I have always guarded against optimism in relation to anything to do with Putin, because he always seems to win. This winning will ultimately come to an end at some point, but it is too early to make that call in relation to the current situation in Ukraine.
The war's only been going for two fucking days. There are many, many dark days ahead when those that have the resolve to do so must play their part by witlessly speculating on made up shit they've seen on Twitter.
It'll all be over by (Orthodox) Christmas.
I so want Ukraine to win. I have to keep telling myself that I'm viewing the news with that hope in mind, skewing my perceptions - and through a media that generally wants Ukraine to win as well.
I'd feel much better about saying how the war was going if we knew what Russia's strategy was at the beginning. It's perfectly possible that it is all going well to some plan. It's also possible that they've hit large problems and are having to change strategy.
Any plan that the Russians had went out of the window on day one as is the case in most wars. Nobody knows what the fuck is going on as is also the case in most wars. Least of all those blowing the shit out each other on the front line.
A bayonet is a weapon with a worker at both ends, as Father Lenin said.
A fine quotation. The best commentary I have read so far. There is something uniquely ugly at this time in history seeing a bunch of young people on both sides disgorging each other as proxy for leaders who wish to fulfill their ambitions.
It's even uglier reading commentators from the sidelines cheering their sides on while taking no active part. This is 2022. If there aren't other ways of resolving this then we should be living in caves
Hang on a minute. In the case of Ukraine, what evil 'ambition' does Zelenskyy have aside from keeping his country free?
Don't equate Ukraine and Russia in this.
I can't see a lot of difference between a young Russian conscript in a tank being shot to pieces or another young Russian/Ukrainian conscript being shot to pieces. Neither are making decisions and neither can do anything about the situation they find themselves in.
What happened to the Gandhi method? See what the Russians can do with 50,000,000 citizens engaging in civil disobedience with the rest of the world giving them every support other than military
Whilst I dont go fully with what Roger is saying , it is getting tedious on here listening to many glorifying killing and posting (sometimes fakes) reports from twitter about it. Also the armchair generals who based on nothing are talking as if the collective PB was in charge of the Russian operation it would be over by now . All points to a secret love of war sadly which may be a human condition more prevalent in politicos . We even have had somebody this morning calling post WW2 UK and US troops pussies for not loving bayoneting people.
"All points to a secret love of war "
I really don't see much of that. There's a lot of anger about Russia's actions, but I think most (everyone?) on here would be happy if the Russians just retreated back over the border without any more shots being fired. That would be a happy dream to me.
But we're facing an aggressor capable of evil acts. In the light of that, and their future ambitions, people are scared.
In fact, I'd argue that fear is the predominant feeling on here.
On the refugee question, some serious thought needs to go in to this beyond the usual irrationality. We must confront the hard reality that there is no housing in the UK for refugees from Ukraine, and what exists in the private sector is of low quality and expensive. It is not a good place to resettle vulnerable people fleeing warzones. For people who have skills and can be self sufficient though, it is a different story.
I think we should look to countries in Eastern Europe. Much of the problems in the EU have been caused by their opposition to taking in refugees from Asia and Africa, on the grounds of cultural differences, resulting in large scale migration of these people to Northern European countries. Isn't this an opportunity for Hungary and Poland to seriously step up and do their bit?
Nominally, the war is about the fate of disputed territory in the East of the Ukraine.
In reality, the war is about the desire of the Ukraine to join the EU/NATO. This is opposed by Russia.
But, does the EU/NATO actually want Ukraine to join them ? Are these organisations going to welcome whatever Ukrainian state remains after Putin's barbarism ?
The fate of the Ukrainian refugees is a critical test of the West in all this.
If Ukraine were to join the EU, there would be large scale migration to the West through freedom of movement. The only other parts of the former USSR to join -- the much smaller Baltic states -- suffered very large drops in their populations (& those countries were comparatively prosperous compared to Ukraine). Hence, the EU has been -- it is fair to say -- rather circumspect about the consequences of the much larger & poorer Ukraine joining.
However, we now have a war that is likely to generate millions of refugees. The longer and bloodier the war, the more refugees. If this turns out to be a prolonged, bloody war of attrition, then ~ 5 million refugees (UN estimate) may well be on the low side.
So, the treatment of these refugees by the West now seems to me to be critical test of our integrity.
War means refugees. You don't get one without the other.
On the refugee question, some serious thought needs to go in to this beyond the usual irrationality. We must confront the hard reality that there is no housing in the UK for refugees from Ukraine, and what exists in the private sector is of low quality and expensive. It is not a good place to resettle vulnerable people fleeing warzones. For people who have skills and can be self sufficient though, it is a different story.
I think we should look to countries in Eastern Europe. Much of the problems in the EU have been caused by their opposition to taking in refugees from Asia and Africa, on the grounds of cultural differences, resulting in large scale migration of these people to Northern European countries. Isn't this an opportunity for Hungary and Poland to seriously step up and do their bit?
We aren't going to receive large numbers of refugees as we're a distance from them. But it simply isn't true to say that we are full up. There is housing - might not be in a big city but there are places that desperate people can go. And we have a Ukranian population in this country who would be likely to help provide sanctuary.
This is not "refugees" in that the beggers come here illegally and take our benefits and our jobs. We're talking about people who have had to flee the fighting who want to go home and rebuild.
We could help. We are not. Our hearts have been hardened to human suffering for the benefit of political support for the governing party.
I have always guarded against optimism in relation to anything to do with Putin, because he always seems to win. This winning will ultimately come to an end at some point, but it is too early to make that call in relation to the current situation in Ukraine.
The war's only been going for two fucking days. There are many, many dark days ahead when those that have the resolve to do so must play their part by witlessly speculating on made up shit they've seen on Twitter.
It'll all be over by (Orthodox) Christmas.
I so want Ukraine to win. I have to keep telling myself that I'm viewing the news with that hope in mind, skewing my perceptions - and through a media that generally wants Ukraine to win as well.
I'd feel much better about saying how the war was going if we knew what Russia's strategy was at the beginning. It's perfectly possible that it is all going well to some plan. It's also possible that they've hit large problems and are having to change strategy.
Any plan that the Russians had went out of the window on day one as is the case in most wars. Nobody knows what the fuck is going on as is also the case in most wars. Least of all those blowing the shit out each other on the front line.
A bayonet is a weapon with a worker at both ends, as Father Lenin said.
A fine quotation. The best commentary I have read so far. There is something uniquely ugly at this time in history seeing a bunch of young people on both sides disgorging each other as proxy for leaders who wish to fulfill their ambitions.
It's even uglier reading commentators from the sidelines cheering their sides on while taking no active part. This is 2022. If there aren't other ways of resolving this then we should be living in caves
Hang on a minute. In the case of Ukraine, what evil 'ambition' does Zelenskyy have aside from keeping his country free?
Don't equate Ukraine and Russia in this.
I can't see a lot of difference between a young Russian conscript in a tank being shot to pieces or another young Russian/Ukrainian conscript being shot to pieces. Neither are making decisions and neither can do anything about the situation they find themselves in.
What happened to the Gandhi method? See what the Russians can do with 50,000,000 citizens engaging in civil disobedience with the rest of the world giving them every support other than military
Whilst I dont go fully with what Roger is saying , it is getting tedious on here listening to many glorifying killing and posting (sometimes fakes) reports from twitter about it. Also the armchair generals who based on nothing are talking as if the collective PB was in charge of the Russian operation it would be over by now . All points to a secret love of war sadly which may be a human condition more prevalent in politicos . We even have had somebody this morning calling post WW2 UK and US troops pussies for not loving bayoneting people.
I wish PB was in charge of the Russian war operation, for the very good reason it would never have started if we were.
And I forgot to add smugness has always been a key point of many on PB . There are a suspicious large amounts of Pbers who revel in military "strategy" and detail of killings to take the view they are all peace loving virtuous people underneath
I have always guarded against optimism in relation to anything to do with Putin, because he always seems to win. This winning will ultimately come to an end at some point, but it is too early to make that call in relation to the current situation in Ukraine.
The war's only been going for two fucking days. There are many, many dark days ahead when those that have the resolve to do so must play their part by witlessly speculating on made up shit they've seen on Twitter.
It'll all be over by (Orthodox) Christmas.
I so want Ukraine to win. I have to keep telling myself that I'm viewing the news with that hope in mind, skewing my perceptions - and through a media that generally wants Ukraine to win as well.
I'd feel much better about saying how the war was going if we knew what Russia's strategy was at the beginning. It's perfectly possible that it is all going well to some plan. It's also possible that they've hit large problems and are having to change strategy.
Any plan that the Russians had went out of the window on day one as is the case in most wars. Nobody knows what the fuck is going on as is also the case in most wars. Least of all those blowing the shit out each other on the front line.
A bayonet is a weapon with a worker at both ends, as Father Lenin said.
A fine quotation. The best commentary I have read so far. There is something uniquely ugly at this time in history seeing a bunch of young people on both sides disgorging each other as proxy for leaders who wish to fulfill their ambitions.
It's even uglier reading commentators from the sidelines cheering their sides on while taking no active part. This is 2022. If there aren't other ways of resolving this then we should be living in caves
Hang on a minute. In the case of Ukraine, what evil 'ambition' does Zelenskyy have aside from keeping his country free?
Don't equate Ukraine and Russia in this.
I can't see a lot of difference between a young Russian conscript in a tank being shot to pieces or another young Russian/Ukrainian conscript being shot to pieces. Neither are making decisions and neither can do anything about the situation they find themselves in.
What happened to the Gandhi method? See what the Russians can do with 50,000,000 citizens engaging in civil disobedience with the rest of the world giving them every support other than military
Whilst I dont go fully with what Roger is saying , it is getting tedious on here listening to many glorifying killing and posting (sometimes fakes) reports from twitter about it. Also the armchair generals who based on nothing are talking as if the collective PB was in charge of the Russian operation it would be over by now . All points to a secret love of war sadly which may be a human condition more prevalent in politicos . We even have had somebody this morning calling post WW2 UK and US troops pussies for not loving bayoneting people.
I wish PB was in charge of the Russian war operation, for the very good reason it would never have started if we were.
And I forgot to add smugness has always been a key point of many on PB . There are a suspicious large amounts of Pbers who revel in military "strategy" and detail of killings to take the view they are all peace loving virtuous people underneath
Hadn't it occurred to you that there are many similarities between political strategy and military strategy? Although thankfully the former usually has much less bloodshed.
It's also why politicians and people on here often descend to 'war', 'fight', 'battle' when talking about politics.
I have always guarded against optimism in relation to anything to do with Putin, because he always seems to win. This winning will ultimately come to an end at some point, but it is too early to make that call in relation to the current situation in Ukraine.
The war's only been going for two fucking days. There are many, many dark days ahead when those that have the resolve to do so must play their part by witlessly speculating on made up shit they've seen on Twitter.
It'll all be over by (Orthodox) Christmas.
I so want Ukraine to win. I have to keep telling myself that I'm viewing the news with that hope in mind, skewing my perceptions - and through a media that generally wants Ukraine to win as well.
I'd feel much better about saying how the war was going if we knew what Russia's strategy was at the beginning. It's perfectly possible that it is all going well to some plan. It's also possible that they've hit large problems and are having to change strategy.
Any plan that the Russians had went out of the window on day one as is the case in most wars. Nobody knows what the fuck is going on as is also the case in most wars. Least of all those blowing the shit out each other on the front line.
A bayonet is a weapon with a worker at both ends, as Father Lenin said.
A fine quotation. The best commentary I have read so far. There is something uniquely ugly at this time in history seeing a bunch of young people on both sides disgorging each other as proxy for leaders who wish to fulfill their ambitions.
It's even uglier reading commentators from the sidelines cheering their sides on while taking no active part. This is 2022. If there aren't other ways of resolving this then we should be living in caves
Are you serious? Are you suggesting both sides are to blame for this? Seriously?
Roger of Provence is to coin a phrase 'unspoofable'.
I have always guarded against optimism in relation to anything to do with Putin, because he always seems to win. This winning will ultimately come to an end at some point, but it is too early to make that call in relation to the current situation in Ukraine.
The war's only been going for two fucking days. There are many, many dark days ahead when those that have the resolve to do so must play their part by witlessly speculating on made up shit they've seen on Twitter.
It'll all be over by (Orthodox) Christmas.
I so want Ukraine to win. I have to keep telling myself that I'm viewing the news with that hope in mind, skewing my perceptions - and through a media that generally wants Ukraine to win as well.
I'd feel much better about saying how the war was going if we knew what Russia's strategy was at the beginning. It's perfectly possible that it is all going well to some plan. It's also possible that they've hit large problems and are having to change strategy.
Any plan that the Russians had went out of the window on day one as is the case in most wars. Nobody knows what the fuck is going on as is also the case in most wars. Least of all those blowing the shit out each other on the front line.
A bayonet is a weapon with a worker at both ends, as Father Lenin said.
A fine quotation. The best commentary I have read so far. There is something uniquely ugly at this time in history seeing a bunch of young people on both sides disgorging each other as proxy for leaders who wish to fulfill their ambitions.
It's even uglier reading commentators from the sidelines cheering their sides on while taking no active part. This is 2022. If there aren't other ways of resolving this then we should be living in caves
Hang on a minute. In the case of Ukraine, what evil 'ambition' does Zelenskyy have aside from keeping his country free?
Don't equate Ukraine and Russia in this.
I can't see a lot of difference between a young Russian conscript in a tank being shot to pieces or another young Russian/Ukrainian conscript being shot to pieces. Neither are making decisions and neither can do anything about the situation they find themselves in.
What happened to the Gandhi method? See what the Russians can do with 50,000,000 citizens engaging in civil disobedience with the rest of the world giving them every support other than military
You are right that war is always enormously destructive, and we should strenuously seek to avoid it. That is why the UN and the structure of international law which still more or less prevails was set up after WWII.
These things aren’t easy. But it’s very hard to argue that a democratic country fighting what is a blatantly illegal invasion launched by a corrupt and repressive regime, which seeks to impose the same on them, is doing the wrong thing.
Ukraine’s President Volodymyr Zelenskiy is asked foreign citizens around the world to join in the war against Russia.
by Decree of the President of Ukraine #248 of June 10, 2016, foreigners have the right to join the Armed Forces of Ukraine for military service under Contract of a voluntary basis to be included in the Territorial Defence Forces of the Armed Forced of Ukraine.
A separate subdivision is being formed of foreigners entitled the International Legion for the Territorial Defence of Ukraine. There is no greater contribution which you can make for the sake of peace.”
A better idea in this situation, in my view, than the Gandhi method.
I think it’s a very bad idea, the foreign forces subdivision. Plays into Russian propaganda about Ukraine resistance being Western backed. inevitably someone from Western Europe would end up getting captured and paraded on TV. Remember how the US used this to their advantage in Afghanistan with Arab AQ fighters.
I have always guarded against optimism in relation to anything to do with Putin, because he always seems to win. This winning will ultimately come to an end at some point, but it is too early to make that call in relation to the current situation in Ukraine.
The war's only been going for two fucking days. There are many, many dark days ahead when those that have the resolve to do so must play their part by witlessly speculating on made up shit they've seen on Twitter.
It'll all be over by (Orthodox) Christmas.
I so want Ukraine to win. I have to keep telling myself that I'm viewing the news with that hope in mind, skewing my perceptions - and through a media that generally wants Ukraine to win as well.
I'd feel much better about saying how the war was going if we knew what Russia's strategy was at the beginning. It's perfectly possible that it is all going well to some plan. It's also possible that they've hit large problems and are having to change strategy.
Any plan that the Russians had went out of the window on day one as is the case in most wars. Nobody knows what the fuck is going on as is also the case in most wars. Least of all those blowing the shit out each other on the front line.
A bayonet is a weapon with a worker at both ends, as Father Lenin said.
A fine quotation. The best commentary I have read so far. There is something uniquely ugly at this time in history seeing a bunch of young people on both sides disgorging each other as proxy for leaders who wish to fulfill their ambitions.
