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.
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.
You quote Cummings on today of all days - brexit has taken you over sadly
In due course The Russia Report really should be released in unredacted form.
There is a massive stench of hypocrisy, much of it leading back to the Conservative Party, over this country's dealing with Putin's dirty money washing through London.
I accept that now probably isn't the time, except that this impinges on our weak sanctions. We have succoured Putin's mafia in London and it has to stop.
A couple of years or so ago I commented on here that the next financial scandal would be in relation Wealth Management, its lack of effective due diligence and the sorts of dodgy clients it was taking on. It was poo-poohed by some on here.
I was right - as we are now seeing. The corruption which comes with turning a blind eye to dodgy clients, dodgy money eventually bites us. It's tragic that it should take a war, death and destruction to make us see this. I want a real crackdown on dodgy money - from wherever it comes.
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?"
And how serious were those overtures, given the depth of the move away from that position?
Impossible to say without some direct knowledge...
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.
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:
"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?
That was unrealistic. Paradoxically, Paul Verhoeven was trying to present it as a dystopian, fascist, future society. But, it's a peculiar form of fascism that sees a failed white male military commander replaced by a Polynesian woman.
@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.
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.
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.
There is nothing fiercer in nature than a mother protecting her offspring. Ukrainian mothers will be protecting their offspring. If they have the weapons to do so, so much the better.
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.
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:
"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.
Sure, even in the Red Army in WWII, where, in principle, every post was open to a woman, 97% of those who served were men.
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.
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.
The US, the UK and Russia all followed a procurement path of keeping the number of types of weapon small, with moderate capabilities and emphasising production in numbers.
So the US made a zillion Shermans, the Russians T-34s, while the Germans struggled to make a handful of Tigers.....
The will still of course be massive fall-out if the Met decide to issue Boris Johnson a FPN over parties in the coming weeks, but many believe given the magnitude of the current crisis, the moment for a leadership challenge has passed... for now.
The system is set up so that if Brady receives the requisite number of letters, he phones the MPs to check they still want to proceed, suspend or withdraw their letters. It won't get the numbers needed to proceed during the current crisis.
Equally, I am told that the numbers will be there once the immediate crisis abates if the Met or Grey reports don't give the PM a clean bill of health.
Only if the PM is fined by the Met or the Tories face massive losses in the local elections in May will the PM face a VONC now.
Though if Sunak is also fined his leadership chances would be ended too and Hunt or Truss would likely become PM
Johnson is secure until 2023 now at least as long as the Tories lose less than 300 seats in the local elections.
Opinium may even show a Tory lead tonight which could boost Johnson.
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.
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.
So far, the Russian military is resembling a paper tiger.
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.
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.
Yes, but Russia seems to go to war with who it wants with impunity. There has to be a line.
The mayor of Kyiv, boxing champion Klitschko, is LIVE on Bild TV speaking in German about last night’s fighting. The other war is fought on social media/ public opinion. Zelenskiy allowed a Bild crew to embed with him for days before war broke out. https://twitter.com/mariatad/status/1497543713983275018
A curious tightness has developed in my chest that I can only express as anxiety and fear that the ridiculous, remarkable, brave and heroic efforts of the Ukrainian people may still so easily all be for absolutely nothing.
I want to agree with post, but hitting like button feels odd. I have that same feeling from about 24 hours, but with me it is a mood of dread at losing, because my analytical brain won’t accept theres a win scenario. I wish I could be like some posters, that it won’t be failure if it leaves us hero’s and martyrs.
I am also crossing out the word Russian with my brain and reading it as Putin every time now, since so much support for no war from so many Russians, so I don’t want any Russians or Ukrainians to die now. I just want Putin to die. Very mixed up brain and feelings.
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.
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.
Yes, but Russia seems to go to war with who it wants with impunity. There has to be a line.
If a significant supply chain of munitions to Ukraine from the Polish border builds up things could get interesting.
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.
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.
Yes, but Russia seems to go to war with who it wants with impunity. There has to be a line.
Not clear who "we" is in the tweets from Clarke. No way UK would do it without Biden?
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.
The US, the UK and Russia all followed a procurement path of keeping the number of types of weapon small, with moderate capabilities and emphasising production in numbers.
So the US made a zillion Shermans, the Russians T-34s, while the Germans struggled to make a handful of Tigers.....
Both Communism and industrial capitalism are socio-economic systems that are much better suited for waging war than fascism and national socialism. The latter are hamstrung by ideology (keep women out of the workplace, our enemies are biologically inferior, slave labour and confiscating resources are effective means of running a modern economy etc.)
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
How does one reconcile the “Putin used to be rational” theory with what he did to Chechnya?
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.
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.
There is nothing fiercer in nature than a mother protecting her offspring. Ukrainian mothers will be protecting their offspring. If they have the weapons to do so, so much the better.
That was a key point in an old Sweeney episode.
"Get yer knickers on and make me a Molotov cocktail...."
I've been calling for a clean up of dirty Russian money for years.
The problem here is that the Premier League is awash with dirty money and so is London. We host the Arms Fair every two years which directly contributes to dirty regimes.
And whilst I definitely want to ban Abramovich and his fellow Putin-loving Russian mafia, what about Saudi Arabia? What about Qatar?
I love Qatar Airways but I'm under no illusion about the country behind it.
Corruption runs deep and money talks. That's why the stock markets soared yesterday. They know our sanctions are feeble.
