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

MarqueeMark said:

DougSeal said:

Malmesbury said:

MarqueeMark said:

Scott_xP said:

Multiple videos on social media of Russian military out of fuel, food and stuck on highways https://twitter.com/Liveuamap/status/1497485623225200640/video/1

The RAC are currently estimating a 27 weeks before they arrive.....

Anyone remember the Cold War jokes about if the Russians invaded the UK, they would be stuck for ever in a contraflow on the M20?

Point of order. The “missing link” of the M20 between Ashford and Maidstone wasn’t finished until the Cold War was all but over.

I bet you all come on here for that sort of insightful commentary.

You are on FIRE with your Kent commentary today....

Gallowgate said:

Dura_Ace said:

rottenborough said:

Blimey...

David Clark 🇺🇦

@David_K_Clark·3h

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

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


David Clark 🇺🇦
@David_K_Clark·3h

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

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

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

Yes, but Russia seems to go to war with who it wants with impunity. There has to be a line.

Malmesbury said:

Sean_F said:

Scott_xP said:

Malmesbury said:

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

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

See also Kalashnikov versus M14

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

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

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.....

DecrepiterJohnL said:

Fairliered said:

Foxy said:

IanB2 said:

Morris_Dancer said:

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

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

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

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

This is Kyiv Pride before the pandemic:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

solarflare said:

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.

Scott_xP said:

Twitter blocked in Russia. Putin's disinformation war. https://twitter.com/netblocks/status/1497523148362862593

Sean_F said:

Malmesbury said:

Sean_F said:

Scott_xP said:

Malmesbury said:

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

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

See also Kalashnikov versus M14

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

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

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.)

rottenborough said:

Scott_xP said:

Twitter blocked in Russia. Putin's disinformation war. https://twitter.com/netblocks/status/1497523148362862593

Like the RU young people wont notice that social media is being blocked and start to seriously ask why?

WhisperingOracle said:

Scott_xP said:

Russian restricting Twitter and Facebook, an admission it is dawning on them they are losing the information war.
https://twitter.com/scribblercat/status/1497541233211756549

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.

nico679 said:

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.

biggles said:

Leon said:

Farooq said:

Leon said:

Theuniondivvie said:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

How does one reconcile the “Putin used to be rational” theory with what he did to Chechnya?

solarflare said:

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.

Dura_Ace said:

Gallowgate said:

Dura_Ace said:

rottenborough said:

Blimey...

David Clark 🇺🇦

@David_K_Clark·3h

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

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


David Clark 🇺🇦
@David_K_Clark·3h

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

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

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

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.

BigRich said:

Scott_xP said:

Twitter blocked in Russia. Putin's disinformation war. https://twitter.com/netblocks/status/1497523148362862593

If he is blocking it now indicates things have changed, not gone to plan and he is he is scared.

Gallowgate said:

rottenborough said:

Scott_xP said:

Twitter blocked in Russia. Putin's disinformation war. https://twitter.com/netblocks/status/1497523148362862593

Like the RU young people wont notice that social media is being blocked and start to seriously ask why?

Do Russian young people use Twitter or is if exclusively VK?

Gallowgate said:

Dura_Ace said:

Gallowgate said:

Dura_Ace said:

rottenborough said:

Blimey...

David Clark 🇺🇦

@David_K_Clark·3h

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

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


David Clark 🇺🇦
@David_K_Clark·3h

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

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

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

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.

MoonRabbit said:

WhisperingOracle said:

dixiedean said:

not_on_fire said:

MarqueeMark said:

Leon said:

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

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

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

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

Or a Trumpist Republican.

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

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

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.

https://www.salon.com/2022/02/25/cpacs-bloodthirsty-us-conservatives-are-still-warmongering--this-time-for-domestic-battle/

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.

Leon said:

biggles said:

Leon said:

Farooq said:

Leon said:

Theuniondivvie said:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

rottenborough said:

MoonRabbit said:

WhisperingOracle said:

dixiedean said:

not_on_fire said:

MarqueeMark said:

Leon said:

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

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

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

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

Or a Trumpist Republican.