It's even uglier reading commentators from the sidelines cheering their sides on while taking no active part. This is 2022. If there aren't other ways of resolving this then we should be living in caves
Are you serious? Are you suggesting both sides are to blame for this? Seriously?
Read the quote supplied by Dura Ace earlier that I was referring to
"A bayonet is a weapon with a worker at both ends" as Father Lenin said.
The point of that quote is that those doing the dying are taking the pain for non-workers who are safely away in their seats of power.
The issue with warfare has always been how older men with power can get younger men to fight and die to defend and expand it. It is why religion proved such a useful tool for rulers.
Ukraine’s President Volodymyr Zelenskiy is asked foreign citizens around the world to join in the war against Russia.
by Decree of the President of Ukraine #248 of June 10, 2016, foreigners have the right to join the Armed Forces of Ukraine for military service under Contract of a voluntary basis to be included in the Territorial Defence Forces of the Armed Forced of Ukraine.
A separate subdivision is being formed of foreigners entitled the International Legion for the Territorial Defence of Ukraine. There is no greater contribution which you can make for the sake of peace.”
On the face of it, this is a great idea. Thinking about it a bit more deeply and I wonder if it is - at least from a non-Ukrainian perspective. 1. If nationals from NATO countries get involved, there is a pretext for Putin to claim NATO itself is attacking Russia. At a minimum, that may swing wavering support in Russia behind him. 2. You don't know who is going to join up and where that leads to after the Ukraine conflict ends. Bosnia was a training ground for many irregulars whose subsequent activities were directly contrary to our interests.
I have always guarded against optimism in relation to anything to do with Putin, because he always seems to win. This winning will ultimately come to an end at some point, but it is too early to make that call in relation to the current situation in Ukraine.
The war's only been going for two fucking days. There are many, many dark days ahead when those that have the resolve to do so must play their part by witlessly speculating on made up shit they've seen on Twitter.
It'll all be over by (Orthodox) Christmas.
I so want Ukraine to win. I have to keep telling myself that I'm viewing the news with that hope in mind, skewing my perceptions - and through a media that generally wants Ukraine to win as well.
I'd feel much better about saying how the war was going if we knew what Russia's strategy was at the beginning. It's perfectly possible that it is all going well to some plan. It's also possible that they've hit large problems and are having to change strategy.
Any plan that the Russians had went out of the window on day one as is the case in most wars. Nobody knows what the fuck is going on as is also the case in most wars. Least of all those blowing the shit out each other on the front line.
A bayonet is a weapon with a worker at both ends, as Father Lenin said.
A fine quotation. The best commentary I have read so far. There is something uniquely ugly at this time in history seeing a bunch of young people on both sides disgorging each other as proxy for leaders who wish to fulfill their ambitions.
It's even uglier reading commentators from the sidelines cheering their sides on while taking no active part. This is 2022. If there aren't other ways of resolving this then we should be living in caves
Hang on a minute. In the case of Ukraine, what evil 'ambition' does Zelenskyy have aside from keeping his country free?
Don't equate Ukraine and Russia in this.
I can't see a lot of difference between a young Russian conscript in a tank being shot to pieces or another young Russian/Ukrainian conscript being shot to pieces. Neither are making decisions and neither can do anything about the situation they find themselves in.
What happened to the Gandhi method? See what the Russians can do with 50,000,000 citizens engaging in civil disobedience with the rest of the world giving them every support other than military
Whilst I dont go fully with what Roger is saying , it is getting tedious on here listening to many glorifying killing and posting (sometimes fakes) reports from twitter about it. Also the armchair generals who based on nothing are talking as if the collective PB was in charge of the Russian operation it would be over by now . All points to a secret love of war sadly which may be a human condition more prevalent in politicos . We even have had somebody this morning calling post WW2 UK and US troops pussies for not loving bayoneting people.
"All points to a secret love of war "
I really don't see much of that. There's a lot of anger about Russia's actions, but I think most (everyone?) on here would be happy if the Russians just retreated back over the border without any more shots being fired. That would be a happy dream to me.
But we're facing an aggressor capable of evil acts. In the light of that, and their future ambitions, people are scared.
In fact, I'd argue that fear is the predominant feeling on here.
Well if this mini debate causes less of the re posted twitter posts of a tank being on fire (followed by a detailed plan of how this proves the russians got it wrong by not taking out some installation rather than taking out another installation ) then all the better
I have always guarded against optimism in relation to anything to do with Putin, because he always seems to win. This winning will ultimately come to an end at some point, but it is too early to make that call in relation to the current situation in Ukraine.
The war's only been going for two fucking days. There are many, many dark days ahead when those that have the resolve to do so must play their part by witlessly speculating on made up shit they've seen on Twitter.
It'll all be over by (Orthodox) Christmas.
I so want Ukraine to win. I have to keep telling myself that I'm viewing the news with that hope in mind, skewing my perceptions - and through a media that generally wants Ukraine to win as well.
I'd feel much better about saying how the war was going if we knew what Russia's strategy was at the beginning. It's perfectly possible that it is all going well to some plan. It's also possible that they've hit large problems and are having to change strategy.
Any plan that the Russians had went out of the window on day one as is the case in most wars. Nobody knows what the fuck is going on as is also the case in most wars. Least of all those blowing the shit out each other on the front line.
A bayonet is a weapon with a worker at both ends, as Father Lenin said.
A fine quotation. The best commentary I have read so far. There is something uniquely ugly at this time in history seeing a bunch of young people on both sides disgorging each other as proxy for leaders who wish to fulfill their ambitions.
It's even uglier reading commentators from the sidelines cheering their sides on while taking no active part. This is 2022. If there aren't other ways of resolving this then we should be living in caves
Hang on a minute. In the case of Ukraine, what evil 'ambition' does Zelenskyy have aside from keeping his country free?
Don't equate Ukraine and Russia in this.
I can't see a lot of difference between a young Russian conscript in a tank being shot to pieces or another young Russian/Ukrainian conscript being shot to pieces. Neither are making decisions and neither can do anything about the situation they find themselves in.
What happened to the Gandhi method? See what the Russians can do with 50,000,000 citizens engaging in civil disobedience with the rest of the world giving them every support other than military
Whilst I dont go fully with what Roger is saying , it is getting tedious on here listening to many glorifying killing and posting (sometimes fakes) reports from twitter about it. Also the armchair generals who based on nothing are talking as if the collective PB was in charge of the Russian operation it would be over by now . All points to a secret love of war sadly which may be a human condition more prevalent in politicos . We even have had somebody this morning calling post WW2 UK and US troops pussies for not loving bayoneting people.
"All points to a secret love of war "
I really don't see much of that. There's a lot of anger about Russia's actions, but I think most (everyone?) on here would be happy if the Russians just retreated back over the border without any more shots being fired. That would be a happy dream to me.
But we're facing an aggressor capable of evil acts. In the light of that, and their future ambitions, people are scared.
In fact, I'd argue that fear is the predominant feeling on here.
I think as well that's one reason we're analysing events so much.
But there is another. With maybe three exceptions, none of our regular posters have much knowledge of the military, so we're trying to make sense of things that are outside our experience and the only way we can is the normal way - news reports and information on the relative strengths of the parties.
So far, these aren't proving very fruitful for making sense of what's happening. Russia are doing much less well than they themselves expected, and their actions lack logic based on such information as we have. So we're puzzled as well as fearful.
It's possible of course that the reason why things don't make sense is that the Russian high command are totally mad and stupid. But that's an even more alarming thought.
The Modi government's refusal to condemn the Russian invasion shows that we need to be a bit more careful about rushing to embrace India than we have been up to now.
Round up of financial news: in addition to exclusion from the Swift system and direct sanctions on the Russian central bank, our old friends from the GFC, the credit rating agencies, have reappeared. Moody's has placed Russia's credit rating under review, whilst S&P has already downgraded Russia to junk. Add to that reports from American officials that China has thus far declined to help Russia to evade Western sanctions, and the Russian economy is being increasingly unplugged from the rest of the world. Access to import and export markets being choked off, and much of its stockpile of foreign exchange reserves will be rendered useless.
Russia is a middle income country, with a population of 144 million but an economy smaller than South Korea. It's self-sufficient in vital basic resources (oil, gas, electricity generation, food) but if it ends up being cut off from both Western and Chinese trade and technology over time then it is really going to suffer. Good.
On the refugee question, some serious thought needs to go in to this beyond the usual irrationality. We must confront the hard reality that there is no housing in the UK for refugees from Ukraine, and what exists in the private sector is of low quality and expensive. It is not a good place to resettle vulnerable people fleeing warzones. For people who have skills and can be self sufficient though, it is a different story.
I think we should look to countries in Eastern Europe. Much of the problems in the EU have been caused by their opposition to taking in refugees from Asia and Africa, on the grounds of cultural differences, resulting in large scale migration of these people to Northern European countries. Isn't this an opportunity for Hungary and Poland to seriously step up and do their bit?
Nominally, the war is about the fate of disputed territory in the East of the Ukraine.
In reality, the war is about the desire of the Ukraine to join the EU/NATO. This is opposed by Russia.
But, does the EU/NATO actually want Ukraine to join them ? Are these organisations going to welcome whatever Ukrainian state remains after Putin's barbarism ?
The fate of the Ukrainian refugees is a critical test of the West in all this.
If Ukraine were to join the EU, there would be large scale migration to the West through freedom of movement. The only other parts of the former USSR to join -- the much smaller Baltic states -- suffered very large drops in their populations (& those countries were comparatively prosperous compared to Ukraine). Hence, the EU has been -- it is fair to say -- rather circumspect about the consequences of the much larger & poorer Ukraine joining.
However, we now have a war that is likely to generate millions of refugees. The longer and bloodier the war, the more refugees. If this turns out to be a prolonged, bloody war of attrition, then ~ 5 million refugees (UN estimate) may well be on the low side.
So, the treatment of these refugees by the West now seems to me to be critical test of our integrity.
War means refugees. You don't get one without the other.
The counter-argument would be that, if we're getting the refugees anyway, the consequences of joining the EU may not be so bad. Similarly with NATO - the fear was that Ukraine joining would bring us into a conflict with Russia. Now the conflict has happened - in the eventuality that Russia is eventually defeated such that Ukraine becomes free and able to join - the consequences aren't so bad; for the foreseeable, we're faced up against Russia already.
I have always guarded against optimism in relation to anything to do with Putin, because he always seems to win. This winning will ultimately come to an end at some point, but it is too early to make that call in relation to the current situation in Ukraine.
The war's only been going for two fucking days. There are many, many dark days ahead when those that have the resolve to do so must play their part by witlessly speculating on made up shit they've seen on Twitter.
It'll all be over by (Orthodox) Christmas.
I so want Ukraine to win. I have to keep telling myself that I'm viewing the news with that hope in mind, skewing my perceptions - and through a media that generally wants Ukraine to win as well.
I'd feel much better about saying how the war was going if we knew what Russia's strategy was at the beginning. It's perfectly possible that it is all going well to some plan. It's also possible that they've hit large problems and are having to change strategy.
Any plan that the Russians had went out of the window on day one as is the case in most wars. Nobody knows what the fuck is going on as is also the case in most wars. Least of all those blowing the shit out each other on the front line.
A bayonet is a weapon with a worker at both ends, as Father Lenin said.
A fine quotation. The best commentary I have read so far. There is something uniquely ugly at this time in history seeing a bunch of young people on both sides disgorging each other as proxy for leaders who wish to fulfill their ambitions.
It's even uglier reading commentators from the sidelines cheering their sides on while taking no active part. This is 2022. If there aren't other ways of resolving this then we should be living in caves
Hang on a minute. In the case of Ukraine, what evil 'ambition' does Zelenskyy have aside from keeping his country free?
Don't equate Ukraine and Russia in this.
I can't see a lot of difference between a young Russian conscript in a tank being shot to pieces or another young Russian/Ukrainian conscript being shot to pieces. Neither are making decisions and neither can do anything about the situation they find themselves in.
What happened to the Gandhi method? See what the Russians can do with 50,000,000 citizens engaging in civil disobedience with the rest of the world giving them every support other than military
Whilst I dont go fully with what Roger is saying , it is getting tedious on here listening to many glorifying killing and posting (sometimes fakes) reports from twitter about it. Also the armchair generals who based on nothing are talking as if the collective PB was in charge of the Russian operation it would be over by now . All points to a secret love of war sadly which may be a human condition more prevalent in politicos . We even have had somebody this morning calling post WW2 UK and US troops pussies for not loving bayoneting people.
I don't think anyone loves war on here, we all want to see Putin out of power as soon as possible.
I have always guarded against optimism in relation to anything to do with Putin, because he always seems to win. This winning will ultimately come to an end at some point, but it is too early to make that call in relation to the current situation in Ukraine.
The war's only been going for two fucking days. There are many, many dark days ahead when those that have the resolve to do so must play their part by witlessly speculating on made up shit they've seen on Twitter.
It'll all be over by (Orthodox) Christmas.
I so want Ukraine to win. I have to keep telling myself that I'm viewing the news with that hope in mind, skewing my perceptions - and through a media that generally wants Ukraine to win as well.
I'd feel much better about saying how the war was going if we knew what Russia's strategy was at the beginning. It's perfectly possible that it is all going well to some plan. It's also possible that they've hit large problems and are having to change strategy.
Any plan that the Russians had went out of the window on day one as is the case in most wars. Nobody knows what the fuck is going on as is also the case in most wars. Least of all those blowing the shit out each other on the front line.
A bayonet is a weapon with a worker at both ends, as Father Lenin said.
A fine quotation. The best commentary I have read so far. There is something uniquely ugly at this time in history seeing a bunch of young people on both sides disgorging each other as proxy for leaders who wish to fulfill their ambitions.
It's even uglier reading commentators from the sidelines cheering their sides on while taking no active part. This is 2022. If there aren't other ways of resolving this then we should be living in caves
Are you serious? Are you suggesting both sides are to blame for this? Seriously?
He’s just taking the opportunity to virtue signal. Those ‘cheering on’ the Ukrainians should clearly be maintaining more decorum rather than voicing full throated support, admittedly from their sofas.
Reading Sandpit’s earlier post about how even seemingly trivial gestures of support (like the Simpsons pic) are actually boosting Ukrainian morale, you can see why the above plan would be welcomed by the Kremlin…
I'm usually very dismissive of gestures and virtue-signalling, which I see as self-absorbed narcissism.
However, if it's helping Ukrainian morale then I'm all for it.
Mr. B2, religion has been cause or a factor in many wars, but it was rarely a concern in the ancient world which saw even more of it. And young men have a predilection for violence naturally.
Ukraine’s President Volodymyr Zelenskiy is asked foreign citizens around the world to join in the war against Russia.
by Decree of the President of Ukraine #248 of June 10, 2016, foreigners have the right to join the Armed Forces of Ukraine for military service under Contract of a voluntary basis to be included in the Territorial Defence Forces of the Armed Forced of Ukraine.
A separate subdivision is being formed of foreigners entitled the International Legion for the Territorial Defence of Ukraine. There is no greater contribution which you can make for the sake of peace.”
A better idea in this situation, in my view, than the Gandhi method.
I think it’s a very bad idea, the foreign forces subdivision. Plays into Russian propaganda about Ukraine resistance being Western backed. inevitably someone from Western Europe would end up getting captured and paraded on TV. Remember how the US used this to their advantage in Afghanistan with Arab AQ fighters.
Yes, compared to his excellent speech earlier on I don't think it's a good idea at all. We have a madman who's not only looking for various pretexts, but so far who's very clearly losing the information war, and will want new sources of propaganda.
On the refugee question, some serious thought needs to go in to this beyond the usual irrationality. We must confront the hard reality that there is no housing in the UK for refugees from Ukraine, and what exists in the private sector is of low quality and expensive. It is not a good place to resettle vulnerable people fleeing warzones. For people who have skills and can be self sufficient though, it is a different story.