Frankly, if London property prices crash as a result of getting dirty money out of London, that would be a good thing. I am frankly sick of hearing about ludicrously overpriced properties, of whole areas going dark because houses are bought and not lived in, of local businesses failing because there is no local population and knowing how hard it will be for my children to get onto the property ladder because of the effects of London property being treated as a bank by the crooked and corrupt of the world.
A curious tightness has developed in my chest that I can only express as anxiety and fear that the ridiculous, remarkable, brave and heroic efforts of the Ukrainian people may still so easily all be for absolutely nothing.
Do not fear - be like Zelensky and be positive. Ukraine will win. Putin will be hanging from a lamp-post sooner rather than later.
Celebrate the fact that in a cynical world people still prepared to fight and die for their homes and family and freedom - it’s a good thing even though it should never have to happen.
Get out in the sunshine and be grateful for your life and go to a pub and have a few beers.
The North Korean / Chinese approach. It won't work, because despite state censorship of the official press and TV media, other information controls have been relatively relaxed during Putin's time, somewhat like Erdogan's Turkey. You can't suddenly turn off all awareness of the outside world to a reasonably globally aware population, who've had at least 10 years of controlled but not fully restricted information.
Erdogan's Turkey was nearly brought down by the same issue in 2015.
If you need cheering up, consider that it is the job of some nepotistally appointed corrupt old Russian general to crawl into Putin's office once an hour with nothing but bad news. https://twitter.com/DmitryOpines/status/1497542628979527684
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.
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.
I would suggest, that more effective than a 'No Fly Zone' and a lot less risky would be to publicly announce that any Russian pilot who 'defects' and lands there aircraft at a NATO airbase, will receive £10,000,000, and UK imidiat citizenship for him and his family.
Even if only one or two defect this way the publicity/moral victory will be massive. and perhaps more impotently the Russian High Command will be warred about althriseing air missions - incase their pilots defect.
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.
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.
So far, the Russian military is resembling a paper tiger.
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.
The US, the UK and Russia all followed a procurement path of keeping the number of types of weapon small, with moderate capabilities and emphasising production in numbers.
So the US made a zillion Shermans, the Russians T-34s, while the Germans struggled to make a handful of Tigers.....
Both Communism and industrial capitalism are socio-economic systems that are much better suited for waging war than fascism and national socialism. The latter are hamstrung by ideology (keep women out of the workplace, our enemies are biologically inferior, slave labour and confiscating resources are effective means of running a modern economy etc.)
The German problems with procurement were less about the National Socialism and more about the Pre WWII attitude towards mass production - It was despised as inferior and un-German. The German military procurement system emphasised lost of different manufacturers, lots of different machines for the same task, and complex designs for optimum technical performance.
Ironically, it was the Nazis who admired the modern methods of Ford and tried to import them into Germany.
I have tall, floor-to-ceiling sash windows in my London flat. Facing directly south
Every year, in late winter/early spring, there is a day when the sun shines so bright it warms my entire flat - like the heating is on, yet it isn't - and I actually have to open the windows to cool things off.
This is that day, in 2022. It is normally a wonderful day. The departure of winter. Like seeing the first daffodils in a meadow
The North Korean / Chinese approach. It won't work, because despite state censorship of the official press and TV media, other information controls have been relatively relaxed during Putin's time, somewhat like Erdogan's Turkey. You can't suddenly turn off awareness of the outside world to a reasonably globally aware population, over many years.
Personally I don't want anyone to die. I want all to live rich, full lives, and experience the joy of this earthly existence because we all deserve to. The situation is terrible, but we can only hope that the eventual outcome is somethi f that benefits the people who continue to live in that part of the world.
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.
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.
Yes, but Russia seems to go to war with who it wants with impunity. There has to be a line.
Well, if your line is lets have a war with Russia right now that's cool. But let's not delude ourselves that NFZ is a low risk option.
It would have to launched from Amari (Estonia), Siauliai, (Lithuania) and/or Malbork (Poland) so that inevitably drags them and NATO into a full blown war with Russia.
I really do feel that this time is different and Putin has crossed a line that won’t be forgotten .
The impact of seeing a country who previously didn’t have freedoms, then moved to a democracy and now is fighting once again for its freedoms has had a huge emotional impact on many across the world .
You’d have to have a heart of stone to not be effected by what’s unfolding.
Yes, it's kicked the table over. A large democratic country in Europe invaded and colonized by its neighbour. A truly shocking thing.
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
How does one reconcile the “Putin used to be rational” theory with what he did to Chechnya?
That was bloody and disgusting, yet still rational
You can be ruthless and logical at the same time. Remember Obama dropped more drones than any prior US president. State sanctioned, extra judicial murder. Was Obama mad?
Ditto Xi. Literally a genocidal dictator. Yet still rational. Open to logical persuasion if he can see the advantage
A curious tightness has developed in my chest that I can only express as anxiety and fear that the ridiculous, remarkable, brave and heroic efforts of the Ukrainian people may still so easily all be for absolutely nothing.
It will never be for "nothing". Even if Putin gets his act in gear and takes the whole country, he then has to hold it against these same brave and heroic people. He will never be able to relax again.
A curious tightness has developed in my chest that I can only express as anxiety and fear that the ridiculous, remarkable, brave and heroic efforts of the Ukrainian people may still so easily all be for absolutely nothing.
Do not fear - be like Zelensky and be positive. Ukraine will win. Putin will be hanging from a lamp-post sooner rather than later.
