about how successful it is. Interesting to speculate how much the rubbish has contributed to that success.

Just out of interest have you actually read the article or are you only commenting in ignorance based on a front page?

I haven't read it as I don't have a subscription but I might actually buy a copy just to see what Liddle (who I really, REALLY dislike) is saying.

I would suggest that it is only at that point that it is reasonable to make any valid criticisms rather than just blind knee jerk reactions.

DecrepiterJohnL said:

Malmesbury said:

Farooq said:

Leon said:

Theuniondivvie said:

Fck me, I immediately thought this was a piece from years ago, but last week. The Spikedtator..

It’s a perfectly legitimate view. One held by Emmanuel Macron, I believe

The Putin of 10 years ago was a very different beast. Lucid, clever, sane. A ruthless patriot, a brutal soldier, but amenable to logic. Perhaps we could have handled him better; certainly our rapid expansion of NATO right up to his borders, immediately after the humiliating collapse of the USSR now appears questionable

Does any of this excuse Putin’s satanic and pointless assault on Ukraine? Of course not. It’s pure evil. It’s also pointless even for mad dog Putin, it might well backfire quickly and even if he “wins” in the short term he loses in the end. What’s the endgame for him? I can’t see a good one

Your analysis doesn't account for the long gap -- some 6-8 years -- between the Baltic states accession to NATO and Putin going "bad".

It's easy to compress timelines when looking at the past, but Putin was acting fairly sensibly long after 2004. All the attempts to explain this in terms of NATO membership or the Iraq war fall down on the same point, and until someone even tries to account for that huge time lag, I do not take such a view seriously.

Aside from changes in Putin himself - which a number of people have mentioned, having met him....

Greater Russian Nationalism has a central tenant - that the threat to Russian Culture comes from the West. See late stage Solzhenitsyn.

The very rapid collapse of the Warsaw Pact and COMECON, and the rapid rise of the EEC->EU and NATO was a series of shocks. Each one bringing him the message that Russia had less and less allies.

This all added up to a situation where the outlook for a GRN supporter looks grimmer and grimmer. How long before the infection spreads to Mother Russia?

The inability of Russia to defend its ally Serbia. That is what triggered Putin's rebuilding Russia's armed forces.

Foxy said:

IanB2 said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Ms. Heathener, being against woke bullshit only equates to being far right in the fantastical imagination of the far left who are so love in with the woke stuff to start with.

It's just a regurgitation of "Everyone who disagrees with me is Hitler".

It's more the staggering detachment from reality of the likes of SLeon to be thinking that gender-neutral toilets and the like should be high up the list of existential threats to the world

One interesting thing, and I am sure Putin disapproves, is that Ukraine is becoming more Woke. Sure, older attitudes persist, but culture change takes time.

This is Kyiv Pride before the pandemic:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-48738251

One of the Ukranian gold medalists at the Olympics is black, and now also an MP.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zhan_Beleniuk

Women are 10% of Ukranian military, and serve in all roles, including combat, with equal rights.

https://www.csmonitor.com/World/Europe/2022/0223/We-want-to-keep-Ukraine-free.-Why-women-rise-in-Ukraine-army

Indeed one of their recent pilot casualties was this young woman:

https://twitter.com/diwanshu_tomar/status/1497354469201571842?t=E5GN3rZ3S-_C3j5ks-fDkg&s=19

Being Woke doesn't seem to be impairing their will to fight. Indeed it seems to be a powerful motivating factor. A freedom worth fighting for.

not_on_fire said:

MarqueeMark said:

Leon said:

Just wondering. Is this a rare if not unique occasion of a geopolitical event completely uniting PB?

Do we have a single PB-er cheering on Putin and the Russians? I can’t think of one

A momentous unanimity. Which says something in itself given the wide variety of opinions on here

You REALLY have to be a contrarian to be cheering on Putin.

Or a Trumpist Republican.

Be entertaining if Putin's greatest achievement is keeping the White House Democrat controlled for a couple of decades.