I think we should look to countries in Eastern Europe. Much of the problems in the EU have been caused by their opposition to taking in refugees from Asia and Africa, on the grounds of cultural differences, resulting in large scale migration of these people to Northern European countries. Isn't this an opportunity for Hungary and Poland to seriously step up and do their bit?
So far the ones wanting to come here are those with family already in the UK, for whom entry rather than housing is the problem.
Yes - I suggested yesterday that people could be granted a visa on arrival where they have a sponsor (either a citizen or existing long term resident).
The Telegraph on Tory defence cuts, reducing the army to 72,000 soldiers with a mere 148 tanks and none of the armoured combat vehicles necessary alongside them; with eight infantry battalions down to four.
Meanwhile our war stocks of replacement vehicles, weapons and ammunition have been stripped bare by an ill-judged imitation of industry’s “just-in-time” policies – not for efficiency but to save money. We sent only 2,000 anti-tank missiles to Ukraine and I suspect we don’t have many more to spare. https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2022/02/26/age-conventional-warfare-back-britain-isnt-ready/ (£££)
Yes, the military has been chronically underfunded for decades. Including during Blair's time in power - remember the wizard wheeze where one of the carriers was technically fit for duty in a month, when it had had most of its engines removed for spares for its sisters?
Mistakes in defence procurement pale into insignificance compared to the disastrous decision of Miliband to vote against intervention in Syria. We are where we are now, in part, because of that decision. Oh, and how some people on here cheered it on! They got one over the government! Hurrah!
The mass bombing of Syria government positions when Isis were in the ascendant would have been an absolute catastrophe. Isis may have overrun the entire region, attacked Israel and Lebanon too, and it still be in utter chaos. Miliband's intervention may well have averted an even worse disaster than Iraq, and was quite possibly even one of the most important by a British politician in the forty or fifty years since Harold Wilson and Vietnam.
Your scenario is very weak. Let me give a much stronger one, one backed up by events:
Letting Assad get away with using chemical weapons showed the west as being utterly weak and divided, not willing to stand up to our principles. It created a power vacuum that Putin felt he could step into, gave Russia vital military skills, led to Salisbury, and has directly led to the invasion of Ukraine
We were faced with two evils. We chose the one that went directly against our values, and Putin noticed that. He also noticed that we would back down.
This was exactly the form of reasoning the led up to the invasion of Iraq, but now chaos had already been inflicted by the prior failed intervention, and Isis were gobbling up territory throughout the region at an incredible pace. The results would have been too awful to contemplate, and we were spared an unmitigated disaster.
That's rubbish.
Assad used chemical weapons against his own population. We let him get away with it, and emboldened Russia (and others) in the process.
Either we have values or we do not. Syria showed we have fuck-all values.
So did Saddam. We didn't let him get away with it, and it ended in absolute disaster.
There's not really any relationship between that and the current situation. Putin turned his face against the West five years before, and nothing was done ; Syria wasn't much more than a confirmation of that. The West was effectively silent when he intervened in Georgia, and later South Ossetia, again five years before, which also coincided with the start of his attacks on civil society. That's when and where the deterrence angle really does have some merit.
We did let Saddam get away with it. The Halabja Massacre was in 1988, and AFAICR he had used them before that as well. We only invaded Iraq three years later after they invaded Kuwait.
No, Syria was a real turning point - although one of several. An evil had been done. Western governments were proclaiming it was an evil, but then, thanks to Miliband, we did nothing about that evil. This had two significant effects: 1) It told Russia that when push came to shove, we were divided and weak - and they could divide and weaken us more. 2) It allowed Russia to step into the vacuum, and believe they could win. 3) The west was unwilling to do anything military against evil.
Salisbury was a direct result of it. So is this.
Oddly, this still holds together even for the nutjobs who believe that that Assad did not use chemical weapons against his own population.
It would have emboldened and enabled an even more rapidly growing evil than Asad at the time - Isis - and made very little difference to Putin's opinion of the West, which was already entirely contemptuous. This is the transference of moral pride onto the grim strategic realities and equations on the ground at the time, I would say, and I think is more a kind of wish fulfilment.
Assad has probably killed more people than ISIS. But it's like comparing Hitler and Mao: both were evil men, and comparing their hideous crimes becomes pointless after a while. Just accept they were, and did, evil.
But the point remains: we have values. You do not use chemical weapons. He did. We did nothing.
We told evil people in the world that we would not stand up for our values.
And then Salisbury.
I remain a little confused as to your posts about Syria. Standing up to the evil Assad regime and replacing them with the psychotic Islamic State regime was a better option because...?
I was very pleased that we didn't enmesh ourselves in a civil war where there appeared to be about 4 sides fighting none of whom were the good guys.
You evidently have not read my posts then. firstly, it was not simply a case of replacing them with ISIS. The situation was much more complex than that. It created a vacuum that Russia gladly stepped into.
But most importantly, it is to do with standing up for our values. Thanks to Miliband, the west did not. He stopped the UK taking part, which stopped the US. The use of chemical weapons became acceptable: the poor mans nukes.
Then Salisbury.
It also showed that the west was divided when it come to defending values. Putin got the message that he could do whatever he wants, and we would argue amongst ourselves and not respond.
I hope he's wrong.
I guess you agreed with his u-turn, which might be why you're keen not to accept the consequences it has had.
You keep saying "standing up for our values" and I agree. But always realpolitik - and IIRC one of the chemical weapons attacks by Assad was done as the UN arrived to inspect for chemical weapons which Assad claimed not to have...
The situation absolutely was complex - at least 4 factions one of which was Assad another of which was ISIS. In the midst of all that there was a very real risk that a bad situation in Syria becomes a bad situation across the region. However bad Assad is - and he's a monster - he wasn't a direct threat to western society like ISIS. Hence the need for realpolitik. You don't stand up for your values by allowing psychotics to replace the bad man and foster jihad globally.
Posts on PB at the moment are really interesting but worse informed than usual. Thanks to our posters in the know for keeping us straight. But let the speculation continue.
A few people are noting the human tragedy of young men killing each other. I've found the glorification of the Ukrainian effort oddly enticing, so I'll reflect on that myself.
The problem is these posters tend to be the usual suspects. It seems to me to be an advanced form of whataboutery, and allows them to avoid facing down their disgraceful pro-Putin instincts. See all the corporate calls for "peace" by F1 and FIFA, etc. I've been much more impressed by Sturgeon, the Irish, who have anti-NATO tendencies but have the moral courage to recognise Putin for what he is.
I have always guarded against optimism in relation to anything to do with Putin, because he always seems to win. This winning will ultimately come to an end at some point, but it is too early to make that call in relation to the current situation in Ukraine.
The war's only been going for two fucking days. There are many, many dark days ahead when those that have the resolve to do so must play their part by witlessly speculating on made up shit they've seen on Twitter.
It'll all be over by (Orthodox) Christmas.
I so want Ukraine to win. I have to keep telling myself that I'm viewing the news with that hope in mind, skewing my perceptions - and through a media that generally wants Ukraine to win as well.
I'd feel much better about saying how the war was going if we knew what Russia's strategy was at the beginning. It's perfectly possible that it is all going well to some plan. It's also possible that they've hit large problems and are having to change strategy.
Any plan that the Russians had went out of the window on day one as is the case in most wars. Nobody knows what the fuck is going on as is also the case in most wars. Least of all those blowing the shit out each other on the front line.
A bayonet is a weapon with a worker at both ends, as Father Lenin said.
A fine quotation. The best commentary I have read so far. There is something uniquely ugly at this time in history seeing a bunch of young people on both sides disgorging each other as proxy for leaders who wish to fulfill their ambitions.
It's even uglier reading commentators from the sidelines cheering their sides on while taking no active part. This is 2022. If there aren't other ways of resolving this then we should be living in caves
Hang on a minute. In the case of Ukraine, what evil 'ambition' does Zelenskyy have aside from keeping his country free?
Don't equate Ukraine and Russia in this.
I can't see a lot of difference between a young Russian conscript in a tank being shot to pieces or another young Russian/Ukrainian conscript being shot to pieces. Neither are making decisions and neither can do anything about the situation they find themselves in.
What happened to the Gandhi method? See what the Russians can do with 50,000,000 citizens engaging in civil disobedience with the rest of the world giving them every support other than military
The Gandhi method got made redundant by the Tiananmen Square method. The one where you hose the remains of the civilly disobedient off your tank tracks.
I have always guarded against optimism in relation to anything to do with Putin, because he always seems to win. This winning will ultimately come to an end at some point, but it is too early to make that call in relation to the current situation in Ukraine.
The war's only been going for two fucking days. There are many, many dark days ahead when those that have the resolve to do so must play their part by witlessly speculating on made up shit they've seen on Twitter.
It'll all be over by (Orthodox) Christmas.
I so want Ukraine to win. I have to keep telling myself that I'm viewing the news with that hope in mind, skewing my perceptions - and through a media that generally wants Ukraine to win as well.
I'd feel much better about saying how the war was going if we knew what Russia's strategy was at the beginning. It's perfectly possible that it is all going well to some plan. It's also possible that they've hit large problems and are having to change strategy.
Any plan that the Russians had went out of the window on day one as is the case in most wars. Nobody knows what the fuck is going on as is also the case in most wars. Least of all those blowing the shit out each other on the front line.
A bayonet is a weapon with a worker at both ends, as Father Lenin said.
A fine quotation. The best commentary I have read so far. There is something uniquely ugly at this time in history seeing a bunch of young people on both sides disgorging each other as proxy for leaders who wish to fulfill their ambitions.
It's even uglier reading commentators from the sidelines cheering their sides on while taking no active part. This is 2022. If there aren't other ways of resolving this then we should be living in caves
Are you serious? Are you suggesting both sides are to blame for this? Seriously?
Read the quote supplied by Dura Ace earlier that I was referring to
"A bayonet is a weapon with a worker at both ends" as Father Lenin said.
The point of that quote is that those doing the dying are taking the pain for non-workers who are safely away in their seats of power.
The issue with warfare has always been how older men with power can get younger men to fight and die to defend and expand it. It is why religion proved such a useful tool for rulers.
I think the Ukraine leadership recognise this in their decision to stay and fight in the capital.
On the refugee question, some serious thought needs to go in to this beyond the usual irrationality. We must confront the hard reality that there is no housing in the UK for refugees from Ukraine, and what exists in the private sector is of low quality and expensive. It is not a good place to resettle vulnerable people fleeing warzones. For people who have skills and can be self sufficient though, it is a different story.
I think we should look to countries in Eastern Europe. Much of the problems in the EU have been caused by their opposition to taking in refugees from Asia and Africa, on the grounds of cultural differences, resulting in large scale migration of these people to Northern European countries. Isn't this an opportunity for Hungary and Poland to seriously step up and do their bit?
So far the ones wanting to come here are those with family already in the UK, for whom entry rather than housing is the problem.
Yes - I suggested yesterday that people could be granted a visa on arrival where they have a sponsor (either a citizen or existing long term resident).
The Modi government's refusal to condemn the Russian invasion shows that we need to be a bit more careful about rushing to embrace India than we have been up to now.
India is still a largely agrarian society, and is heavily dependent on imports of fertiliser from plants in Russia, with which it has long standing economic ties stretching back into the Soviet era. Consideration should be given to how India can be helped to become more self-sufficient in this area.
"Truss: No 'significant' changes on the ground in Ukraine overnight Asked for an update on the situation on the ground, the foreign secretary said: "What we're seeing is that Ukrainian forces are continuing to resist Russian advances, we haven't seen overnight significant changes in what is happening on the ground but we are seeing... very, very strong and brave Ukrainian resistance." Ms Truss said this resistance is likely to have been unexpected to the Russians."
Ukraine’s President Volodymyr Zelenskiy is asked foreign citizens around the world to join in the war against Russia.
by Decree of the President of Ukraine #248 of June 10, 2016, foreigners have the right to join the Armed Forces of Ukraine for military service under Contract of a voluntary basis to be included in the Territorial Defence Forces of the Armed Forced of Ukraine.
A separate subdivision is being formed of foreigners entitled the International Legion for the Territorial Defence of Ukraine. There is no greater contribution which you can make for the sake of peace.”
On the face of it, this is a great idea. Thinking about it a bit more deeply and I wonder if it is - at least from a non-Ukrainian perspective. 1. If nationals from NATO countries get involved, there is a pretext for Putin to claim NATO itself is attacking Russia. At a minimum, that may swing wavering support in Russia behind him. 2. You don't know who is going to join up and where that leads to after the Ukraine conflict ends. Bosnia was a training ground for many irregulars whose subsequent activities were directly contrary to our interests.
There is also the risk of various less desirable elements thinking it might be a good way to go get given a free gun.
The Telegraph on Tory defence cuts, reducing the army to 72,000 soldiers with a mere 148 tanks and none of the armoured combat vehicles necessary alongside them; with eight infantry battalions down to four.
Meanwhile our war stocks of replacement vehicles, weapons and ammunition have been stripped bare by an ill-judged imitation of industry’s “just-in-time” policies – not for efficiency but to save money. We sent only 2,000 anti-tank missiles to Ukraine and I suspect we don’t have many more to spare. https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2022/02/26/age-conventional-warfare-back-britain-isnt-ready/ (£££)
Yes, the military has been chronically underfunded for decades. Including during Blair's time in power - remember the wizard wheeze where one of the carriers was technically fit for duty in a month, when it had had most of its engines removed for spares for its sisters?
Mistakes in defence procurement pale into insignificance compared to the disastrous decision of Miliband to vote against intervention in Syria. We are where we are now, in part, because of that decision. Oh, and how some people on here cheered it on! They got one over the government! Hurrah!
The mass bombing of Syria government positions when Isis were in the ascendant would have been an absolute catastrophe. Isis may have overrun the entire region, attacked Israel and Lebanon too, and it still be in utter chaos. Miliband's intervention may well have averted an even worse disaster than Iraq, and was quite possibly even one of the most important by a British politician in the forty or fifty years since Harold Wilson and Vietnam.
Your scenario is very weak. Let me give a much stronger one, one backed up by events:
Letting Assad get away with using chemical weapons showed the west as being utterly weak and divided, not willing to stand up to our principles. It created a power vacuum that Putin felt he could step into, gave Russia vital military skills, led to Salisbury, and has directly led to the invasion of Ukraine
We were faced with two evils. We chose the one that went directly against our values, and Putin noticed that. He also noticed that we would back down.
This was exactly the form of reasoning the led up to the invasion of Iraq, but now chaos had already been inflicted by the prior failed intervention, and Isis were gobbling up territory throughout the region at an incredible pace. The results would have been too awful to contemplate, and we were spared an unmitigated disaster.
That's rubbish.
Assad used chemical weapons against his own population. We let him get away with it, and emboldened Russia (and others) in the process.
Either we have values or we do not. Syria showed we have fuck-all values.
So did Saddam. We didn't let him get away with it, and it ended in absolute disaster.
There's not really any relationship between that and the current situation. Putin turned his face against the West five years before, and nothing was done ; Syria wasn't much more than a confirmation of that. The West was effectively silent when he intervened in Georgia, and later South Ossetia, again five years before, which also coincided with the start of his attacks on civil society. That's when and where the deterrence angle really does have some merit.
We did let Saddam get away with it. The Halabja Massacre was in 1988, and AFAICR he had used them before that as well. We only invaded Iraq three years later after they invaded Kuwait.
No, Syria was a real turning point - although one of several. An evil had been done. Western governments were proclaiming it was an evil, but then, thanks to Miliband, we did nothing about that evil. This had two significant effects: 1) It told Russia that when push came to shove, we were divided and weak - and they could divide and weaken us more. 2) It allowed Russia to step into the vacuum, and believe they could win. 3) The west was unwilling to do anything military against evil.
Salisbury was a direct result of it. So is this.
Oddly, this still holds together even for the nutjobs who believe that that Assad did not use chemical weapons against his own population.