Celebrate the fact that in a cynical world people still prepared to fight and die for their homes and family and freedom - it’s a good thing even though it should never have to happen.
Get out in the sunshine and be grateful for your life and go to a pub and have a few beers.
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.
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.
Yes, but Russia seems to go to war with who it wants with impunity. There has to be a line.
Well, if your line is lets have a war with Russia right now that's cool. But let's not delude ourselves that NFZ is a low risk option.
It would have to launched from Amari (Estonia), Siauliai, (Lithuania) and/or Malbork (Poland) so that inevitably drags them and NATO into a full blown war with Russia.
Oh don’t get me wrong, I am well aware that a NFZ essentially means you have to be willing to shoot down Russian aircraft. High risk indeed.
If he is blocking it now indicates things have changed, not gone to plan and he is he is scared.
Be interesting to see the size of the Stop The War demonstrations across Russia this weekend. Putin must have feared Twitter was being used to organise.
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
CPAC is on at the moment. It seems the Trumpists are either ignoring this altogether, or maintaining some kind of equivalence with their own "invasion" from Mexico.
This could make a real impact on things in the US, I think, more than here. Putin is now public enemy no.1, and Trump is very clearly associated with him - or , to be more specific, has very clearly associated himself with him.
Besides which, Trumps logic here a five year old could laugh at - it’s the spanics in Texas who should send out a plea to Mexico to invade and save them from the Trump goons.
Iain Martin @iainmartin1 · 1h Thinking back to those years featuring endless analysis about Merkel and how sophisticated, clever and pragmatic she was in guiding sensible German policy. In the end, her Chancellorship has turned out to be a geopolitical disaster.
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.
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.
Yes, but Russia seems to go to war with who it wants with impunity. There has to be a line.
Well, if your line is lets have a war with Russia right now that's cool. But let's not delude ourselves that NFZ is a low risk option.
It would have to launched from Amari (Estonia), Siauliai, (Lithuania) and/or Malbork (Poland) so that inevitably drags them and NATO into a full blown war with Russia.
Oh don’t get me wrong, I am well aware that a NFZ essentially means you have to be willing to shoot down Russian aircraft. High risk indeed.
It doesn't just mean that. You also have to be prepared to bomb S-400 launchers on the Russian side of the border otherwise you're just sending the crews off to die.
I have tall, floor-to-ceiling sash windows in my London flat. Facing directly south
Every year, in late winter/early spring, there is a day when the sun shines so bright it warms my entire flat - like the heating is on, yet it isn't - and I actually have to open the windows to cool things off.
This is that day, in 2022. It is normally a wonderful day. The departure of winter. Like seeing the first daffodils in a meadow
*sigh*
Friend, the daffodils are Ukraine yellow, the sky Ukraine blue. Take it as a sign that the natural order is with them - and rejoice.
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
CPAC is on at the moment. It seems the Trumpists are either ignoring this altogether, or maintaining some kind of equivalence with their own "invasion" from Mexico.
This could make a real impact on things in the US, I think, more than here. Putin is now public enemy no.1, and Trump is very clearly associated with him - or , to be more specific, has very clearly associated himself with him.
Besides which, Trumps logic here a five year old could laugh at - it’s the spanics in Texas who should send out a plea to Mexico to invade and save them from the Trump goons.
Trump will win if the Dems don't do something about how they are turning off the working class and rural voters in spades. Also stop assuming all black and brown people will automatically vote for them.
Assuming Trump will lose because of Putin is a fool's game.
Do many US voters even know who he is, let alone where Ukr is?
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
Free speech also means being allowed to whine about Woke and being cancelled when someone highlights all-to-predictable contrarianism, or in this case just reproduces an image of the headline of an article. Then everyone can point & laugh at those whiners and their endless attempts to pretend being challenged is some kind of censorship.
It’s great.
That was one of the interesting things about the runup to indyref 1. The BBC and newspaper journalists went absolutely berserk at seeing direct and often highly intelligent criticism of their output published on social media and the net more generally. Remember in the old days that they could simply bin Letters to the Editor. In the 2010s, not so much ... though BBC Scotland journos, and IIRC one Graun journalist, did start switching off comments on their pieces - quite ironic as the level of debate was rather better than the general UK politics part of the BBC news website.
I am not sure that Mr Neil has recovered from the shock.
I guess traditional media being challenged by other platforms & individuals is a big theme of the last 20 years, and traditional hacks' outrage at the lèse-majesté of these upstarts is an eternal joy. I also think there's a cultural gap, in that the more delicate sorts confused the standard ripping the pish (or flyting to be posh) of say Scotpol twitter as abuse or threats.
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
How does one reconcile the “Putin used to be rational” theory with what he did to Chechnya?
That was bloody and disgusting, yet still rational
You can be ruthless and logical at the same time. Remember Obama dropped more drones than any prior US president. State sanctioned, extra judicial murder. Was Obama mad?
Ditto Xi. Literally a genocidal dictator. Yet still rational. Open to logical persuasion if he can see the advantage
I think that's incorrect.
And what about Litvinenko in 2006? That wasn't exactly a rational thing to do; particularly the method.
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.
A 3-1 ratio of fairly evenly matched tanks probably helped the Soviets a bit.
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
CPAC is on at the moment. It seems the Trumpists are either ignoring this altogether, or maintaining some kind of equivalence with their own "invasion" from Mexico.