Yes - the events of the last few days are a disaster for Trumps hopes in 2024. Those shots of him being best mates with Putin in Helsinki will be wheeled out repeatedly

Scott_xP said:

I planned to plant tulips and daffodils on my backyard today. Instead, I learn to fire arms and get ready for the next night of attacks on #Kyiv. We are not going anywhere.

This is our #city, our #land, our soil. We will fight for it. So next week I can plant my flowers. Here. https://twitter.com/kiraincongress/status/1497525044007870465/photo/1

Farooq said:

Leon said:

Farooq said:

Leon said:

Theuniondivvie said:

Fck me, I immediately thought this was a piece from years ago, but last week. The Spikedtator..

It’s a perfectly legitimate view. One held by Emmanuel Macron, I believe

The Putin of 10 years ago was a very different beast. Lucid, clever, sane. A ruthless patriot, a brutal soldier, but amenable to logic. Perhaps we could have handled him better; certainly our rapid expansion of NATO right up to his borders, immediately after the humiliating collapse of the USSR now appears questionable

Does any of this excuse Putin’s satanic and pointless assault on Ukraine? Of course not. It’s pure evil. It’s also pointless even for mad dog Putin, it might well backfire quickly and even if he “wins” in the short term he loses in the end. What’s the endgame for him? I can’t see a good one

Your analysis doesn't account for the long gap -- some 6-8 years -- between the Baltic states' accession to NATO and Putin going "bad".

It's easy to compress timelines when looking at the past, but Putin was acting fairly sensibly long after 2004. All the attempts to explain this in terms of NATO membership or the Iraq war fall down on the same point, and until someone even tries to account for that huge time lag, I do not take such a view seriously.

You might be right. I’d have to go back and look
at the timelines. But we agree there was a time when Putin was “sensible” - and that seems to be Liddle’s point (tho I haven’t read the article, just the headline, and Liddle does say some foolish things to provoke)

Either way Andrew Neil is quite right. One big reason we hate the new mad Putin is that he wants to crush free speech and dissent. Free speech means seeing printed opinions you might fiercely dislike

No, I do not really get Andrew Neil's repeated thin-skinned pouts about criticism of the Spectator. Criticising what people choose to publish is not a restraint on free speech, it is the exercising of it.

Andrew Neil is wrong to respond to criticism as if it is oppression. Indeed, I thought part of the point of writing stuff is to open a dialogue. If part of that dialogue is someone responding that you're wrong and you're an idiot for being that wrong, that's actually ok.

kle4 said:

Scott_xP said:

Ukraine opening a hotline so that Russian parents can find out about the whereabouts of their sons.

Ukrainian soldiers asking captured teenage conscripts for their parents’ phone numbers.

A Ukrainian citizen pulling up to a Russian tank and offering to tow it back to Russia.
https://twitter.com/BDStanley/status/1497534978388807682

If only the war was just on twitter they'd have scored a knockout blow already.

MoonRabbit said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

Theuniondivvie said:

IanB2 said:

Theuniondivvie said:

Fck me, I immediately thought this was a piece from years ago, but last week. The Spikedtator..

The Spectator prints all sorts of rubbish. Indeed more rubbish than sensible content, as a rule.

Its fans including Neil and some PBers are always going on about how successful it is. Interesting to speculate how much the rubbish has contributed to that success.

Just out of interest have you actually read the article or are you only commenting in ignorance based on a front page?

I haven't read it as I don't have a subscription but I might actually buy a copy just to see what Liddle (who I really, REALLY dislike) is saying.

I would suggest that it is only at that point that it is reasonable to make any valid criticisms rather than just blind knee jerk reactions.

Is Liddle making a career out of deliberately being hated? To paraphrase Machiavelli, it is far more profitable to be disliked than loved?

Malmesbury said:

It also meant that machine tools were a problem. So the final drives for the Panther tank were simple and rubbish, rather than helical gears. So they broke down all the time.

Malmesbury said:

MoonRabbit said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

Theuniondivvie said:

IanB2 said:

Theuniondivvie said:

Fck me, I immediately thought this was a piece from years ago, but last week. The Spikedtator..