It would have emboldened and enabled an even more rapidly growing evil than Asad at the time - Isis - and made very little difference to Putin's opinion of the West, which was already entirely contemptuous. This is the transference of moral pride onto the grim strategic realities and equations on the ground at the time, I would say, and I think is more a kind of wish fulfilment.
Assad has probably killed more people than ISIS. But it's like comparing Hitler and Mao: both were evil men, and comparing their hideous crimes becomes pointless after a while. Just accept they were, and did, evil.
But the point remains: we have values. You do not use chemical weapons. He did. We did nothing.
We told evil people in the world that we would not stand up for our values.
And then Salisbury.
I remain a little confused as to your posts about Syria. Standing up to the evil Assad regime and replacing them with the psychotic Islamic State regime was a better option because...?
I was very pleased that we didn't enmesh ourselves in a civil war where there appeared to be about 4 sides fighting none of whom were the good guys.
You evidently have not read my posts then. firstly, it was not simply a case of replacing them with ISIS. The situation was much more complex than that. It created a vacuum that Russia gladly stepped into.
But most importantly, it is to do with standing up for our values. Thanks to Miliband, the west did not. He stopped the UK taking part, which stopped the US. The use of chemical weapons became acceptable: the poor mans nukes.
Then Salisbury.
It also showed that the west was divided when it come to defending values. Putin got the message that he could do whatever he wants, and we would argue amongst ourselves and not respond.
I hope he's wrong.
I guess you agreed with his u-turn, which might be why you're keen not to accept the consequences it has had.
You keep saying "standing up for our values" and I agree. But always realpolitik - and IIRC one of the chemical weapons attacks by Assad was done as the UN arrived to inspect for chemical weapons which Assad claimed not to have...
The situation absolutely was complex - at least 4 factions one of which was Assad another of which was ISIS. In the midst of all that there was a very real risk that a bad situation in Syria becomes a bad situation across the region. However bad Assad is - and he's a monster - he wasn't a direct threat to western society like ISIS. Hence the need for realpolitik. You don't stand up for your values by allowing psychotics to replace the bad man and foster jihad globally.
I utterly disagree with your last paragraph.
This was predictable. I believe (though I have not done so) that if you go back to that period, you will see me saying how destabilising the decision would be for the world. And so it has been.
In this case 'realpolitilk' is just a synonym for "I don't want to admit it, but we f*cked up."
On the refugee question, some serious thought needs to go in to this beyond the usual irrationality. We must confront the hard reality that there is no housing in the UK for refugees from Ukraine, and what exists in the private sector is of low quality and expensive. It is not a good place to resettle vulnerable people fleeing warzones. For people who have skills and can be self sufficient though, it is a different story.
I think we should look to countries in Eastern Europe. Much of the problems in the EU have been caused by their opposition to taking in refugees from Asia and Africa, on the grounds of cultural differences, resulting in large scale migration of these people to Northern European countries. Isn't this an opportunity for Hungary and Poland to seriously step up and do their bit?
Nominally, the war is about the fate of disputed territory in the East of the Ukraine.
In reality, the war is about the desire of the Ukraine to join the EU/NATO. This is opposed by Russia.
But, does the EU/NATO actually want Ukraine to join them ? Are these organisations going to welcome whatever Ukrainian state remains after Putin's barbarism ?
The fate of the Ukrainian refugees is a critical test of the West in all this.
If Ukraine were to join the EU, there would be large scale migration to the West through freedom of movement. The only other parts of the former USSR to join -- the much smaller Baltic states -- suffered very large drops in their populations (& those countries were comparatively prosperous compared to Ukraine). Hence, the EU has been -- it is fair to say -- rather circumspect about the consequences of the much larger & poorer Ukraine joining.
However, we now have a war that is likely to generate millions of refugees. The longer and bloodier the war, the more refugees. If this turns out to be a prolonged, bloody war of attrition, then ~ 5 million refugees (UN estimate) may well be on the low side.
So, the treatment of these refugees by the West now seems to me to be critical test of our integrity.
War means refugees. You don't get one without the other.
The counter-argument would be that, if we're getting the refugees anyway, the consequences of joining the EU may not be so bad. Similarly with NATO - the fear was that Ukraine joining would bring us into a conflict with Russia. Now the conflict has happened - in the eventuality that Russia is eventually defeated such that Ukraine becomes free and able to join - the consequences aren't so bad; for the foreseeable, we're faced up against Russia already.
Let's see what happens, shall we?
I am happy to take Ukrainian refugees, for avoidance of doubt.
I would place them in the UK in direct proportion to the bellicosity of the posters on pb,com.
Those pretty Cambridgeshire villages, the Wiltshire countryside
But, I expect that is where the refugees will not end up.
The Modi government's refusal to condemn the Russian invasion shows that we need to be a bit more careful about rushing to embrace India than we have been up to now.
India is still a largely agrarian society, and is heavily dependent on imports of fertiliser from plants in Russia, with which it has long standing economic ties stretching back into the Soviet era. Consideration should be given to how India can be helped to become more self-sufficient in this area.
Modi, Erdogan and Putin also all have a fair amount in common, although so far Modi is earliest and most partly recoverable, and amenable, down the road.
The Modi government's refusal to condemn the Russian invasion shows that we need to be a bit more careful about rushing to embrace India than we have been up to now.
India is still a largely agrarian society, and is heavily dependent on imports of fertiliser from plants in Russia, with which it has long standing economic ties stretching back into the Soviet era. Consideration should be given to how India can be helped to become more self-sufficient in this area.
India is a country I keep thinking I should sort of understand, and then its geopolitics surprises me.
I can never really predict their position or reliability, or indeed where their sympathies really lie.
The Modi government's refusal to condemn the Russian invasion shows that we need to be a bit more careful about rushing to embrace India than we have been up to now.
India is still a largely agrarian society, and is heavily dependent on imports of fertiliser from plants in Russia, with which it has long standing economic ties stretching back into the Soviet era. Consideration should be given to how India can be helped to become more self-sufficient in this area.
India is a country I keep thinking I should sort of understand, and then its geopolitics surprises me.
I can never really predict their position or reliability, or indeed where their sympathies really lie.
I used to travel to India on business a fair bit (Pakistan and Bangladesh too). The only certainty I had about India was the more I saw of it in business and politics, the less I understood it.
In February 2020, just 2 years ago, 52 of 53 Republican senators voted to allow (then) President Trump to block congressionally authorized sale of critical military supplies to the courageous President Zelensky of Ukraine, unless Ukraine manufactured anti-Democratic propaganda. https://twitter.com/DavMicRot/status/1497581887941918720
I wouldn't be surprised if Trump and the Republicans ultimately realise they are on the wrong side in Ukraine, and do a sharp and shameless U turn. The Ukrainians look like the better fighters in the PR war. The possibility that he will be back in less than 3 years time makes it urgent that we act now on Russia.
What I am pleased about is the fact that we have Johnson and the Conservatives in power rather than Corbyn and the labour party. I'm also pleased that Corbyn and his followers have been consigned to the political wilderness, and that their views on international affairs are not being humoured, or given any airtime even, at all.
Nothing good about the bunch of no users running the UK, we would be better with anyone other than this lot in power.
The Modi government's refusal to condemn the Russian invasion shows that we need to be a bit more careful about rushing to embrace India than we have been up to now.
India is still a largely agrarian society, and is heavily dependent on imports of fertiliser from plants in Russia, with which it has long standing economic ties stretching back into the Soviet era. Consideration should be given to how India can be helped to become more self-sufficient in this area.
India is a country I keep thinking I should sort of understand, and then its geopolitics surprises me.
I can never really predict their position or reliability, or indeed where their sympathies really lie.
Kerala has had (relatively successful) communist government pretty much continuously since the 1950s.
Ukraine’s President Volodymyr Zelenskiy is asked foreign citizens around the world to join in the war against Russia.
by Decree of the President of Ukraine #248 of June 10, 2016, foreigners have the right to join the Armed Forces of Ukraine for military service under Contract of a voluntary basis to be included in the Territorial Defence Forces of the Armed Forced of Ukraine.
A separate subdivision is being formed of foreigners entitled the International Legion for the Territorial Defence of Ukraine. There is no greater contribution which you can make for the sake of peace.”
On the face of it, this is a great idea. Thinking about it a bit more deeply and I wonder if it is - at least from a non-Ukrainian perspective. 1. If nationals from NATO countries get involved, there is a pretext for Putin to claim NATO itself is attacking Russia. At a minimum, that may swing wavering support in Russia behind him. 2. You don't know who is going to join up and where that leads to after the Ukraine conflict ends. Bosnia was a training ground for many irregulars whose subsequent activities were directly contrary to our interests.
There is also the risk of various less desirable elements thinking it might be a good way to go get given a free gun.
On the refugee question, some serious thought needs to go in to this beyond the usual irrationality. We must confront the hard reality that there is no housing in the UK for refugees from Ukraine, and what exists in the private sector is of low quality and expensive. It is not a good place to resettle vulnerable people fleeing warzones. For people who have skills and can be self sufficient though, it is a different story.
I think we should look to countries in Eastern Europe. Much of the problems in the EU have been caused by their opposition to taking in refugees from Asia and Africa, on the grounds of cultural differences, resulting in large scale migration of these people to Northern European countries. Isn't this an opportunity for Hungary and Poland to seriously step up and do their bit?
Nominally, the war is about the fate of disputed territory in the East of the Ukraine.
In reality, the war is about the desire of the Ukraine to join the EU/NATO. This is opposed by Russia.
But, does the EU/NATO actually want Ukraine to join them ? Are these organisations going to welcome whatever Ukrainian state remains after Putin's barbarism ?
The fate of the Ukrainian refugees is a critical test of the West in all this.
If Ukraine were to join the EU, there would be large scale migration to the West through freedom of movement. The only other parts of the former USSR to join -- the much smaller Baltic states -- suffered very large drops in their populations (& those countries were comparatively prosperous compared to Ukraine). Hence, the EU has been -- it is fair to say -- rather circumspect about the consequences of the much larger & poorer Ukraine joining.
However, we now have a war that is likely to generate millions of refugees. The longer and bloodier the war, the more refugees. If this turns out to be a prolonged, bloody war of attrition, then ~ 5 million refugees (UN estimate) may well be on the low side.
So, the treatment of these refugees by the West now seems to me to be critical test of our integrity.
War means refugees. You don't get one without the other.
The counter-argument would be that, if we're getting the refugees anyway, the consequences of joining the EU may not be so bad. Similarly with NATO - the fear was that Ukraine joining would bring us into a conflict with Russia. Now the conflict has happened - in the eventuality that Russia is eventually defeated such that Ukraine becomes free and able to join - the consequences aren't so bad; for the foreseeable, we're faced up against Russia already.
Let's see what happens, shall we?
I am happy to take Ukrainian refugees, for avoidance of doubt.
I would place them in the UK in direct proportion to the bellicosity of the posters on pb,com.
Those pretty Cambridgeshire villages, the Wiltshire countryside
But, I expect that is where the refugees will not end up.
They will end up in shitholes like Gateshead and Middlesbrough in the North East. They won’t be put into nicer parts of the country.
I have always guarded against optimism in relation to anything to do with Putin, because he always seems to win. This winning will ultimately come to an end at some point, but it is too early to make that call in relation to the current situation in Ukraine.
The war's only been going for two fucking days. There are many, many dark days ahead when those that have the resolve to do so must play their part by witlessly speculating on made up shit they've seen on Twitter.
It'll all be over by (Orthodox) Christmas.
I so want Ukraine to win. I have to keep telling myself that I'm viewing the news with that hope in mind, skewing my perceptions - and through a media that generally wants Ukraine to win as well.
I'd feel much better about saying how the war was going if we knew what Russia's strategy was at the beginning. It's perfectly possible that it is all going well to some plan. It's also possible that they've hit large problems and are having to change strategy.
Any plan that the Russians had went out of the window on day one as is the case in most wars. Nobody knows what the fuck is going on as is also the case in most wars. Least of all those blowing the shit out each other on the front line.
A bayonet is a weapon with a worker at both ends, as Father Lenin said.
A fine quotation. The best commentary I have read so far. There is something uniquely ugly at this time in history seeing a bunch of young people on both sides disgorging each other as proxy for leaders who wish to fulfill their ambitions.
It's even uglier reading commentators from the sidelines cheering their sides on while taking no active part. This is 2022. If there aren't other ways of resolving this then we should be living in caves
Hang on a minute. In the case of Ukraine, what evil 'ambition' does Zelenskyy have aside from keeping his country free?
Don't equate Ukraine and Russia in this.
I can't see a lot of difference between a young Russian conscript in a tank being shot to pieces or another young Russian/Ukrainian conscript being shot to pieces. Neither are making decisions and neither can do anything about the situation they find themselves in.
What happened to the Gandhi method? See what the Russians can do with 50,000,000 citizens engaging in civil disobedience with the rest of the world giving them every support other than military
We even have had somebody this morning calling post WW2 UK and US troops pussies for not loving bayoneting people.
That's just one particularly toxic poster who, for reasons that baffle me, the moderators insist on indulging on this site.
The US sanctions on the Russian central bank could result in the Ruble going into free fall as it can no longer be defended by selling dollar reseves.
It really feels like financial sanctions have really been stepped up quite significantly from an initially slow start. I hope we continue to find ways to tighten them further.
After feeling some optimism yesterday, I’ve got a gut punch feeling that Vlad is playing rope a dope. Sending in conscripts as cannon fodder to degrade Ukraine’s professional army, and older tanks as magnets for the NLAWs. Saving up the crack troops and better equipment to mop up in Ukraine / for the fight with NATO.
Are we certain it's actually all out of date equipment and useless conscripts? If my "elite" forces, paratroops, and equipment were failing disastrously I'd probably put it about that this was just the garbage stuff and you should just wait til we send in the real thing.
One reads (albeit that this story was both published in the Mail and derives from a war zone, so considerable caution is advised,) that the Chechen general reportedly killed recently died along with a substantial column of his men - some of Russia's best and most ruthless troops - and that 56 tanks were destroyed in the process. We also spent much of yesterday evening speculating about how much of Russia's theoretically vast conventional strength may actually exist only on paper. ISRC it being suggested that something like 13,000 of the Kremlin's 16,000 tanks are in reserve formations, and it is questionable how many of those actually exist and what fraction of the extant units are operational.
We also have to remember that Russia's armed forces are vastly larger than the UK's, but its defence budget is actually smaller. A lot of this will be accounted for by the fact that the Russian army is full of conscripts serving for miserable pay and conditions, and Russia is self-sufficient in oil, but ultimately you have to ask how far their limited resources are actually stretching, and how much of Russia's strength is unsupported financially and, therefore, exists only on paper?
Anyway, Kyiv still stands this morning but it is reported that the Russians have invaded Kharkiv. The latter may be a valuable indicator: if they are also, hopefully, repulsed there, it would suggest that the invasion is in serious trouble.
This is an excellent point.
I've said for a few years that Putin's Russia is not as powerful as people imagine it to be. Russia is poorer and more corrupt than Italy, and you wouldn't imagine Italy conquering Europe.
The only reason that Russia is considered strong is due to legacy and the fact that Putin has been funnelling as much as he can into his perceived strength - but the problem with that is there's nothing else behind the curtain and with a country as corrupt as Russia don't expect anywhere near as much as is claimed to make it to the front end.
Russia may still be too powerful for Ukraine, but I doubt they can occupy it for years and they may not even succeed in doing so to begin with it seems. They certainly aren't strong enough to have faced NATO in a conventional war.
As it stands they are now facing de facto NATO armoury
They are not facing NATO tanks and vehicles, they are not facing NATO planes, they are not facing the NATO troops, some of the finest anywhere on the planet.
They are facing a conveyor belt of very fine Ruskie-killing kit, however. Defensive kit they would have to face in any push into a NATO country. Where everything else in our armoury is waiting to kill them too.
A lot of posters are betraying a youth spent reading those pamphlet sized strip cartoon magazines about ww2 full of Germans saying kamerad. How do you know about the relative excellence of NATO troops? There's a pretty strong consensus that UK and US soldiers in ww2 were comparative pussies because overly squeamish about actually killing people at close quarters. I don't think things will have improved since then.