This could make a real impact on things in the US, I think, more than here. Putin is now public enemy no.1, and Trump is very clearly associated with him - or , to be more specific, has very clearly associated himself with him.
Besides which, Trumps logic here a five year old could laugh at - it’s the spanics in Texas who should send out a plea to Mexico to invade and save them from the Trump goons.
Trump will win if the Dems don't do something about how they are turning off the working class and rural voters in spades. Also stop assuming all black and brown people will automatically vote for them.
Assuming Trump will lose because of Putin is a fool's game.
Do many US voters even know who he is, let alone where Ukr is?
Trump turns off suburban voters in spades and they are the ones that matter.
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.
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:
"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.
Sure, even in the Red Army in WWII, where, in principle, every post was open to a woman, 97% of those who served were men.
Is it like the Spartans, who recruited/encouraged homosexuals in their army because when sexual partners were in a combat both partners would fight to the death to save the other?
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
How does one reconcile the “Putin used to be rational” theory with what he did to Chechnya?
That was bloody and disgusting, yet still rational
You can be ruthless and logical at the same time. Remember Obama dropped more drones than any prior US president. State sanctioned, extra judicial murder. Was Obama mad?
Ditto Xi. Literally a genocidal dictator. Yet still rational. Open to logical persuasion if he can see the advantage
I would contend that the difference between this and that is how we view the two, not how he does. In his mind it’s much the same, and that’s the miscalculation.
A curious tightness has developed in my chest that I can only express as anxiety and fear that the ridiculous, remarkable, brave and heroic efforts of the Ukrainian people may still so easily all be for absolutely nothing.
It will never be for "nothing". Even if Putin gets his act in gear and takes the whole country, he then has to hold it against these same brave and heroic people. He will never be able to relax again.
Indeed, Putin has already lost. He will probably capture Kiev and will probably install his puppet. But the Ukrainians will never now accept that and his army will be bled dry whilst he remains a completely isolated and hated figure. He can no longer even control the criticism in his own country and I am completely convinced that this action spells the end for Putin and makes it far more likely that Ukraine will eventually end up inside NATO and, if they want, the EU.
I have tall, floor-to-ceiling sash windows in my London flat. Facing directly south
Every year, in late winter/early spring, there is a day when the sun shines so bright it warms my entire flat - like the heating is on, yet it isn't - and I actually have to open the windows to cool things off.
This is that day, in 2022. It is normally a wonderful day. The departure of winter. Like seeing the first daffodils in a meadow
*sigh*
Friend, the daffodils are Ukraine yellow, the sky Ukraine blue. Take it as a sign that the natural order is with them - and rejoice.
Ooo I know this one.
In winter the swallows fly south comrade.
Remind me. Is this the signal to take Parliament or Lords?
A remarkable thread, thanks for posting. Is it true? Seems well-informed
The best thing we can do, I reckon, is flood arms into Ukraine to help them resist. Especially anti-tank and anti-air missiles. That's one way the Mujahideen defeated the USSR. With Stinger missiles
"The U.S.-built Stinger antiaircraft missile, supplied to the mujahideen in very large numbers beginning in 1986, struck a decisive blow to the Soviet war effort as it allowed the lightly armed Afghans to effectively defend against Soviet helicopter landings in strategic areas. The Stingers were so renowned and deadly that, in the 1990s, the U.S. conducted a "buy-back" program to keep unused missiles from falling into the hands of anti-American terrorists."
makes it far more likely that Ukraine will eventually end up inside NATO and, if they want, the EU.
It's a bold move by VZ to push on EU candidate membership. One of the main cases against Ukraine joining over time has been reluctance to provoke Russia. That has somewhat fallen by default now (the clause on "good neighbourly relations" ditto). https://twitter.com/ZelenskyyUa/status/1497502946480869378
The North Korean / Chinese approach. It won't work, because despite state censorship of the official press and TV media, other information controls have been relatively relaxed during Putin's time, somewhat like Erdogan's Turkey. You can't suddenly turn off awareness of the outside world to a reasonably globally aware population, over many years.
Personally I don't want anyone to die. I want all to live rich, full lives, and experience the joy of this earthly existence because we all deserve to. The situation is terrible, but we can only hope that the eventual outcome is somethi f that benefits the people who continue to live in that part of the world.
It's a bit late in the game for you to be climbing off Putin's dick now. Get behind ya boi!!
It looks like the international economic and financial sanctions against Russia are continuing to seriously ratchet up. Democracy is a pain in the arse sometimes, but it gives a lot more weight to decisions when they are made. Putin is helping to reunite what was in danger of becoming a fractured EU, while enabling a reset of the UK/EU relationship. Neither would have been in his plans. Good.
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
How does one reconcile the “Putin used to be rational” theory with what he did to Chechnya?
That was bloody and disgusting, yet still rational
You can be ruthless and logical at the same time. Remember Obama dropped more drones than any prior US president. State sanctioned, extra judicial murder. Was Obama mad?
Ditto Xi. Literally a genocidal dictator. Yet still rational. Open to logical persuasion if he can see the advantage
I think that's incorrect.
And what about Litvinenko in 2006? That wasn't exactly a rational thing to do; particularly the method.
He had the FSB on a very free rein with defectors from very early on. The KGB policy on former military and intelligence officials, but even looser and bolder to keep his old contacts and network from the 1980's onside.
The real change was in attacking civil society in 2008, I would say. That was the first year that press censorship became basically instiutionalised and overt, journalists started disappearing, and that any real rule of fear began. He was gone.