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

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

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.

https://www.salon.com/2022/02/25/cpacs-bloodthirsty-us-conservatives-are-still-warmongering--this-time-for-domestic-battle/

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?

Leon said:

biggles said:

Leon said:

Farooq said:

Leon said:

Theuniondivvie said:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

MarqueeMark said:

Leon said:

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.

Richard_Tyndall said:

makes it far more likely that Ukraine will eventually end up inside NATO and, if they want, the EU.

MoonRabbit said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

Theuniondivvie said:

IanB2 said:

Theuniondivvie said:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

biggles said:

Leon said:

biggles said:

Leon said:

Farooq said:

Leon said:

Theuniondivvie said:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

LostPassword said:

Casino_Royale said:

LostPassword said:

Casino_Royale said:

pigeon said:

Casino_Royale said:

pigeon said:

Casino_Royale said:

JosiasJessop said:

Mexicanpete said:

JosiasJessop said:

Mexicanpete said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Reports 27 countries are actively providing weapons to Ukraine

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I think Putin thinks the West is a wet lettuce.

IanB2 said:

Casino_Royale said:

williamglenn said:

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

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

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

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

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

Yes, there was a bit of arrogance in there.

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

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

But I think we have to do it.

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

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

So it won't happen.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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."

MarqueeMark said:

Leon said:

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.

Sean_F said:

Dura_Ace said:

rottenborough said:

Blimey...

David Clark 🇺🇦

@David_K_Clark·3h

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

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


David Clark 🇺🇦
@David_K_Clark·3h

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

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

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

So far, the Russian military is resembling a paper tiger.

Leon said:

biggles said:

Leon said:

biggles said:

Leon said:

Farooq said:

Leon said:

Theuniondivvie said:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Richard_Tyndall said:

Theuniondivvie said:

rottenborough said:

Burn...


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

Amazing that the oppressive forces of Woke permitted Brillo, publisher of that courageous Samizdat publication The Spectator, to make that tweet.

You know I get the impression that the Woke culture wars bother you more than anyone else. You seem to be the only one commenting one them.

Leon said:

biggles said:

Leon said:

biggles said:

Leon said:

Farooq said:

Leon said:

Theuniondivvie said:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Eabhal said:

Macron is doing well. Essentially blockading the channel.

HYUFD said:

MarqueeMark said:

HYUFD said:

MarqueeMark said:

Scott_xP said:

OllyT said:

I agree with BigG that right now is not quite the time.

Tory MPs agree with you

There has unsurprisingly been a mood-shift in Westminster this week.
"Whether the PM was truthful about the parties is obviously important, but [the Ukraine-Russia crisis] is really, really fucking important,” a former cabinet minister told @adampayne26.
https://www.politicshome.com/news/article/russia-ukraine-westminster-unite

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.

Story: https://www.politicshome.com/news/article/russia-ukraine-westminster-unite

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

Casino_Royale said:

Sean_F said:

Dura_Ace said:

rottenborough said:

Blimey...

David Clark 🇺🇦

@David_K_Clark·3h

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

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


David Clark 🇺🇦
@David_K_Clark·3h

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

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

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

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.

Scott_xP said:

Some striking homepages on Russia's leading independent media websites today.

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

kinabalu said:

Leon said:

Theuniondivvie said:

Leon said:

Farooq said:

Leon said:

Theuniondivvie said:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

Theuniondivvie said:

Carnyx said:

Theuniondivvie said:

Leon said:

Farooq said:

Leon said:

Theuniondivvie said:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

Chameleon said:

https://twitter.com/JimmySecUK/status/1497500029099118594

Another Russian supply convoy wiped out.

The baffling failure of Russian air power and ability to defend it's own supply lines make no sense. Mavbe he really did expect Ukraine to just roll over?

Jonathan said:

Lots of wishful thinking here I fear. Alas.