Nowadays I’d say it’s more squeamishness about getting killed at close quarters, a perfectly understandable attitude but not conducive to martial prowess. Russian commanders from Putin down still seem to have the old fashioned enthusiasm for feeding their own troops and their enemies into the mincing machine, hopefully the Russian people have become a bit more attached to self preservation, and more importantly the preservation of their sons, brothers and husbands.*
*Afaics the Russians seemed to have abandoned the Great Patriotic War policy of using women on the front line, but open to correction on this.
These calls occur at regular intervals, but always run up against two big problems:
1. "UK millionaires" also encompasses an awful lot of people who ideally want to pay less tax, and give lots of money to the Conservative Party to try to achieve this 2. Soaking the rich is insufficient. There are too few of them. And thus we come back to the eternal problem of wealthy middle-class old people and their immense store of property wealth, which no politician dare touch
Rich people who want to do a bit of redistribution will have to achieve it through philanthropy instead.
After feeling some optimism yesterday, I’ve got a gut punch feeling that Vlad is playing rope a dope. Sending in conscripts as cannon fodder to degrade Ukraine’s professional army, and older tanks as magnets for the NLAWs. Saving up the crack troops and better equipment to mop up in Ukraine / for the fight with NATO.
Are we certain it's actually all out of date equipment and useless conscripts? If my "elite" forces, paratroops, and equipment were failing disastrously I'd probably put it about that this was just the garbage stuff and you should just wait til we send in the real thing.
One reads (albeit that this story was both published in the Mail and derives from a war zone, so considerable caution is advised,) that the Chechen general reportedly killed recently died along with a substantial column of his men - some of Russia's best and most ruthless troops - and that 56 tanks were destroyed in the process. We also spent much of yesterday evening speculating about how much of Russia's theoretically vast conventional strength may actually exist only on paper. ISRC it being suggested that something like 13,000 of the Kremlin's 16,000 tanks are in reserve formations, and it is questionable how many of those actually exist and what fraction of the extant units are operational.
We also have to remember that Russia's armed forces are vastly larger than the UK's, but its defence budget is actually smaller. A lot of this will be accounted for by the fact that the Russian army is full of conscripts serving for miserable pay and conditions, and Russia is self-sufficient in oil, but ultimately you have to ask how far their limited resources are actually stretching, and how much of Russia's strength is unsupported financially and, therefore, exists only on paper?
Anyway, Kyiv still stands this morning but it is reported that the Russians have invaded Kharkiv. The latter may be a valuable indicator: if they are also, hopefully, repulsed there, it would suggest that the invasion is in serious trouble.
That point also occurred to me. The death of the Chechen general indicates that this may not be an army of clumsy conscripts.
It also tends to show that the Russians are overrated, remember they could not handle Afghanistan , fine when you are just bombing people from the sky but different kettle of fish when they are up against determined people on the ground.
On the refugee question, some serious thought needs to go in to this beyond the usual irrationality. We must confront the hard reality that there is no housing in the UK for refugees from Ukraine, and what exists in the private sector is of low quality and expensive. It is not a good place to resettle vulnerable people fleeing warzones. For people who have skills and can be self sufficient though, it is a different story.
I think we should look to countries in Eastern Europe. Much of the problems in the EU have been caused by their opposition to taking in refugees from Asia and Africa, on the grounds of cultural differences, resulting in large scale migration of these people to Northern European countries. Isn't this an opportunity for Hungary and Poland to seriously step up and do their bit?
Nominally, the war is about the fate of disputed territory in the East of the Ukraine.
In reality, the war is about the desire of the Ukraine to join the EU/NATO. This is opposed by Russia.
But, does the EU/NATO actually want Ukraine to join them ? Are these organisations going to welcome whatever Ukrainian state remains after Putin's barbarism ?
The fate of the Ukrainian refugees is a critical test of the West in all this.
If Ukraine were to join the EU, there would be large scale migration to the West through freedom of movement. The only other parts of the former USSR to join -- the much smaller Baltic states -- suffered very large drops in their populations (& those countries were comparatively prosperous compared to Ukraine). Hence, the EU has been -- it is fair to say -- rather circumspect about the consequences of the much larger & poorer Ukraine joining.
However, we now have a war that is likely to generate millions of refugees. The longer and bloodier the war, the more refugees. If this turns out to be a prolonged, bloody war of attrition, then ~ 5 million refugees (UN estimate) may well be on the low side.
So, the treatment of these refugees by the West now seems to me to be critical test of our integrity.
War means refugees. You don't get one without the other.
The counter-argument would be that, if we're getting the refugees anyway, the consequences of joining the EU may not be so bad. Similarly with NATO - the fear was that Ukraine joining would bring us into a conflict with Russia. Now the conflict has happened - in the eventuality that Russia is eventually defeated such that Ukraine becomes free and able to join - the consequences aren't so bad; for the foreseeable, we're faced up against Russia already.
Let's see what happens, shall we?
I am happy to take Ukrainian refugees, for avoidance of doubt.
I would place them in the UK in direct proportion to the bellicosity of the posters on pb,com.
Those pretty Cambridgeshire villages, the Wiltshire countryside
But, I expect that is where the refugees will not end up.
They will end up in shitholes like Gateshead and Middlesbrough in the North East. They won’t be put into nicer parts of the country.
Of course, I know that. Still back to Radio @JosiasJessop
The pretty parts of South East England are on a war footing.
Putin has strengthened the West hugely as a result of his actions. Biden has done an immense job in corralling what was in danger of becoming an entirely dysfunctional alliance to take positive action. What has been achieved over the last week in smashing down layers and layers of narrow self interest is nowhere near enough, but it is much more than anyone reasonably could have thought would happen. if you are looking for hope in all the bleakness, there it is. Democracies move slowly, but when they do move tectonic plates can shift.
Side note: I absolutely love how vicious the comments get on here. A source of real entertainment, and when someone confused my motives a few days ago and called me an "Isis lunatic commander" it brought a smile to my face.
But I think a poster referred to someone with a homophobic slur last night? (possible was edited by the responder in the block quotes). I think we should go after each other for the content of our posts, and occasionally our assumed motivations, nothing more.
I have always guarded against optimism in relation to anything to do with Putin, because he always seems to win. This winning will ultimately come to an end at some point, but it is too early to make that call in relation to the current situation in Ukraine.
The war's only been going for two fucking days. There are many, many dark days ahead when those that have the resolve to do so must play their part by witlessly speculating on made up shit they've seen on Twitter.
It'll all be over by (Orthodox) Christmas.
I so want Ukraine to win. I have to keep telling myself that I'm viewing the news with that hope in mind, skewing my perceptions - and through a media that generally wants Ukraine to win as well.
I'd feel much better about saying how the war was going if we knew what Russia's strategy was at the beginning. It's perfectly possible that it is all going well to some plan. It's also possible that they've hit large problems and are having to change strategy.
Any plan that the Russians had went out of the window on day one as is the case in most wars. Nobody knows what the fuck is going on as is also the case in most wars. Least of all those blowing the shit out each other on the front line.
A bayonet is a weapon with a worker at both ends, as Father Lenin said.
A fine quotation. The best commentary I have read so far. There is something uniquely ugly at this time in history seeing a bunch of young people on both sides disgorging each other as proxy for leaders who wish to fulfill their ambitions.
It's even uglier reading commentators from the sidelines cheering their sides on while taking no active part. This is 2022. If there aren't other ways of resolving this then we should be living in caves
Hang on a minute. In the case of Ukraine, what evil 'ambition' does Zelenskyy have aside from keeping his country free?
Don't equate Ukraine and Russia in this.
I can't see a lot of difference between a young Russian conscript in a tank being shot to pieces or another young Russian/Ukrainian conscript being shot to pieces. Neither are making decisions and neither can do anything about the situation they find themselves in.
What happened to the Gandhi method? See what the Russians can do with 50,000,000 citizens engaging in civil disobedience with the rest of the world giving them every support other than military
Whilst I dont go fully with what Roger is saying , it is getting tedious on here listening to many glorifying killing and posting (sometimes fakes) reports from twitter about it. Also the armchair generals who based on nothing are talking as if the collective PB was in charge of the Russian operation it would be over by now . All points to a secret love of war sadly which may be a human condition more prevalent in politicos . We even have had somebody this morning calling post WW2 UK and US troops pussies for not loving bayoneting people.
You genuinely cannot distinguish between x were pussies and x were regarded as pussies? Really?
On topic, I think the UK should focus on providing safe refuges for the women and children who are escaping Ukraine to well equipped and safe border zones inside the neighbouring EU states. We should be generous in building and funding these. Priorities for asylum in the UK should include the most vulnerable, those with family/personal links, and, crucially, the political and military leadership of the Ukrainian Government, in exile, should that become necessary.
This should be aimed as a temporary measure pending a restoration of independent Ukrainian Government.
All other efforts should be focused on helping them defeat the invasion, because none of them really want to leave - they want to go back home.
Transmitter Faults The transmitter has reported issues at the moment which is affecting some viewers.
TIMESTAMP STATION STATUS From 12:44am on 27th Feb 2022 BBC Radio 1 Off the air due to a fault From 12:44am on 27th Feb 2022 BBC Radio 2 Off the air due to a fault From 12:44am on 27th Feb 2022 BBC Radio 3 Off the air due to a fault From 12:44am on 27th Feb 2022 BBC Radio 4 Off the air due to a fault
Ukraine’s President Volodymyr Zelenskiy is asked foreign citizens around the world to join in the war against Russia.
by Decree of the President of Ukraine #248 of June 10, 2016, foreigners have the right to join the Armed Forces of Ukraine for military service under Contract of a voluntary basis to be included in the Territorial Defence Forces of the Armed Forced of Ukraine.
A separate subdivision is being formed of foreigners entitled the International Legion for the Territorial Defence of Ukraine. There is no greater contribution which you can make for the sake of peace.”
A better idea in this situation, in my view, than the Gandhi method.
Perhaps. Although I have read Orwell's Homage and his experience gave him an education in Spanish revolutionary politics but was otherwise utterly futile.
You don't need much imagination to envisage various ways in which a ragtag of European youth pitching up in Ukraine and being handed guns might end rather badly.
Side note: I absolutely love how vicious the comments get on here. A source of real entertainment, and when someone confused my motives a few days ago and called me an "Isis lunatic commander" it brought a smile to my face.
But I think a poster referred to someone with a homophobic slur last night? (possible was edited by the responder in the block quotes). I think we should go after each other for the content of our posts, and occasionally our assumed motivations, nothing more.
Putin has strengthened the West hugely as a result of his actions. Biden has done an immense job in corralling what was in danger of becoming an entirely dysfunctional alliance to take positive action. What has been achieved over the last week in smashing down layers and layers of narrow self interest is nowhere near enough, but it is much more than anyone reasonably could have thought would happen. if you are looking for hope in all the bleakness, there it is. Democracies move slowly, but when they do move tectonic plates can shift.
Yes. Look how unanimous we are on here, for instance and as mentioned yesterday, when we have so many differences of opinion on other topics. I've seen the same thing on media like Facebook, Twitter and Whatsapp, and talking to friends abroad.
Transmitter Faults The transmitter has reported issues at the moment which is affecting some viewers.
TIMESTAMP STATION STATUS From 12:44am on 27th Feb 2022 BBC Radio 1 Off the air due to a fault From 12:44am on 27th Feb 2022 BBC Radio 2 Off the air due to a fault From 12:44am on 27th Feb 2022 BBC Radio 3 Off the air due to a fault From 12:44am on 27th Feb 2022 BBC Radio 4 Off the air due to a fault
Ukraine’s President Volodymyr Zelenskiy is asked foreign citizens around the world to join in the war against Russia.
by Decree of the President of Ukraine #248 of June 10, 2016, foreigners have the right to join the Armed Forces of Ukraine for military service under Contract of a voluntary basis to be included in the Territorial Defence Forces of the Armed Forced of Ukraine.
A separate subdivision is being formed of foreigners entitled the International Legion for the Territorial Defence of Ukraine. There is no greater contribution which you can make for the sake of peace.”
A better idea in this situation, in my view, than the Gandhi method.
Perhaps. Although I have read Orwell's Homage and his experience gave him an education in Spanish revolutionary politics but was otherwise utterly futile.
You don't need much imagination to envisage various ways in which a ragtag of European youth pitching up in Ukraine and being handed guns might end rather badly.
I have always guarded against optimism in relation to anything to do with Putin, because he always seems to win. This winning will ultimately come to an end at some point, but it is too early to make that call in relation to the current situation in Ukraine.
The war's only been going for two fucking days. There are many, many dark days ahead when those that have the resolve to do so must play their part by witlessly speculating on made up shit they've seen on Twitter.
It'll all be over by (Orthodox) Christmas.
I so want Ukraine to win. I have to keep telling myself that I'm viewing the news with that hope in mind, skewing my perceptions - and through a media that generally wants Ukraine to win as well.
I'd feel much better about saying how the war was going if we knew what Russia's strategy was at the beginning. It's perfectly possible that it is all going well to some plan. It's also possible that they've hit large problems and are having to change strategy.
Any plan that the Russians had went out of the window on day one as is the case in most wars. Nobody knows what the fuck is going on as is also the case in most wars. Least of all those blowing the shit out each other on the front line.
A bayonet is a weapon with a worker at both ends, as Father Lenin said.
A fine quotation. The best commentary I have read so far. There is something uniquely ugly at this time in history seeing a bunch of young people on both sides disgorging each other as proxy for leaders who wish to fulfill their ambitions.
It's even uglier reading commentators from the sidelines cheering their sides on while taking no active part. This is 2022. If there aren't other ways of resolving this then we should be living in caves
Hang on a minute. In the case of Ukraine, what evil 'ambition' does Zelenskyy have aside from keeping his country free?
Don't equate Ukraine and Russia in this.
I can't see a lot of difference between a young Russian conscript in a tank being shot to pieces or another young Russian/Ukrainian conscript being shot to pieces. Neither are making decisions and neither can do anything about the situation they find themselves in.
What happened to the Gandhi method? See what the Russians can do with 50,000,000 citizens engaging in civil disobedience with the rest of the world giving them every support other than military
We even have had somebody this morning calling post WW2 UK and US troops pussies for not loving bayoneting people.
That's just one particularly toxic poster who, for reasons that baffle me, the moderators insist on indulging on this site.
Good point, old boy. I thought your new employer had put a stop to your stalking activities, though. And my remark was shorthand intended to be understood by adults
The US sanctions on the Russian central bank could result in the Ruble going into free fall as it can no longer be defended by selling dollar reseves.
It really feels like financial sanctions have really been stepped up quite significantly from an initially slow start. I hope we continue to find ways to tighten them further.
Best case scenario: the ruble goes the way of the Zimbabwean dollar and Russia can no longer afford to pay for imports, even if it can find partners willing to sell.
Ukraine’s President Volodymyr Zelenskiy is asked foreign citizens around the world to join in the war against Russia.
by Decree of the President of Ukraine #248 of June 10, 2016, foreigners have the right to join the Armed Forces of Ukraine for military service under Contract of a voluntary basis to be included in the Territorial Defence Forces of the Armed Forced of Ukraine.
A separate subdivision is being formed of foreigners entitled the International Legion for the Territorial Defence of Ukraine. There is no greater contribution which you can make for the sake of peace.”
On the face of it, this is a great idea. Thinking about it a bit more deeply and I wonder if it is - at least from a non-Ukrainian perspective. 1. If nationals from NATO countries get involved, there is a pretext for Putin to claim NATO itself is attacking Russia. At a minimum, that may swing wavering support in Russia behind him. 2. You don't know who is going to join up and where that leads to after the Ukraine conflict ends. Bosnia was a training ground for many irregulars whose subsequent activities were directly contrary to our interests.