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?
I am sure that the basic premise is right but I just get the impression, having had a fair few personal contacts with him, that Liddle is just an amazingly arrogant and obnoxious character.
Andrew Neil @afneil · 1h I appreciate academia is pretty much a one-party state these days and little dissent is tolerated from the left-wing consensus, which you so ably represent. But magazines are still relatively free: I won’t apologise for not forcing my views on my editors or their columnists.
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
How does one reconcile the “Putin used to be rational” theory with what he did to Chechnya?
That was bloody and disgusting, yet still rational
You can be ruthless and logical at the same time. Remember Obama dropped more drones than any prior US president. State sanctioned, extra judicial murder. Was Obama mad?
Ditto Xi. Literally a genocidal dictator. Yet still rational. Open to logical persuasion if he can see the advantage
I would contend that the difference between this and that is how we view the two, not how he does. In his mind it’s much the same, and that’s the miscalculation.
Not quite sure what point you're making
My point is that Chechnya was winnable and Putin won. Brutally but effectively. He now uses Chechen troops as some of his most effective soldiers (they are heading, ominously, for Ukraine)
Ukraine, to me, seems unwinnable for him. Even if he gets his short term goals the long term costs will be incalculable and very negative for Russia. Thus, the act of a man losing his marbles
"Hungary latest country to back Russia being stopped from using Swift Hungary has said it supports Russia being shut off from the Swift cross-border financial payments system, according to Poland’s prime minister."
(Guardian)
Isn't that just about everyone now? Is Italy still resisting?
A remarkable thread, thanks for posting. Is it true? Seems well-informed
The best thing we can do, I reckon, is flood arms into Ukraine to help them resist. Especially anti-tank and anti-air missiles. That's one way the Mujahideen defeated the USSR. With Stinger missiles
"The U.S.-built Stinger antiaircraft missile, supplied to the mujahideen in very large numbers beginning in 1986, struck a decisive blow to the Soviet war effort as it allowed the lightly armed Afghans to effectively defend against Soviet helicopter landings in strategic areas. The Stingers were so renowned and deadly that, in the 1990s, the U.S. conducted a "buy-back" program to keep unused missiles from falling into the hands of anti-American terrorists."
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.)
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.
I put off emailing my MP, because they're SNP, and I didn't think it would do any good, but I have anyway sent them this message now. ------ "This email is not easy for me to write. I am proud of my grandfather, who was a conscientious objector during WWII, and served in the Friends Ambulance Unit, helping civilians just behind the front line, in northern France and Germany.
I have opposed British military interventions, bombing campaigns, invasions and wars, as likely to do more harm than good. I have argued that it is better to build peace than to fight war. I have helped to organise marches and meetings against wars. I have been arrested by the police when joining others in peaceful blockades of the Faslane nuclear submarine base. I have opposed selling arms to Saudi Arabia to be used in the war in Yemen.
However, seeing this week the heedless aggression of Putin, the brave determination of Ukrainians to resist, and our relative inability to help defend Ukraine - aside from some weapons shipments - I now feel that it is important we have the capability to defend ourselves, and other countries, from aggressive dictatorships.
The experience of the Trump Presidency is that we cannot rely on being protected by the US and so, like the Ukrainians, we have to look to our own means to provide for our defence, and to work with other like-minded European countries.
I urge you to support a program of British rearmament, so that the British armed forces are expanded and modernised to deal with a world that is more dangerous than three decades ago. Please speak up to support the hard decisions that will have to be made on taxation and spending to provide the funding that we need so that we can make a stand to defeat aggression from dictatorships, whether Russian or otherwise. Please also reach out to MPs from other parties so that a cross-party campaign to support rearmament can be forged."
I'm looking after my daughter this afternoon but have just dropped in over lunch and a sandwich to read this and I wanted to say: good for you.
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?
I am sure that the basic premise is right but I just get the impression, having had a fair few personal contacts with him, that Liddle is just an amazingly arrogant and obnoxious character.
He was on Pointless Celebrities and I felt that too.
One of the fun’s of pointless is trying to work out who are the nicest people and root for them.
Andrew Neil @afneil · 1h I appreciate academia is pretty much a one-party state these days and little dissent is tolerated from the left-wing consensus, which you so ably represent. But magazines are still relatively free: I won’t apologise for not forcing my views on my editors or their columnists.
I have tall, floor-to-ceiling sash windows in my London flat. Facing directly south
Every year, in late winter/early spring, there is a day when the sun shines so bright it warms my entire flat - like the heating is on, yet it isn't - and I actually have to open the windows to cool things off.
This is that day, in 2022. It is normally a wonderful day. The departure of winter. Like seeing the first daffodils in a meadow
*sigh*
Friend, the daffodils are Ukraine yellow, the sky Ukraine blue. Take it as a sign that the natural order is with them - and rejoice.
Ha, thanks
I'm not sunk in gloom, but like others I have that knot of anxiety and sadness. Awful times
Andrew Neil @afneil · 1h I appreciate academia is pretty much a one-party state these days and little dissent is tolerated from the left-wing consensus, which you so ably represent. But magazines are still relatively free: I won’t apologise for not forcing my views on my editors or their columnists.
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.
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.
So far, the Russian military is resembling a paper tiger.
That might be the most humiliating thing about it for Putin.
He could end up weaker rather than stronger after this.