The Spectator prints all sorts of rubbish. Indeed more rubbish than sensible content, as a rule.

Its fans including Neil and some PBers are always going on about how successful it is. Interesting to speculate how much the rubbish has contributed to that success.

Just out of interest have you actually read the article or are you only commenting in ignorance based on a front page?

I haven't read it as I don't have a subscription but I might actually buy a copy just to see what Liddle (who I really, REALLY dislike) is saying.

I would suggest that it is only at that point that it is reasonable to make any valid criticisms rather than just blind knee jerk reactions.

Is Liddle making a career out of deliberately being hated? To paraphrase Machiavelli, it is far more profitable to be disliked than loved?

Just had a look at the YouTube of Liddle explaining his views - that the West passed up on various things, including an apparent interest in doing NATO, by Russia.

His thesis is that Russia has historically oscillated between a Western friendly and "Slavic redoubt" attitude.

My only comment is "What would the price be for responding to the overtures?"

kle4 said:

I haven't read the Spectator in a while but when I did there was good stuff in there. Is Liddle generally representative of its content?

Theuniondivvie said:

nico679 said:

Scott_xP said:

I planned to plant tulips and daffodils on my backyard today. Instead, I learn to fire arms and get ready for the next night of attacks on #Kyiv. We are not going anywhere.

This is our #city, our #land, our soil. We will fight for it. So next week I can plant my flowers. Here. https://twitter.com/kiraincongress/status/1497525044007870465/photo/1

Heartbreaking . Made me feel quite tearful .

Me too, though I had the doomy thought that I hoped she has more than one day’s firearm trading.

pigeon said:

Casino_Royale said:

pigeon said:

Casino_Royale said:

JosiasJessop said:

Mexicanpete said:

JosiasJessop said:

Mexicanpete said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Reports 27 countries are actively providing weapons to Ukraine

Time for us to unite, stop sniping, and be proud of the response currently on its way from nations across the world

I'm sorry BigG. We in the West have done next to nothing. There is good reason why we have done next to nothing we don't want Putin to escalate this fiasco to involve the EU and the UK.

Clinton's biggest regret was he did nothing about the genocide in Rwanda. We are watching, not genocide, but the destruction of a nation. The upshot either way is thousands of innocents are slaughtered whilst we watch on.

Our declarations "but Ukraine is not in NATO" are sops to ourselves.They are a sovereign nation invaded by an aggressor and we (the West) have sanctioned 70% of Russian banks. Huh, 70%?

Now I don't want British troops involved, I don't want my children conscripted for a world war, but neither can I sit back with satisfaction and claim leaders representing me have done all they can on my behalf, they haven't. In some cases, their vested interests trump my horror.

I don't know how to counter Putin, that is not my job. But neither, it seems, do those whose job it is to deal with Putin.

I am not suggesting a party political or Remainer/ Leave bias here. Whoever they represent, Western leaders have been guilty of dereliction of duty for at least eight years and that includes Starmer and your beloved "Boris".

When I was calling for us to act against Russia in 2014, 2016 (I think), 2018, etc, etc, where was your voice? Were you in the "Russia's ambitions are detrimental to the world; we need to act hard" camp or the "You're a warmonger risking WWIII" camp?

Because actions then would have been a damned sight easier than they are now. And we still face a threat of WWIII.

Yes they would, which is why I have cited eight years of inaction and dereliction of duty by Western leaders.

And, don't you blame me. I was outraged that we in the West did nothing about a downed airliner. We begged for permission to recover our bodies. That single act was brushed under the carpet. That represents the West sitting on its hands while Putin toyed with us.

I was with Elwood weeks ago when he demanded NATO boots on the ground in Ukraine. That is recorded here.

I'm talking about calling for action over the last eight years. This could have been prevented. It should have been prevented. It was predicted.

And yes, a Conservative / coalition government has been in place for that time. But remember Miliband's hideous backturn over the Syria vote? Remember Corbyn, Labour's leader, who pretended to be rather (ahem) anti-war?

Putin has gambled that the west's weaknesses would prevent us from stopping his territorial ambitions. The UK's negligence played into it - but the blame lies all over the west. It was too hard to do, so it wasn't done.