I am not denying the practical problems it will cause. But the government will be ridiculed when they try and stop it, and they will have to back down. Ultimately, people are going to be attracted to this type of conflict in the same way as they are attracted to politics. It gives their lives a sense of purpose. Particularly where you have a perceived good v evil situation, as you do in Ukraine. It was like this in Syria for many years, there are potentially many similarities.
Young people have been fighting imagined colonial legacies from 200 years ago, perhaps they could try fighting a real life colonist, and see how that goes.
Interesting thread header. I'm all for seizing Putin and the billionaires who support him by the balls as much as possible.
Nevertheless, I think it overstates its case. We will never know, of course, but I don't think there's much evidence that the significant influx of Russian money to London made the government more reluctant to impose sanctions or supply weapons when Russia invaded. We have certainly not been tough enough on Russia in the past, but I think that's because policymakers have underestimated the threat, not because they thought it would be too expensive to counter it. Until this latest invasion, Putin was quite skilled in knowing just how far to push the West. In many instances, the UK has been ahead of other countries, like, say, India or Germany. And in other cases, there has been a justified scepticism about whether sanctions actually deter mad dictators. That's quite apart from the question of whether, if they weren't able to go to London, they'd simply go to Paris or the Caymans or Cyprus or somewhere else instead. And having them in London actually lets us seize their assets if their government does something unacceptable - as it has, and as we have started to - so gives them something to lose.
What does make governments significantly more reluctant to act I think is the integration of the real economy with that of a rogue state. TWe have certainly seen this with Germany over the last week - their non-financial economy is far more integrated with Russia than ours is. Politicians have to get reelected, after all, and relatively few votes will be swayed by sanctions against money laundering, while lots will be determined if gas prices soar further or if the car industry collapses.
And the other negative effects listed aren't really due to our acceptance of Russian money either. Not opening the borders to Ukranian refugees is far more because the government thinks that the public doesn't want more immigration (together with the usual snail's pace and incompetence at the Home Office) rather than because Russia launders money through the City. Absurdly high house prices in central London are far more due to ridiculous planning laws and real interest rates of -5% than foreign cash, and of all the issues confronting the country, the price of flats in Knightsbridge is pretty low on the list.
I think the way to hit Putin is with weapons, less so with economic sanctions.
On topic, I think the UK should focus on providing safe refuges for the women and children who are escaping Ukraine to well equipped and safe border zones inside the neighbouring EU states. We should be generous in building and funding these. Priorities for asylum in the UK should include the most vulnerable, those with family/personal links, and, crucially, the political and military leadership of the Ukrainian Government, in exile, should that become necessary.
This should be aimed as a temporary measure pending a restoration of independent Ukrainian Government.
All other efforts should be focused on helping them defeat the invasion, because none of them really want to leave - they want to go back home.
Ah yes, here it starts, ".... inside the neighbouring EU states."
What the bellicose are really frightened of is refugees in their pretty towns and villages.
Of course, people want to leave Ukraine. It is going to be a bloody & murderous place for some time, whatever happens.
If I was a young person in Ukraine, I'd want to get the feck out of there and have a decent life somewhere else.
On the refugee question, some serious thought needs to go in to this beyond the usual irrationality. We must confront the hard reality that there is no housing in the UK for refugees from Ukraine, and what exists in the private sector is of low quality and expensive. It is not a good place to resettle vulnerable people fleeing warzones. For people who have skills and can be self sufficient though, it is a different story.
I think we should look to countries in Eastern Europe. Much of the problems in the EU have been caused by their opposition to taking in refugees from Asia and Africa, on the grounds of cultural differences, resulting in large scale migration of these people to Northern European countries. Isn't this an opportunity for Hungary and Poland to seriously step up and do their bit?
So far the ones wanting to come here are those with family already in the UK, for whom entry rather than housing is the problem.
Yes - I suggested yesterday that people could be granted a visa on arrival where they have a sponsor (either a citizen or existing long term resident).
Nothing, per se, but making that the pathway for refugees seems a little... do you know this word?... wrong. Unless you think an 8 year old refugee should be doing 12 hours in the greenhouse to earn their safety.
again I ask because its a little tedious in that certainly the last sentence you put has not been suggested at all and the rest a bit faux outrage .After all somebody has to pick fruit . Do you eat fruit ? Do you want somebody therefore to pick it?
Ukraine’s President Volodymyr Zelenskiy is asked foreign citizens around the world to join in the war against Russia.
by Decree of the President of Ukraine #248 of June 10, 2016, foreigners have the right to join the Armed Forces of Ukraine for military service under Contract of a voluntary basis to be included in the Territorial Defence Forces of the Armed Forced of Ukraine.
A separate subdivision is being formed of foreigners entitled the International Legion for the Territorial Defence of Ukraine. There is no greater contribution which you can make for the sake of peace.”
On the face of it, this is a great idea. Thinking about it a bit more deeply and I wonder if it is - at least from a non-Ukrainian perspective. 1. If nationals from NATO countries get involved, there is a pretext for Putin to claim NATO itself is attacking Russia. At a minimum, that may swing wavering support in Russia behind him. 2. You don't know who is going to join up and where that leads to after the Ukraine conflict ends. Bosnia was a training ground for many irregulars whose subsequent activities were directly contrary to our interests.
I am not denying the practical problems it will cause. But the government will be ridiculed when they try and stop it, and they will have to back down. Ultimately, people are going to be attracted to this type of conflict in the same way as they are attracted to politics. It gives their lives a sense of purpose. Particularly where you have a perceived good v evil situation, as you do in Ukraine. It was like this in Syria for many years, there are potentially many similarities.
Young people have been fighting imagined colonial legacies from 200 years ago, perhaps they could try fighting a real life colonist, and see how that goes.
Ukraine has put 18-60 year olds of its own citizens on standby for call up so eligibility may not be confined to the young.
Interesting thread header. I'm all for seizing Putin and the billionaires who support him by the balls as much as possible.
Nevertheless, I think it overstates its case. We will never know, of course, but I don't think there's much evidence that the significant influx of Russian money to London made the government more reluctant to impose sanctions or supply weapons when Russia invaded. We have certainly not been tough enough on Russia in the past, but I think that's because policymakers have underestimated the threat, not because they thought it would be too expensive to counter it. Until this latest invasion, Putin was quite skilled in knowing just how far to push the West. In many instances, the UK has been ahead of other countries, like, say, India or Germany. And in other cases, there has been a justified scepticism about whether sanctions actually deter mad dictators. That's quite apart from the question of whether, if they weren't able to go to London, they'd simply go to Paris or the Caymans or Cyprus or somewhere else instead. And having them in London actually lets us seize their assets if their government does something unacceptable - as it has, and as we have started to - so gives them something to lose.
What does make governments significantly more reluctant to act I think is the integration of the real economy with that of a rogue state. TWe have certainly seen this with Germany over the last week - their non-financial economy is far more integrated with Russia than ours is. Politicians have to get reelected, after all, and relatively few votes will be swayed by sanctions against money laundering, while lots will be determined if gas prices soar further or if the car industry collapses.
And the other negative effects listed aren't really due to our acceptance of Russian money either. Not opening the borders to Ukranian refugees is far more because the government thinks that the public doesn't want more immigration than because Russia launders mone through the City. Absurdly high house prices in central London, for instance, are far more due to ridiculous planning laws and real interest rates of -5% than foreign cash, and of all the issues confronting the country, the price of flats in Knightsbridge is pretty low on the list.
Taking a longer view, we never really faced the reckoning from the 2008/9 Financial Crisis, nor from the austerity of the 2010s, nor yet from Covid, and now we have the potential aftermaths from War in Europe to add to the list. All on top of accelerating climate change.
That's one hell of a bill coming our (or more likely to the younger among us) way.
Ukraine’s President Volodymyr Zelenskiy is asked foreign citizens around the world to join in the war against Russia.
by Decree of the President of Ukraine #248 of June 10, 2016, foreigners have the right to join the Armed Forces of Ukraine for military service under Contract of a voluntary basis to be included in the Territorial Defence Forces of the Armed Forced of Ukraine.
A separate subdivision is being formed of foreigners entitled the International Legion for the Territorial Defence of Ukraine. There is no greater contribution which you can make for the sake of peace.”
A better idea in this situation, in my view, than the Gandhi method.
Perhaps. Although I have read Orwell's Homage and his experience gave him an education in Spanish revolutionary politics but was otherwise utterly futile.
You don't need much imagination to envisage various ways in which a ragtag of European youth pitching up in Ukraine and being handed guns might end rather badly.
Or a gaggle of ageing PBers…
the PB Catering Corps?
‘Sorry lads, only flaked Parmesan coming up the line, but I’ve laid my hands on a lovely Dnipro Riesling.’
After feeling some optimism yesterday, I’ve got a gut punch feeling that Vlad is playing rope a dope. Sending in conscripts as cannon fodder to degrade Ukraine’s professional army, and older tanks as magnets for the NLAWs. Saving up the crack troops and better equipment to mop up in Ukraine / for the fight with NATO.
That comes with real risks back home. The wives, mothers, children of that "cannon fodder" just see the death of their loved ones, for nothing. The crack troops see NATO equipment in abundance, being used with deadly effect in seemingly unending supply. The generals certainly see this. Neither is going to welcome going in now, driving past columns of their own kit, destroyed. No-one is going to be seeing they are taking part in an "internal" Greater Russia peace-keeping operation. No-one is seeing a master stroke by Putin being delivered. Everyone is seeing a world that is showing support for Ukraine, and contempt and worse for Putin's Russia. And wait until the banks open tomorrow morning, to see a nationwide panic that the banks are going bust. The talk in those long lines to take out a limit of ten roubles are not going to be discussing their praises of their leader.
Plus there is no great evidence that they were the second tier. The Chechen contingent were supposed to be crack troops. Reports are, they got handed their arses. You don't use second tier troops to take important day one targets, the airports and important facilities. The reports of destruction inflicted seem to cover all types of kit (and anyway you'd expect the shittier tanks and vehicles to make up a disproportionate share of the kit taken out).
And if the better kit and troops ARE being held back, it might be because some generals take the view that having provoked such a broad response from NATO, that NATO might now might take the opportunity to go hunting Bear. We might consider it crazy that we would chase troops right back into Russia proper; but the action of invading Ukraine shows smart thinking wasn't present in abundance either. Defence of Russia might be in their minds, from a vengeful world looking to make Russia pay the price. What if NATO arms Ukraine to ensure it takes back Donbas? Crimea? They are going to need more than conscripts to keep those gains.
I certainly expect it to get much tougher in the coming days for the Ukrainian defenders. Russia knows where they are - and are likely to take much more destructive measures to flatten them. But that means the certainty of a grim resistance in any land they do take and try to hold. And perhaps there are some generals looking months into the future thinking "this isn't going to work...." We can only hope for such sanity to ultimately prevail in Moscow.
The West will support Ukraine in reclaiming Donblas and Crimea. A return to the status quo ante isn’t sufficient - Putin’s adventurism would have no cost if we allowed that.
But just taking back illegally occupied territories doesn’t provide a legitimate causi belli for the future
On the refugee question, some serious thought needs to go in to this beyond the usual irrationality. We must confront the hard reality that there is no housing in the UK for refugees from Ukraine, and what exists in the private sector is of low quality and expensive. It is not a good place to resettle vulnerable people fleeing warzones. For people who have skills and can be self sufficient though, it is a different story.
I think we should look to countries in Eastern Europe. Much of the problems in the EU have been caused by their opposition to taking in refugees from Asia and Africa, on the grounds of cultural differences, resulting in large scale migration of these people to Northern European countries. Isn't this an opportunity for Hungary and Poland to seriously step up and do their bit?
Nominally, the war is about the fate of disputed territory in the East of the Ukraine.
In reality, the war is about the desire of the Ukraine to join the EU/NATO. This is opposed by Russia.
But, does the EU/NATO actually want Ukraine to join them ? Are these organisations going to welcome whatever Ukrainian state remains after Putin's barbarism ?
The fate of the Ukrainian refugees is a critical test of the West in all this.
If Ukraine were to join the EU, there would be large scale migration to the West through freedom of movement. The only other parts of the former USSR to join -- the much smaller Baltic states -- suffered very large drops in their populations (& those countries were comparatively prosperous compared to Ukraine). Hence, the EU has been -- it is fair to say -- rather circumspect about the consequences of the much larger & poorer Ukraine joining.
However, we now have a war that is likely to generate millions of refugees. The longer and bloodier the war, the more refugees. If this turns out to be a prolonged, bloody war of attrition, then ~ 5 million refugees (UN estimate) may well be on the low side.
So, the treatment of these refugees by the West now seems to me to be critical test of our integrity.
War means refugees. You don't get one without the other.
The counter-argument would be that, if we're getting the refugees anyway, the consequences of joining the EU may not be so bad. Similarly with NATO - the fear was that Ukraine joining would bring us into a conflict with Russia. Now the conflict has happened - in the eventuality that Russia is eventually defeated such that Ukraine becomes free and able to join - the consequences aren't so bad; for the foreseeable, we're faced up against Russia already.
Let's see what happens, shall we?
I am happy to take Ukrainian refugees, for avoidance of doubt.
I would place them in the UK in direct proportion to the bellicosity of the posters on pb,com.
Those pretty Cambridgeshire villages, the Wiltshire countryside
But, I expect that is where the refugees will not end up.
They will end up in shitholes like Gateshead and Middlesbrough in the North East. They won’t be put into nicer parts of the country.
At present still likely a much better option than the alternatives.
Ukraine’s President Volodymyr Zelenskiy is asked foreign citizens around the world to join in the war against Russia.
by Decree of the President of Ukraine #248 of June 10, 2016, foreigners have the right to join the Armed Forces of Ukraine for military service under Contract of a voluntary basis to be included in the Territorial Defence Forces of the Armed Forced of Ukraine.
A separate subdivision is being formed of foreigners entitled the International Legion for the Territorial Defence of Ukraine. There is no greater contribution which you can make for the sake of peace.”
A better idea in this situation, in my view, than the Gandhi method.
Perhaps. Although I have read Orwell's Homage and his experience gave him an education in Spanish revolutionary politics but was otherwise utterly futile.
You don't need much imagination to envisage various ways in which a ragtag of European youth pitching up in Ukraine and being handed guns might end rather badly.
1. Globally mainstream as first Russia starts to use it, then rich elites in other volatile countries embrace it 2. Increasingly blocked from the banking system as the West try to stop Russians using it as a loophole 3. Not much change from the status quo
The Telegraph on Tory defence cuts, reducing the army to 72,000 soldiers with a mere 148 tanks and none of the armoured combat vehicles necessary alongside them; with eight infantry battalions down to four.
Meanwhile our war stocks of replacement vehicles, weapons and ammunition have been stripped bare by an ill-judged imitation of industry’s “just-in-time” policies – not for efficiency but to save money. We sent only 2,000 anti-tank missiles to Ukraine and I suspect we don’t have many more to spare. https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2022/02/26/age-conventional-warfare-back-britain-isnt-ready/ (£££)
Yes, the military has been chronically underfunded for decades. Including during Blair's time in power - remember the wizard wheeze where one of the carriers was technically fit for duty in a month, when it had had most of its engines removed for spares for its sisters?
Mistakes in defence procurement pale into insignificance compared to the disastrous decision of Miliband to vote against intervention in Syria. We are where we are now, in part, because of that decision. Oh, and how some people on here cheered it on! They got one over the government! Hurrah!
The mass bombing of Syria government positions when Isis were in the ascendant would have been an absolute catastrophe. Isis may have overrun the entire region, attacked Israel and Lebanon too, and it still be in utter chaos. Miliband's intervention may well have averted an even worse disaster than Iraq, and was quite possibly even one of the most important by a British politician in the forty or fifty years since Harold Wilson and Vietnam.
Your scenario is very weak. Let me give a much stronger one, one backed up by events:
Letting Assad get away with using chemical weapons showed the west as being utterly weak and divided, not willing to stand up to our principles. It created a power vacuum that Putin felt he could step into, gave Russia vital military skills, led to Salisbury, and has directly led to the invasion of Ukraine
We were faced with two evils. We chose the one that went directly against our values, and Putin noticed that. He also noticed that we would back down.