I have tall, floor-to-ceiling sash windows in my London flat. Facing directly south
Every year, in late winter/early spring, there is a day when the sun shines so bright it warms my entire flat - like the heating is on, yet it isn't - and I actually have to open the windows to cool things off.
This is that day, in 2022. It is normally a wonderful day. The departure of winter. Like seeing the first daffodils in a meadow
*sigh*
Friend, the daffodils are Ukraine yellow, the sky Ukraine blue. Take it as a sign that the natural order is with them - and rejoice.
Ooo I know this one.
In winter the swallows fly south comrade.
Remind me. Is this the signal to take Parliament or Lords?
No, just a reminder to our Ukrainian friends to make another 50 Molotov cocktails this afternoon....
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.
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:
"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.
Sure, even in the Red Army in WWII, where, in principle, every post was open to a woman, 97% of those who served were men.
Is it like the Spartans, who recruited/encouraged homosexuals in their army because when sexual partners were in a combat both partners would fight to the death to save the other?
I don't think that the Red Army tolerated homosexuality or lesbianism within its ranks. That was bourgeois decadence.
It took incredible courage for a woman to fight in the Red Army. If the Germans captured them, they were invariably killed, usually after a round of rape and torture beforehand.
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
Free speech also means being allowed to whine about Woke and being cancelled when someone highlights all-to-predictable contrarianism, or in this case just reproduces an image of the headline of an article. Then everyone can point & laugh at those whiners and their endless attempts to pretend being challenged is some kind of censorship.
It’s great.
In my experience, criticism of the Spectator nearly always comes from a peculiar subset of people who genuinely dislike its viewpoint yet secretly would love to be published inside it, as it is so prestigious. A curious phenomenon
It's interesting. A decade or so ago I was a regular reader of the Speccy and found it a pleasant zippy-in-places recreational read. I now see it as bow-tie reactionary faux man-of-the-world drivel you'd have to pay me serious money to allow through the letterbox. So, has it changed or have I changed? Bit of both, I guess, but I think it's mainly me. The last 10 or 12 years, coinciding with not having to earn a living, I've made a concerted effort to really *think* about things rather than forever chasing around in a daze, swilling coffee, running for trains and planes, and it's made a big difference. It's been the decade of my enlightenment - with my Spectator habit one of its minor casualties.
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.
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:
"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.
I post a piece from last year showing how quickly things can change, and you reply with stats nearly a decade old.
And your point about mass conscription works against your argument. The UK forces recruit a tiny percentage of the population. The real comparison is the abilities of the men and women who apply for the job.
If you seriously think that the top 10% of women who meet the requirements of the army for combat roles wouldn’t kick the buts of the bottom 10% of the men who do likewise, then I think you’re deluded.
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
How does one reconcile the “Putin used to be rational” theory with what he did to Chechnya?
That was bloody and disgusting, yet still rational
You can be ruthless and logical at the same time. Remember Obama dropped more drones than any prior US president. State sanctioned, extra judicial murder. Was Obama mad?
Ditto Xi. Literally a genocidal dictator. Yet still rational. Open to logical persuasion if he can see the advantage
I would contend that the difference between this and that is how we view the two, not how he does. In his mind it’s much the same, and that’s the miscalculation.
Not quite sure what point you're making
My point is that Chechnya was winnable and Putin won. Brutally but effectively. He now uses Chechen troops as some of his most effective soldiers (they are heading, ominously, for Ukraine)
Ukraine, to me, seems unwinnable for him. Even if he gets his short term goals the long term costs will be incalculable and very negative for Russia. Thus, the act of a man losing his marbles
Which makes him unpredictable and dangerous, of course.
If it does end it ends with Putin losing his office, and possibly his life. I just don't know how many others he will take down with him.
"Hungary latest country to back Russia being stopped from using Swift Hungary has said it supports Russia being shut off from the Swift cross-border financial payments system, according to Poland’s prime minister."
(Guardian)
Isn't that just about everyone now? Is Italy still resisting?
Nope, Italy publicly agreed this morning as did Cyprus. I think Germany might be the only country holding out now.
Andrew Neil @afneil · 1h I appreciate academia is pretty much a one-party state these days and little dissent is tolerated from the left-wing consensus, which you so ably represent. But magazines are still relatively free: I won’t apologise for not forcing my views on my editors or their columnists.
On Thursday night, the administration signaled Europe wasn’t ready to act on SWIFT. But there has been a marked shift in tone since European finance ministers met yesterday in Paris, with holdouts suggesting they now would. Back to DC. @business
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
How does one reconcile the “Putin used to be rational” theory with what he did to Chechnya?
That was bloody and disgusting, yet still rational
You can be ruthless and logical at the same time. Remember Obama dropped more drones than any prior US president. State sanctioned, extra judicial murder. Was Obama mad?
Ditto Xi. Literally a genocidal dictator. Yet still rational. Open to logical persuasion if he can see the advantage
I would contend that the difference between this and that is how we view the two, not how he does. In his mind it’s much the same, and that’s the miscalculation.
Not quite sure what point you're making
My point is that Chechnya was winnable and Putin won. Brutally but effectively. He now uses Chechen troops as some of his most effective soldiers (they are heading, ominously, for Ukraine)
Ukraine, to me, seems unwinnable for him. Even if he gets his short term goals the long term costs will be incalculable and very negative for Russia. Thus, the act of a man losing his marbles
This is winnable if he raises Ukrainian cities.