(I'd actually argue May did very well over Salisbury, although it could have been used as a catalyst for firmer actions.)

I think Putin thinks the West is a wet lettuce.

IanB2 said:

Casino_Royale said:

williamglenn said:

There are quite a few videos of Russian tanks that have run out of fuel or been abandoned. It seems the have problem with logistics and morale.

I have a colleague in my network who was a Royal Navy captain and really knows his onions.

He's adamant that Russian forces aren't as strong as they look on paper because their raw material, training, and staff work is highly variable, whereas British forces are tip-top.

Basically, his argument was that military effectiveness, just as in all other walks of life, comes down to people and organisational culture.

Except that the British military tends to have a hugely inflated perception of its own comparative effectiveness. Cf what we were saying about the Americans when we went in to replace them in Basra, brutally exposed as hubris by subsequent events

Yes, there was a bit of arrogance in there.

He also said that there comes a point where numbers absolutely matter, and the British Army is now tokenistic.

I'm afraid I think we now have to raise defence spending to the point where can deploy at least one fully armed heavy warfighting division on the continent, permanently. I suspect that will require us to expand the British army by 15-20,000 men back up to about 95-100k strong, and probably an extra £12-16bn per year in defence spending.

But I think we have to do it.

But I'm afraid that this comes back yet again to the incapability of this government (and quite possibly any government that replaces it) to take unpopular decisions.

Most of the public doesn't give a shit about defence. Much of the public has also been squeezed so hard by taxation, ridiculous housing costs, years of stagnant or negative wage growth and now steep inflation that it hasn't much left to give. So, in the end, a massive increase in defence spending can only be funded by soaking the elderly (through ditching automatic increases to the state pension, and extracting property wealth through large increases in IHT and/or the advent of land taxation,) or by taking an axe to core public service spending priorities.

So it won't happen.

We'll see. My perception is that public opinion is shifting, and the Government can shape it as well as reflect it.

Even if that is true, the public desire to spend money on anything extends only as far as that money is extracted from someone who isn't them. The nanosecond any Government goes after the gigantic stock of wealth locked up in housing - which is the only way we're going to make serious progress on funding any of the mountain of priorities and disasters that we've somehow got to manage all at the same time - the violent tantrum from the grey vote will be so extreme that it will run away in fright.

All that will end up happening in the end is that working age voters will be bled absolutely white and the whole lot will be sunk into inflating the state pension and desperately trying to clear the backlog of hip operations. The more I contemplate the situation, the more hopeless it looks.

rottenborough said:

Blimey...

David Clark 🇺🇦

@David_K_Clark·3h

The Russians are struggling and taking heavy casualties. They are beatable. Our best chance to defeat Putin’s threat to Europe is now. We should be giving Ukraine everything it wants. Despite the risks, that should include a no-fly zone. Putin’s victory would be the greater risk.

https://twitter.com/David_K_Clark/status/1497490959235440641

kle4 said:

Cookie said:

IanB2 said:

Theuniondivvie said:

Fck me, I immediately thought this was a piece from years ago, but last week. The Spikedtator..

The Spectator prints all sorts of rubbish. Indeed more rubbish than sensible content, as a rule.

Those of us who worry about cancel culture ought also to be worried about the speed with which anyone who holds a contrary opinion about Russia is vilified.
I don't agree that Putin was ever likely to be tempted to join the West on the west's terms. It's fairly obvious to me and has been for some time that he is a greater Russian nationalist. But I welcome the opposite opinion being expressed in order to test my understanding.
Similarly, while I think the eleven Labour MPs aligned with the SWC coalition are utterly derangedon this and almost every other issue, they represent a body of opinion in the country. We should be challenging that view, not attempting to shut it down.
When only one opinion is able to be expressed we can end up in some dangerous and stupid places.

Hmm, I'm not sure of your examples. Take those MPs, was their view 'shut down' or, as you wanted, 'challenged'? They belong to a party, and they had a choice to continue with their view or recant to remain part of the party and they made their choice, perhaps even willingly. They could have held to their view and faced party consequences but they chose not to. Either they changed their minds or their party membership was more important to them. Either way any number of other people are sticking to that view.