This was exactly the form of reasoning the led up to the invasion of Iraq, but now chaos had already been inflicted by the prior failed intervention, and Isis were gobbling up territory throughout the region at an incredible pace. The results would have been too awful to contemplate, and we were spared an unmitigated disaster.
That's rubbish.
Assad used chemical weapons against his own population. We let him get away with it, and emboldened Russia (and others) in the process.
Either we have values or we do not. Syria showed we have fuck-all values.
So did Saddam. We didn't let him get away with it, and it ended in absolute disaster.
There's not really any relationship between that and the current situation. Putin turned his face against the West five years before, and nothing was done ; Syria wasn't much more than a confirmation of that. The West was effectively silent when he intervened in Georgia, and later South Ossetia, again five years before, which also coincided with the start of his attacks on civil society. That's when and where the deterrence angle really does have some merit.
We did let Saddam get away with it. The Halabja Massacre was in 1988, and AFAICR he had used them before that as well. We only invaded Iraq three years later after they invaded Kuwait.
No, Syria was a real turning point - although one of several. An evil had been done. Western governments were proclaiming it was an evil, but then, thanks to Miliband, we did nothing about that evil. This had two significant effects: 1) It told Russia that when push came to shove, we were divided and weak - and they could divide and weaken us more. 2) It allowed Russia to step into the vacuum, and believe they could win. 3) The west was unwilling to do anything military against evil.
Salisbury was a direct result of it. So is this.
Oddly, this still holds together even for the nutjobs who believe that that Assad did not use chemical weapons against his own population.
It would have emboldened and enabled an even more rapidly growing evil than Asad at the time - Isis - and made very little difference to Putin's opinion of the West, which was already entirely contemptuous. This is the transference of moral pride onto the grim strategic realities and equations on the ground at the time, I would say, and I think is more a kind of wish fulfilment.
Assad has probably killed more people than ISIS. But it's like comparing Hitler and Mao: both were evil men, and comparing their hideous crimes becomes pointless after a while. Just accept they were, and did, evil.
But the point remains: we have values. You do not use chemical weapons. He did. We did nothing.
We told evil people in the world that we would not stand up for our values.
And then Salisbury.
I remain a little confused as to your posts about Syria. Standing up to the evil Assad regime and replacing them with the psychotic Islamic State regime was a better option because...?
I was very pleased that we didn't enmesh ourselves in a civil war where there appeared to be about 4 sides fighting none of whom were the good guys.
You evidently have not read my posts then. firstly, it was not simply a case of replacing them with ISIS. The situation was much more complex than that. It created a vacuum that Russia gladly stepped into.
But most importantly, it is to do with standing up for our values. Thanks to Miliband, the west did not. He stopped the UK taking part, which stopped the US. The use of chemical weapons became acceptable: the poor mans nukes.
Then Salisbury.
It also showed that the west was divided when it come to defending values. Putin got the message that he could do whatever he wants, and we would argue amongst ourselves and not respond.
I hope he's wrong.
I guess you agreed with his u-turn, which might be why you're keen not to accept the consequences it has had.
You keep saying "standing up for our values" and I agree. But always realpolitik - and IIRC one of the chemical weapons attacks by Assad was done as the UN arrived to inspect for chemical weapons which Assad claimed not to have...
The situation absolutely was complex - at least 4 factions one of which was Assad another of which was ISIS. In the midst of all that there was a very real risk that a bad situation in Syria becomes a bad situation across the region. However bad Assad is - and he's a monster - he wasn't a direct threat to western society like ISIS. Hence the need for realpolitik. You don't stand up for your values by allowing psychotics to replace the bad man and foster jihad globally.
I utterly disagree with your last paragraph.
This was predictable. I believe (though I have not done so) that if you go back to that period, you will see me saying how destabilising the decision would be for the world. And so it has been.
In this case 'realpolitilk' is just a synonym for "I don't want to admit it, but we f*cked up."
It isn't a binary either/or. What happened was destabilising one way. The alternative was destabilising the other way. Or a third option down the middle where it just descends into utter chaos. We didn't enable Assad by refusing to enable ISIS and the same is true in reverse. Show me the good option to back in Syria 2014 and I would have supported it. The options were bad or bad
Good header @Cyclefree. The ideal scenario is one where MP's actions are dictated by their consciences, and the electorate, not necessarily in that order. It's fair to say that at the moment we don't have this. You identify money coming in from Russia and other countries as a source of distortion, and it is, but not the only one. There is also money from corporate entities, meaning the same old monolithic companies are selected for Government work. There is also the old boys/girls network of Common Purpose casting a big shadow over public appointments. There is also the influence of the USA, so overwhelming that it's now not even noticed, where a terse videocall from Biden can dictate British foreign and domestic policy. There *was* also European Union decree, which British Governments were compelled to write into statute, without it being put before the public as part of any manifesto. Thankfully that one has gone. And that's not a comprehensive list.
The solution cannot be one of tackling the money coming in, and telling politicians that they are just going to have to be poorer - that's like telling corporations that they are just going to have to make less profit. So it has to be that politicians have financial incentives to do the right thing, not the wrong thing. So, I am thinking of launching an app, along the following lines. The app allows any private UK voter to register, and they are allowed to donate a pound to any politician of their choice. It can only be one pound, per politician, per year. The app has an API link up with the 'they work for you' website or similar, and your pound donation must be linked to an action taken by that politician, for example, voting against the live export of animals, or making a speech on behalf of Tibet. A politician could make thousands or even millions of pounds by making popular decisions, far exceeding their earnings potential from all other sources.
On the refugee question, some serious thought needs to go in to this beyond the usual irrationality. We must confront the hard reality that there is no housing in the UK for refugees from Ukraine, and what exists in the private sector is of low quality and expensive. It is not a good place to resettle vulnerable people fleeing warzones. For people who have skills and can be self sufficient though, it is a different story.
I think we should look to countries in Eastern Europe. Much of the problems in the EU have been caused by their opposition to taking in refugees from Asia and Africa, on the grounds of cultural differences, resulting in large scale migration of these people to Northern European countries. Isn't this an opportunity for Hungary and Poland to seriously step up and do their bit?
So far the ones wanting to come here are those with family already in the UK, for whom entry rather than housing is the problem.
Yes - I suggested yesterday that people could be granted a visa on arrival where they have a sponsor (either a citizen or existing long term resident).
Nothing, per se, but making that the pathway for refugees seems a little... do you know this word?... wrong. Unless you think an 8 year old refugee should be doing 12 hours in the greenhouse to earn their safety.
again I ask because its a little tedious in that certainly the last sentence you put has not been suggested at all and the rest a bit faux outrage .After all somebody has to pick fruit . Do you eat fruit ? Do you want somebody therefore to pick it?
You don't walk the anarchy thing quite the way you talk it. You are making up out of thin air state imposed stipulations which it has never occurred to the state itself to impose on wartime refugees. Additionally fruit picking is very hard and very skilled work which refugees will not automatically be any good at.
Ukraine’s President Volodymyr Zelenskiy is asked foreign citizens around the world to join in the war against Russia.
by Decree of the President of Ukraine #248 of June 10, 2016, foreigners have the right to join the Armed Forces of Ukraine for military service under Contract of a voluntary basis to be included in the Territorial Defence Forces of the Armed Forced of Ukraine.
A separate subdivision is being formed of foreigners entitled the International Legion for the Territorial Defence of Ukraine. There is no greater contribution which you can make for the sake of peace.”
A better idea in this situation, in my view, than the Gandhi method.
Perhaps. Although I have read Orwell's Homage and his experience gave him an education in Spanish revolutionary politics but was otherwise utterly futile.
You don't need much imagination to envisage various ways in which a ragtag of European youth pitching up in Ukraine and being handed guns might end rather badly.
Or a gaggle of ageing PBers…
the PB Catering Corps?
‘Sorry lads, only flaked Parmesan coming up the line, but I’ve laid my hands on a lovely Dnipro Riesling.’
"...and anybody putting chocolate on your coffee will have to drop and do fifty...."
I have always guarded against optimism in relation to anything to do with Putin, because he always seems to win. This winning will ultimately come to an end at some point, but it is too early to make that call in relation to the current situation in Ukraine.
The war's only been going for two fucking days. There are many, many dark days ahead when those that have the resolve to do so must play their part by witlessly speculating on made up shit they've seen on Twitter.
It'll all be over by (Orthodox) Christmas.
I so want Ukraine to win. I have to keep telling myself that I'm viewing the news with that hope in mind, skewing my perceptions - and through a media that generally wants Ukraine to win as well.
I'd feel much better about saying how the war was going if we knew what Russia's strategy was at the beginning. It's perfectly possible that it is all going well to some plan. It's also possible that they've hit large problems and are having to change strategy.
Any plan that the Russians had went out of the window on day one as is the case in most wars. Nobody knows what the fuck is going on as is also the case in most wars. Least of all those blowing the shit out each other on the front line.
A bayonet is a weapon with a worker at both ends, as Father Lenin said.
A fine quotation. The best commentary I have read so far. There is something uniquely ugly at this time in history seeing a bunch of young people on both sides disgorging each other as proxy for leaders who wish to fulfill their ambitions.
It's even uglier reading commentators from the sidelines cheering their sides on while taking no active part. This is 2022. If there aren't other ways of resolving this then we should be living in caves
A sweet sentiment, but one, quite unsuited to people who are trying to defend their freedom.
Interesting thread header. I'm all for seizing Putin and the billionaires who support him by the balls as much as possible.
Nevertheless, I think it overstates its case. We will never know, of course, but I don't think there's much evidence that the significant influx of Russian money to London made the government more reluctant to impose sanctions or supply weapons when Russia invaded. We have certainly not been tough enough on Russia in the past, but I think that's because policymakers have underestimated the threat, not because they thought it would be too expensive to counter it. Until this latest invasion, Putin was quite skilled in knowing just how far to push the West. In many instances, the UK has been ahead of other countries, like, say, India or Germany. And in other cases, there has been a justified scepticism about whether sanctions actually deter mad dictators. That's quite apart from the question of whether, if they weren't able to go to London, they'd simply go to Paris or the Caymans or Cyprus or somewhere else instead. And having them in London actually lets us seize their assets if their government does something unacceptable - as it has, and as we have started to - so gives them something to lose.
What does make governments significantly more reluctant to act I think is the integration of the real economy with that of a rogue state. TWe have certainly seen this with Germany over the last week - their non-financial economy is far more integrated with Russia than ours is. Politicians have to get reelected, after all, and relatively few votes will be swayed by sanctions against money laundering, while lots will be determined if gas prices soar further or if the car industry collapses.
And the other negative effects listed aren't really due to our acceptance of Russian money either. Not opening the borders to Ukranian refugees is far more because the government thinks that the public doesn't want more immigration than because Russia launders mone through the City. Absurdly high house prices in central London, for instance, are far more due to ridiculous planning laws and real interest rates of -5% than foreign cash, and of all the issues confronting the country, the price of flats in Knightsbridge is pretty low on the list.
Taking a longer view, we never really faced the reckoning from the 2008/9 Financial Crisis, nor from the austerity of the 2010s, nor yet from Covid, and now we have the potential aftermaths from War in Europe to add to the list. All on top of accelerating climate change.
That's one hell of a bill coming our (or more likely to the younger among us) way.
Many voices lament that this opens a new, dark chapter of history. I’m afraid there’s an even less palatable truth. The world has been on a trajectory towards an event like this for some time.
The response to earlier aggressions was some heavy denouncing and some light sanctioning, counter-measures that were much too puny to deter the Russian leader. All the blood of this conflict is on his hands, but some of the guilt is borne by a variety of actors in the west who have enabled or emboldened Putin.
Lenin had a phrase to describe these people. Useful idiots.
Successive governments have indulged, facilitated and encouraged Russian oligarchs to purchase influence in our political, commercial and cultural life. Our capital acquired the nickname Londongrad because of its global reputation as a laundromat for dirty money. Take the cash first – and don’t ask too many questions afterwards. That has been the Tory party’s attitude to plutocrats bearing gifts.
Since the fall of the Berlin Wall and the disarmament that followed, the UK and its neighbours have mainly spent the “peace dividend” on giving ageing populations better healthcare and pensions than they would otherwise have enjoyed. Liberal democracies urgently need to rediscover the resolve to defend their values against tyranny that they displayed during the cold war. The autocrats in Moscow and Beijing believe that the west is divided, decadent and in decline. They have to be proved wrong.
Interesting thread header. I'm all for seizing Putin and the billionaires who support him by the balls as much as possible.
Nevertheless, I think it overstates its case. We will never know, of course, but I don't think there's much evidence that the significant influx of Russian money to London made the government more reluctant to impose sanctions or supply weapons when Russia invaded. We have certainly not been tough enough on Russia in the past, but I think that's because policymakers have underestimated the threat, not because they thought it would be too expensive to counter it. Until this latest invasion, Putin was quite skilled in knowing just how far to push the West. In many instances, the UK has been ahead of other countries, like, say, India or Germany. And in other cases, there has been a justified scepticism about whether sanctions actually deter mad dictators. That's quite apart from the question of whether, if they weren't able to go to London, they'd simply go to Paris or the Caymans or Cyprus or somewhere else instead. And having them in London actually lets us seize their assets if their government does something unacceptable - as it has, and as we have started to - so gives them something to lose.
What does make governments significantly more reluctant to act I think is the integration of the real economy with that of a rogue state. TWe have certainly seen this with Germany over the last week - their non-financial economy is far more integrated with Russia than ours is. Politicians have to get reelected, after all, and relatively few votes will be swayed by sanctions against money laundering, while lots will be determined if gas prices soar further or if the car industry collapses.
And the other negative effects listed aren't really due to our acceptance of Russian money either. Not opening the borders to Ukranian refugees is far more because the government thinks that the public doesn't want more immigration than because Russia launders mone through the City. Absurdly high house prices in central London, for instance, are far more due to ridiculous planning laws and real interest rates of -5% than foreign cash, and of all the issues confronting the country, the price of flats in Knightsbridge is pretty low on the list.
Taking a longer view, we never really faced the reckoning from the 2008/9 Financial Crisis, nor from the austerity of the 2010s, nor yet from Covid, and now we have the potential aftermaths from War in Europe to add to the list. All on top of accelerating climate change.
That's one hell of a bill coming our (or more likely to the younger among us) way.
I was reflecting what a shit start we have had to the 21st century: GFC, austerity, Brexit, Trump, Covid, and now war in Europe.
Then again by this stage of the 20th century we had had the horrors of WW1 and Spanish Flu...
I have always guarded against optimism in relation to anything to do with Putin, because he always seems to win. This winning will ultimately come to an end at some point, but it is too early to make that call in relation to the current situation in Ukraine.
The war's only been going for two fucking days. There are many, many dark days ahead when those that have the resolve to do so must play their part by witlessly speculating on made up shit they've seen on Twitter.
It'll all be over by (Orthodox) Christmas.
I so want Ukraine to win. I have to keep telling myself that I'm viewing the news with that hope in mind, skewing my perceptions - and through a media that generally wants Ukraine to win as well.
I'd feel much better about saying how the war was going if we knew what Russia's strategy was at the beginning. It's perfectly possible that it is all going well to some plan. It's also possible that they've hit large problems and are having to change strategy.
Any plan that the Russians had went out of the window on day one as is the case in most wars. Nobody knows what the fuck is going on as is also the case in most wars. Least of all those blowing the shit out each other on the front line.
A bayonet is a weapon with a worker at both ends, as Father Lenin said.
A fine quotation. The best commentary I have read so far. There is something uniquely ugly at this time in history seeing a bunch of young people on both sides disgorging each other as proxy for leaders who wish to fulfill their ambitions.