My point is that we were never going to ostracise him back then, but we will now. He didn’t and doesn’t care. The two look every different to us, but I fear they look the same to him.
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.
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.
So far, the Russian military is resembling a paper tiger.
I must admit, I did enjoy reading in the Telegraph this morning how British anti-tank weapons are taking out Russian armour near Kharkiv.
Ukrainian soldiers were shouting 'God Save The Queen', after successful strikes.
Andrew Neil @afneil · 1h I appreciate academia is pretty much a one-party state these days and little dissent is tolerated from the left-wing consensus, which you so ably represent. But magazines are still relatively free: I won’t apologise for not forcing my views on my editors or their columnists.
Amazing that the oppressive forces of Woke permitted Brillo, publisher of that courageous Samizdat publication The Spectator, to make that tweet.
The Spectator’s right to provide tireless support for pro-Putin, far-right politicians across Europe and beyond is an important, non-negotiable freedom.
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.
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:
"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.
Sure, even in the Red Army in WWII, where, in principle, every post was open to a woman, 97% of those who served were men.
Is it like the Spartans, who recruited/encouraged homosexuals in their army because when sexual partners were in a combat both partners would fight to the death to save the other?
I don't think that the Red Army tolerated homosexuality or lesbianism within its ranks. That was bourgeois decadence.
It took incredible courage for a woman to fight in the Red Army. If the Germans captured them, they were invariably killed, usually after a round of rape and torture beforehand.
Miss Pavlichenko's well known to fame Russia's your country, fighting's your game Your smile shines as bright as any new morning sun More than three hundred nazis felled by your gun
The will still of course be massive fall-out if the Met decide to issue Boris Johnson a FPN over parties in the coming weeks, but many believe given the magnitude of the current crisis, the moment for a leadership challenge has passed... for now.
The system is set up so that if Brady receives the requisite number of letters, he phones the MPs to check they still want to proceed, suspend or withdraw their letters. It won't get the numbers needed to proceed during the current crisis.
Equally, I am told that the numbers will be there once the immediate crisis abates if the Met or Grey reports don't give the PM a clean bill of health.
Only if the PM is fined by the Met or the Tories face massive losses in the local elections in May will the PM face a VONC now.
Though if Sunak is also fined his leadership chances would be ended too and Hunt or Truss would likely become PM
Sunak didn't lie to the House....
If Sunak is fined as well as Boris his leadership campaign would be over as much as Boris' Premiership would be.
Law makers cannot be law breakers and Hunt or Truss would be PM instead
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
How does one reconcile the “Putin used to be rational” theory with what he did to Chechnya?
By adding a large element of hus self preservation into the equation. With time in office he has become one if the globes wealthiest men. That isn't from his official salary. With every deal, rouble, knee capping and murder there is another enemy. Another imperitive to close ranks. The goal becomes to stay in power. To be out of power is retribution, court, incarceration or death. Since his decision to have more yhan two terms and extend his tenure in permenance his reality sanity and reasons for holding power have been distorted to place his continuation above all else.
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.
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.
So far, the Russian military is resembling a paper tiger.
I must admit, I did enjoy reading in the Telegraph this morning how British anti-tank weapons are taking out Russian armour near Kharkiv.
Ukrainian soldiers were shouting 'God Save The Queen', after successful strikes.
Just saw that and made me smile. We have sent them 2000 of 20k apparently. Send the rest!
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.
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:
"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.
Sure, even in the Red Army in WWII, where, in principle, every post was open to a woman, 97% of those who served were men.
Is it like the Spartans, who recruited/encouraged homosexuals in their army because when sexual partners were in a combat both partners would fight to the death to save the other?
I don't think that the Red Army tolerated homosexuality or lesbianism within its ranks. That was bourgeois decadence.
It took incredible courage for a woman to fight in the Red Army. If the Germans captured them, they were invariably killed, usually after a round of rape and torture beforehand.
A key problem for him. Censorship has never reached everywhere, like Turkey, and as mentioned. This isn't quite Stalin's Russia, yet, although he's a doing very good of looking like he's trying to make it so.
Comments
NFZ is basically speedrunning the process of going to war with Russia.
I was right - as we are now seeing. The corruption which comes with turning a blind eye to dodgy clients, dodgy money eventually bites us. It's tragic that it should take a war, death and destruction to make us see this. I want a real crackdown on dodgy money - from wherever it comes.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/nov/04/ex-nato-head-says-putin-wanted-to-join-alliance-early-on-in-his-rule
So the US made a zillion Shermans, the Russians T-34s, while the Germans struggled to make a handful of Tigers.....
Opinium may even show a Tory lead tonight which could boost Johnson.
https://twitter.com/scribblercat/status/1497541233211756549
https://twitter.com/mariatad/status/1497543713983275018
I wish I could be like some posters, that it won’t be failure if it leaves us hero’s and martyrs.
I am also crossing out the word Russian with my brain and reading it as Putin every time now, since so much support for no war from so many Russians, so I don’t want any Russians or Ukrainians to die now. I just want Putin to die. Very mixed up brain and feelings.
Celebrate the fact that in a cynical world people still prepared to fight and die for their homes and family and freedom - it’s a good thing even though it should never have to happen.
Get out in the sunshine and be grateful for your life and go to a pub and have a few beers.
Erdogan's Turkey was nearly brought down by the same issue in 2015.
https://twitter.com/DmitryOpines/status/1497542628979527684
Even if only one or two defect this way the publicity/moral victory will be massive. and perhaps more impotently the Russian High Command will be warred about althriseing air missions - incase their pilots defect.