Is vilifying itself wrong? Is that not challenging others for their views, albeit in a very strong way?

I certainly welcome opposing views, I think people revealing themselves through their opinions is even more important if those opinions are ones I think are barmy, as I'd rather know that than have them disguise their views or remain silent, but I think there is a danger to see strong criticism of a minority view somehow being seen as in itself seeking to shut down that view, and I don't think that is true.

OnlyLivingBoy said:

darkage said:

Casino_Royale said:

Nigelb said:

Casino_Royale said:

@Nigelb


It's based on data for voluntary forces. In the US it's less than 2% and in the UK under 0.5% at the moment.

In the IDF fewer than 4 percent of women are in combat positions such as tank commanders, infantry, helicopter or fighter pilots and don't forget they have universal conscription too.

Edit: this shouldn't surprise us. You need high levels of testosterone and aggression for close-quarters combat, and significant physical strength and endurance to deal with heavy weaponry and forced marches, so the numbers will always be heavily skewed by biological reality no matter how much we try to convince ourselves to the contrary with our weird present day social-political obsession with identity politics.

it’s a moving target, as the disparity between the UK and US figures suggests, and the Israeli experience makes very clear:
https://www.i24news.tv/en/news/israel/diplomacy-defense/1637001832-israel-military-a-record-year-for-women-in-combat-units

My anecdotal experience of friends kids joining the forces is that things are changing here, too.

I don’t want to get into a pissing match, but I think on this you’re on balance wrong. The numbers aren’t sufficiently skewed by biology to make much of a difference in a large number of roles - particularly when you’re talking about the very small percentage of the total population which makes up the military.

I'm not wrong in the slightest. My numbers are factually accurate and absolutely verifiable - look up US numbers, UK numbers or Israel here:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women_in_the_Israel_Defense_Forces#:~:text=As of 2011, 88% of,helicopter or fighter pilots, etc.

"As of 2011, 88% of all roles in the IDF were open to female candidates, while women could actually be found in 69% of all positions.[8][9]

In 2014, the IDF said that fewer than 4 percent of women are in combat positions such as light infantry, helicopter or fighter pilots, etc. Rather, they are concentrated in "combat-support".[10]"

"The most notable combat option for women is the Caracal Battalion, which is a light infantry force that is made up of 70 percent female soldiers.[3] The unit undergoes combat infantry training."

If you conscript both men and women, as Israel does, you may well have sufficient numbers to be able to form a mixed combat battalion but numbers will otherwise remain small.

There's a difference between opening up all roles to either men or women and expecting this to result in 50:50 splits in all matters, everywhere, otherwise assuming this must be discrimination.

Down that path madness lies.

Yes, the insistence on striving for numerical equality is where things go wrong.

The other phenomenon I encounter frequently in my (non military) area of work is the celebration of "all female" or "majority female" teams. I currently work in one of the latter without any problems, but I don't think it is anything worth celebrating. I find the fact that people choose to do so, along with the continuing presence of "womens industry groups" in an industry where most of the leadership of the profession is now female (albeit with some noticeable male bastions) to be indicative of the challenge involved in actually moving towards actual gender equality. In the end, people instinctively fight for advantage and dominance, not equality.

A unisex armed forces is clearly where we are heading. Has nobody seen Starship Troopers?

CarlottaVance said:

We

StillWaters said:

Taz said:

Andy_JS said:

Did we discuss this yesterday evening?

https://twitter.com/PickardJE/status/1497270460396015621

"Jim Pickard
@PickardJE

@KwasiKwarteng summoned BP chief Bernard Looney this afternoon to explain why it owns a 20% stake in Rosneft, which provides fuel to Russia army
- Kwarteng also "uneasy" about the fact that Looney sits alongside Putin on the Russian Geographical Society board"

Crikey, that’s pretty pathetic from Kwarteng. This is all public knowledge.

He knows why. Emphasis is on the *explain*

I’m hearing BP has been told to sell

Their problem is who will buy it?