Ironically, it was the Nazis who admired the modern methods of Ford and tried to import them into Germany.
Every year, in late winter/early spring, there is a day when the sun shines so bright it warms my entire flat - like the heating is on, yet it isn't - and I actually have to open the windows to cool things off.
This is that day, in 2022. It is normally a wonderful day. The departure of winter. Like seeing the first daffodils in a meadow
*sigh*
It would have to launched from Amari (Estonia), Siauliai, (Lithuania) and/or Malbork (Poland) so that inevitably drags them and NATO into a full blown war with Russia.
You can be ruthless and logical at the same time. Remember Obama dropped more drones than any prior US president. State sanctioned, extra judicial murder. Was Obama mad?
Ditto Xi. Literally a genocidal dictator. Yet still rational. Open to logical persuasion if he can see the advantage
@iainmartin1
·
1h
Thinking back to those years featuring endless analysis about Merkel and how sophisticated, clever and pragmatic she was in guiding sensible German policy. In the end, her Chancellorship has turned out to be a geopolitical disaster.
https://twitter.com/iainmartin1
Assuming Trump will lose because of Putin is a fool's game.
Do many US voters even know who he is, let alone where Ukr is?
And what about Litvinenko in 2006? That wasn't exactly a rational thing to do; particularly the method.
In winter the swallows fly south comrade.
Remind me. Is this the signal to take Parliament or Lords?
The best thing we can do, I reckon, is flood arms into Ukraine to help them resist. Especially anti-tank and anti-air missiles. That's one way the Mujahideen defeated the USSR. With Stinger missiles
"The U.S.-built Stinger antiaircraft missile, supplied to the mujahideen in very large numbers beginning in 1986, struck a decisive blow to the Soviet war effort as it allowed the lightly armed Afghans to effectively defend against Soviet helicopter landings in strategic areas. The Stingers were so renowned and deadly that, in the 1990s, the U.S. conducted a "buy-back" program to keep unused missiles from falling into the hands of anti-American terrorists."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Cyclone
The real change was in attacking civil society in 2008, I would say. That was the first year that press censorship became basically instiutionalised and overt, journalists started disappearing, and that any real rule of fear began. He was gone.
Andrew Neil
@afneil
·
1h
I appreciate academia is pretty much a one-party state these days and little dissent is tolerated from the left-wing consensus, which you so ably represent. But magazines are still relatively free: I won’t apologise for not forcing my views on my editors or their columnists.
https://twitter.com/afneil/status/1497520306281324552
My point is that Chechnya was winnable and Putin won. Brutally but effectively. He now uses Chechen troops as some of his most effective soldiers (they are heading, ominously, for Ukraine)
Ukraine, to me, seems unwinnable for him. Even if he gets his short term goals the long term costs will be incalculable and very negative for Russia. Thus, the act of a man losing his marbles
Hungary latest country to back Russia being stopped from using Swift
Hungary has said it supports Russia being shut off from the Swift cross-border financial payments system, according to Poland’s prime minister.
"Hungary latest country to back Russia being stopped from using Swift
Hungary has said it supports Russia being shut off from the Swift cross-border financial payments system, according to Poland’s prime minister."
(Guardian)
Isn't that just about everyone now? Is Italy still resisting?
Superb email. Thank you.
One of the fun’s of pointless is trying to work out who are the nicest people and root for them.
I'm not sunk in gloom, but like others I have that knot of anxiety and sadness. Awful times
He could end up weaker rather than stronger after this.
Labour calls on Boris Johnson to expel the Russian ambassador to the UK
"The Russian ambassador is parroting the lies of Putin’s rogue regime, which is waging an illegal war against Ukraine," David Lammy says
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/russia-boris-johnson-ukraine-invasion-ambassador-b2023891.html
It took incredible courage for a woman to fight in the Red Army. If the Germans captured them, they were invariably killed, usually after a round of rape and torture beforehand.
And your point about mass conscription works against your argument. The UK forces recruit a tiny percentage of the population. The real comparison is the abilities of the men and women who apply for the job.
If you seriously think that the top 10% of women who meet the requirements of the army for combat roles wouldn’t kick the buts of the bottom 10% of the men who do likewise, then I think you’re deluded.
Your 1% claim is simply prejudice.
If it does end it ends with Putin losing his office, and possibly his life. I just don't know how many others he will take down with him.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-02-26/u-s-puts-banning-russia-from-swift-global-system-back-in-play
My point is that we were never going to ostracise him back then, but we will now. He didn’t and doesn’t care. The two look every different to us, but I fear they look the same to him.
Ukrainian soldiers were shouting 'God Save The Queen', after successful strikes.
Absolutely not succumbing to the Kremlin's demands to stop calling Russia's war what it is https://twitter.com/JakeCordell/status/1497552233726160896/photo/1
Russia's your country, fighting's your game
Your smile shines as bright as any new morning sun
More than three hundred nazis felled by your gun
With time in office he has become one if the globes wealthiest men. That isn't from his official salary.
With every deal, rouble, knee capping and murder there is another enemy. Another imperitive to close ranks. The goal becomes to stay in power. To be out of power is retribution, court, incarceration or death.
Since his decision to have more yhan two terms and extend his tenure in permenance his reality sanity and reasons for holding power have been distorted to place his continuation above all else.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BsjJ5AAKGP0