MarqueeMark said:

Barnesian said:

dixiedean said:

Gardenwalker said:

If Google Maps is anything to go by, the Russians have completely penetrated downtown Kyiv.

Google Maps shows troop positions now?

It shows current traffic congestion in Kyiv.

Most roads fairly clear but congestion on the bridge.

How weird is seeing that, live from a battlefield?

Casino_Royale said:

Nigelb said:

Casino_Royale said:

@Nigelb


It's based on data for voluntary forces. In the US it's less than 2% and in the UK under 0.5% at the moment.

In the IDF fewer than 4 percent of women are in combat positions such as tank commanders, infantry, helicopter or fighter pilots and don't forget they have universal conscription too.

Edit: this shouldn't surprise us. You need high levels of testosterone and aggression for close-quarters combat, and significant physical strength and endurance to deal with heavy weaponry and forced marches, so the numbers will always be heavily skewed by biological reality no matter how much we try to convince ourselves to the contrary with our weird present day social-political obsession with identity politics.

it’s a moving target, as the disparity between the UK and US figures suggests, and the Israeli experience makes very clear:
https://www.i24news.tv/en/news/israel/diplomacy-defense/1637001832-israel-military-a-record-year-for-women-in-combat-units

My anecdotal experience of friends kids joining the forces is that things are changing here, too.

I don’t want to get into a pissing match, but I think on this you’re on balance wrong. The numbers aren’t sufficiently skewed by biology to make much of a difference in a large number of roles - particularly when you’re talking about the very small percentage of the total population which makes up the military.

I'm not wrong in the slightest. My numbers are factually accurate and absolutely verifiable - look up US numbers, UK numbers or Israel here:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women_in_the_Israel_Defense_Forces#:~:text=As of 2011, 88% of,helicopter or fighter pilots, etc.

"As of 2011, 88% of all roles in the IDF were open to female candidates, while women could actually be found in 69% of all positions.[8][9]

In 2014, the IDF said that fewer than 4 percent of women are in combat positions such as light infantry, helicopter or fighter pilots, etc. Rather, they are concentrated in "combat-support".[10]"

"The most notable combat option for women is the Caracal Battalion, which is a light infantry force that is made up of 70 percent female soldiers.[3] The unit undergoes combat infantry training."

If you conscript both men and women, as Israel does, you may well have sufficient numbers to be able to form a mixed combat battalion but numbers will otherwise remain small.

There's a difference between opening up all roles to either men or women and expecting this to result in 50:50 splits in all matters, everywhere, otherwise assuming this must be discrimination.

Down that path madness lies.

Sean_F said:

Scott_xP said:

Malmesbury said:

It also meant that machine tools were a problem. So the final drives for the Panther tank were simple and rubbish, rather than helical gears. So they broke down all the time.

Interesting. I heard it the other way round, that the German tanks were precision machines requiring delicate maintenance, so broke down a lot. Think supercars. Unlike Russian T34s

See also Kalashnikov versus M14

Post WWII, German generals came up with a lot of pathetic excuses for losing eg mice ate the wires in the tanks/we were defeated by the weather/we had the right plans to win, but that madman Hitler wouldn't follow them.

Everything that went wrong for the Germans went wrong for the Soviets, but the latter won because they because their will to win was stronger.

Dura_Ace said:

rottenborough said:

Blimey...

David Clark 🇺🇦

@David_K_Clark·3h

The Russians are struggling and taking heavy casualties. They are beatable. Our best chance to defeat Putin’s threat to Europe is now. We should be giving Ukraine everything it wants. Despite the risks, that should include a no-fly zone. Putin’s victory would be the greater risk.

https://twitter.com/David_K_Clark/status/1497490959235440641


David Clark 🇺🇦
@David_K_Clark·3h

He will not nuke us because we’ve shot down some of his planes.

Fucking ludicrous. To do a No Fly Zone you've got to be prepared to a) shoot down Russian aircraft and b) do SEAD/DEAD on the Russian side of the border.

NFZ is basically speedrunning the process of going to war with Russia.