It's even uglier reading commentators from the sidelines cheering their sides on while taking no active part. This is 2022. If there aren't other ways of resolving this then we should be living in caves
Hang on a minute. In the case of Ukraine, what evil 'ambition' does Zelenskyy have aside from keeping his country free?
Don't equate Ukraine and Russia in this.
I can't see a lot of difference between a young Russian conscript in a tank being shot to pieces or another young Russian/Ukrainian conscript being shot to pieces. Neither are making decisions and neither can do anything about the situation they find themselves in.
What happened to the Gandhi method? See what the Russians can do with 50,000,000 citizens engaging in civil disobedience with the rest of the world giving them every support other than military
Gandhi suggested that if Jews had gone willingly to the gas chambers, they would have melted the Nazis' hearts.
On the refugee question, some serious thought needs to go in to this beyond the usual irrationality. We must confront the hard reality that there is no housing in the UK for refugees from Ukraine, and what exists in the private sector is of low quality and expensive. It is not a good place to resettle vulnerable people fleeing warzones. For people who have skills and can be self sufficient though, it is a different story.
I think we should look to countries in Eastern Europe. Much of the problems in the EU have been caused by their opposition to taking in refugees from Asia and Africa, on the grounds of cultural differences, resulting in large scale migration of these people to Northern European countries. Isn't this an opportunity for Hungary and Poland to seriously step up and do their bit?
Nominally, the war is about the fate of disputed territory in the East of the Ukraine.
In reality, the war is about the desire of the Ukraine to join the EU/NATO. This is opposed by Russia.
But, does the EU/NATO actually want Ukraine to join them ? Are these organisations going to welcome whatever Ukrainian state remains after Putin's barbarism ?
The fate of the Ukrainian refugees is a critical test of the West in all this.
If Ukraine were to join the EU, there would be large scale migration to the West through freedom of movement. The only other parts of the former USSR to join -- the much smaller Baltic states -- suffered very large drops in their populations (& those countries were comparatively prosperous compared to Ukraine). Hence, the EU has been -- it is fair to say -- rather circumspect about the consequences of the much larger & poorer Ukraine joining.
However, we now have a war that is likely to generate millions of refugees. The longer and bloodier the war, the more refugees. If this turns out to be a prolonged, bloody war of attrition, then ~ 5 million refugees (UN estimate) may well be on the low side.
So, the treatment of these refugees by the West now seems to me to be critical test of our integrity.
War means refugees. You don't get one without the other.
The counter-argument would be that, if we're getting the refugees anyway, the consequences of joining the EU may not be so bad. Similarly with NATO - the fear was that Ukraine joining would bring us into a conflict with Russia. Now the conflict has happened - in the eventuality that Russia is eventually defeated such that Ukraine becomes free and able to join - the consequences aren't so bad; for the foreseeable, we're faced up against Russia already.
Let's see what happens, shall we?
I am happy to take Ukrainian refugees, for avoidance of doubt.
I would place them in the UK in direct proportion to the bellicosity of the posters on pb,com.
Those pretty Cambridgeshire villages, the Wiltshire countryside
But, I expect that is where the refugees will not end up.
They will end up in shitholes like Gateshead and Middlesbrough in the North East. They won’t be put into nicer parts of the country.
Of course, I know that. Still back to Radio @JosiasJessop
The pretty parts of South East England are on a war footing.
A war footing against the forrin? I guess that's why we keep hearing comments about how overcrowded and full the country is
Interesting thread header. I'm all for seizing Putin and the billionaires who support him by the balls as much as possible.
Nevertheless, I think it overstates its case. We will never know, of course, but I don't think there's much evidence that the significant influx of Russian money to London made the government more reluctant to impose sanctions or supply weapons when Russia invaded. We have certainly not been tough enough on Russia in the past, but I think that's because policymakers have underestimated the threat, not because they thought it would be too expensive to counter it. Until this latest invasion, Putin was quite skilled in knowing just how far to push the West. In many instances, the UK has been ahead of other countries, like, say, India or Germany. And in other cases, there has been a justified scepticism about whether sanctions actually deter mad dictators. That's quite apart from the question of whether, if they weren't able to go to London, they'd simply go to Paris or the Caymans or Cyprus or somewhere else instead. And having them in London actually lets us seize their assets if their government does something unacceptable - as it has, and as we have started to - so gives them something to lose.
What does make governments significantly more reluctant to act I think is the integration of the real economy with that of a rogue state. TWe have certainly seen this with Germany over the last week - their non-financial economy is far more integrated with Russia than ours is. Politicians have to get reelected, after all, and relatively few votes will be swayed by sanctions against money laundering, while lots will be determined if gas prices soar further or if the car industry collapses.
And the other negative effects listed aren't really due to our acceptance of Russian money either. Not opening the borders to Ukranian refugees is far more because the government thinks that the public doesn't want more immigration than because Russia launders mone through the City. Absurdly high house prices in central London, for instance, are far more due to ridiculous planning laws and real interest rates of -5% than foreign cash, and of all the issues confronting the country, the price of flats in Knightsbridge is pretty low on the list.
Taking a longer view, we never really faced the reckoning from the 2008/9 Financial Crisis, nor from the austerity of the 2010s, nor yet from Covid, and now we have the potential aftermaths from War in Europe to add to the list. All on top of accelerating climate change.
That's one hell of a bill coming our (or more likely to the younger among us) way.
I was reflecting what a shit start we have had to the 21st century: GFC, austerity, Brexit, Trump, Covid, and now war in Europe.
Then again by this stage of the 20th century we had had the horrors of WW1 and Spanish Flu...
Centuries seem to get most of the bad stuff out of the way in the first half?
Ukraine’s President Volodymyr Zelenskiy is asked foreign citizens around the world to join in the war against Russia.
by Decree of the President of Ukraine #248 of June 10, 2016, foreigners have the right to join the Armed Forces of Ukraine for military service under Contract of a voluntary basis to be included in the Territorial Defence Forces of the Armed Forced of Ukraine.
A separate subdivision is being formed of foreigners entitled the International Legion for the Territorial Defence of Ukraine. There is no greater contribution which you can make for the sake of peace.”
A better idea in this situation, in my view, than the Gandhi method.
Perhaps. Although I have read Orwell's Homage and his experience gave him an education in Spanish revolutionary politics but was otherwise utterly futile.
You don't need much imagination to envisage various ways in which a ragtag of European youth pitching up in Ukraine and being handed guns might end rather badly.
Or a gaggle of ageing PBers…
the PB Catering Corps?
‘Sorry lads, only flaked Parmesan coming up the line, but I’ve laid my hands on a lovely Dnipro Riesling.’
"...and anybody putting chocolate on your coffee will have to drop and do fifty...."
One important point about all these war videos posted online - whatever our motives in viewing them, there is a purpose to their posting.
Putin has propagandised the war from its outset, but they give constant lie to the nonsense reported by Russian state media. You might not like these videos, but citizen journalism, with all its flaws, is massively important.
On topic, I think the UK should focus on providing safe refuges for the women and children who are escaping Ukraine to well equipped and safe border zones inside the neighbouring EU states. We should be generous in building and funding these. Priorities for asylum in the UK should include the most vulnerable, those with family/personal links, and, crucially, the political and military leadership of the Ukrainian Government, in exile, should that become necessary.
This should be aimed as a temporary measure pending a restoration of independent Ukrainian Government.
All other efforts should be focused on helping them defeat the invasion, because none of them really want to leave - they want to go back home.
Ah yes, here it starts, ".... inside the neighbouring EU states."
What the bellicose are really frightened of is refugees in their pretty towns and villages.
Of course, people want to leave Ukraine. It is going to be a bloody & murderous place for some time, whatever happens.
If I was a young person in Ukraine, I'd want to get the feck out of there and have a decent life somewhere else.
War means refugees.
It is the inevitable excuse making for why they *always* have to go somewhere else. The Government will try it too, but it doesn't wash in this instance.
Asylum, as we all know, is a complex and contentious issue, and Britain doesn't have infinite room to accommodate all the people who might want to come here. However, the UK is also part of a large alliance taking concerted action to help Ukraine, and part of that is going to have to be giving shelter to refugees who, unless the Ukrainians somehow pull off a stellar victory against huge odds, are going to be exiled from home for years.
Simply dumping several million people in the laps of the governments of the border states under such circumstances isn't acceptable.
On topic, I think the UK should focus on providing safe refuges for the women and children who are escaping Ukraine to well equipped and safe border zones inside the neighbouring EU states. We should be generous in building and funding these. Priorities for asylum in the UK should include the most vulnerable, those with family/personal links, and, crucially, the political and military leadership of the Ukrainian Government, in exile, should that become necessary.
This should be aimed as a temporary measure pending a restoration of independent Ukrainian Government.
All other efforts should be focused on helping them defeat the invasion, because none of them really want to leave - they want to go back home.
If it comes to a Ukrainian government in exile my guess is it will be in Poland, which already had 2 million Ukrainian migrants before this started, and will have the largest number of refugees.
So support to Poland to help them support Ukraine is central - and the trilateral alliance recognises this.
If a Russian occupation of Ukraine lasts more than a year or so we might have to rethink that, as it ceases then to look so much like a temporary movement of people.
Ukraine’s President Volodymyr Zelenskiy is asked foreign citizens around the world to join in the war against Russia.
by Decree of the President of Ukraine #248 of June 10, 2016, foreigners have the right to join the Armed Forces of Ukraine for military service under Contract of a voluntary basis to be included in the Territorial Defence Forces of the Armed Forced of Ukraine.
A separate subdivision is being formed of foreigners entitled the International Legion for the Territorial Defence of Ukraine. There is no greater contribution which you can make for the sake of peace.”
A better idea in this situation, in my view, than the Gandhi method.
Perhaps. Although I have read Orwell's Homage and his experience gave him an education in Spanish revolutionary politics but was otherwise utterly futile.
You don't need much imagination to envisage various ways in which a ragtag of European youth pitching up in Ukraine and being handed guns might end rather badly.
Or a gaggle of ageing PBers…
the PB Catering Corps?
‘Sorry lads, only flaked Parmesan coming up the line, but I’ve laid my hands on a lovely Dnipro Riesling.’
"...and anybody putting chocolate on your coffee will have to drop and do fifty...."
We do however have some tins of army pineapple and a load of pizza dough.
Ukraine’s President Volodymyr Zelenskiy is asked foreign citizens around the world to join in the war against Russia.
by Decree of the President of Ukraine #248 of June 10, 2016, foreigners have the right to join the Armed Forces of Ukraine for military service under Contract of a voluntary basis to be included in the Territorial Defence Forces of the Armed Forced of Ukraine.
A separate subdivision is being formed of foreigners entitled the International Legion for the Territorial Defence of Ukraine. There is no greater contribution which you can make for the sake of peace.”
A better idea in this situation, in my view, than the Gandhi method.
Perhaps. Although I have read Orwell's Homage and his experience gave him an education in Spanish revolutionary politics but was otherwise utterly futile.
You don't need much imagination to envisage various ways in which a ragtag of European youth pitching up in Ukraine and being handed guns might end rather badly.
Transmitter Faults The transmitter has reported issues at the moment which is affecting some viewers.
TIMESTAMP STATION STATUS From 12:44am on 27th Feb 2022 BBC Radio 1 Off the air due to a fault From 12:44am on 27th Feb 2022 BBC Radio 2 Off the air due to a fault From 12:44am on 27th Feb 2022 BBC Radio 3 Off the air due to a fault From 12:44am on 27th Feb 2022 BBC Radio 4 Off the air due to a fault
Checks the horizon for incoming landing craft....
That's a terrifying escalation, Trident submarines are programmed to launch automatically if they don't get the shipping forecast.
On the refugee question, some serious thought needs to go in to this beyond the usual irrationality. We must confront the hard reality that there is no housing in the UK for refugees from Ukraine, and what exists in the private sector is of low quality and expensive. It is not a good place to resettle vulnerable people fleeing warzones. For people who have skills and can be self sufficient though, it is a different story.
I think we should look to countries in Eastern Europe. Much of the problems in the EU have been caused by their opposition to taking in refugees from Asia and Africa, on the grounds of cultural differences, resulting in large scale migration of these people to Northern European countries. Isn't this an opportunity for Hungary and Poland to seriously step up and do their bit?
Nominally, the war is about the fate of disputed territory in the East of the Ukraine.
In reality, the war is about the desire of the Ukraine to join the EU/NATO. This is opposed by Russia.
But, does the EU/NATO actually want Ukraine to join them ? Are these organisations going to welcome whatever Ukrainian state remains after Putin's barbarism ?
The fate of the Ukrainian refugees is a critical test of the West in all this.
If Ukraine were to join the EU, there would be large scale migration to the West through freedom of movement. The only other parts of the former USSR to join -- the much smaller Baltic states -- suffered very large drops in their populations (& those countries were comparatively prosperous compared to Ukraine). Hence, the EU has been -- it is fair to say -- rather circumspect about the consequences of the much larger & poorer Ukraine joining.
However, we now have a war that is likely to generate millions of refugees. The longer and bloodier the war, the more refugees. If this turns out to be a prolonged, bloody war of attrition, then ~ 5 million refugees (UN estimate) may well be on the low side.
So, the treatment of these refugees by the West now seems to me to be critical test of our integrity.
War means refugees. You don't get one without the other.
The counter-argument would be that, if we're getting the refugees anyway, the consequences of joining the EU may not be so bad. Similarly with NATO - the fear was that Ukraine joining would bring us into a conflict with Russia. Now the conflict has happened - in the eventuality that Russia is eventually defeated such that Ukraine becomes free and able to join - the consequences aren't so bad; for the foreseeable, we're faced up against Russia already.
Let's see what happens, shall we?
I am happy to take Ukrainian refugees, for avoidance of doubt.
I would place them in the UK in direct proportion to the bellicosity of the posters on pb,com.
Those pretty Cambridgeshire villages, the Wiltshire countryside
But, I expect that is where the refugees will not end up.
You are unfortunately correct.
My former school friends in market town Herefordshire had enough of queueing behind Eastern Europeans at the doctor's surgery last time they were here.
That is not a vote winner. Pictures of Boris handing out weaponry to the RAF to put on flights from Northolt on the other hand cleanses our soul without the inconvenience.
The Telegraph on Tory defence cuts, reducing the army to 72,000 soldiers with a mere 148 tanks and none of the armoured combat vehicles necessary alongside them; with eight infantry battalions down to four.
Meanwhile our war stocks of replacement vehicles, weapons and ammunition have been stripped bare by an ill-judged imitation of industry’s “just-in-time” policies – not for efficiency but to save money. We sent only 2,000 anti-tank missiles to Ukraine and I suspect we don’t have many more to spare. https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2022/02/26/age-conventional-warfare-back-britain-isnt-ready/ (£££)
Yes, the military has been chronically underfunded for decades. Including during Blair's time in power - remember the wizard wheeze where one of the carriers was technically fit for duty in a month, when it had had most of its engines removed for spares for its sisters?
Mistakes in defence procurement pale into insignificance compared to the disastrous decision of Miliband to vote against intervention in Syria. We are where we are now, in part, because of that decision. Oh, and how some people on here cheered it on! They got one over the government! Hurrah!
The mass bombing of Syria government positions when Isis were in the ascendant would have been an absolute catastrophe. Isis may have overrun the entire region, attacked Israel and Lebanon too, and it still be in utter chaos. Miliband's intervention may well have averted an even worse disaster than Iraq, and was quite possibly even one of the most important by a British politician in the forty or fifty years since Harold Wilson and Vietnam.
Your scenario is very weak. Let me give a much stronger one, one backed up by events:
Letting Assad get away with using chemical weapons showed the west as being utterly weak and divided, not willing to stand up to our principles. It created a power vacuum that Putin felt he could step into, gave Russia vital military skills, led to Salisbury, and has directly led to the invasion of Ukraine
We were faced with two evils. We chose the one that went directly against our values, and Putin noticed that. He also noticed that we would back down.
This was exactly the form of reasoning the led up to the invasion of Iraq, but now chaos had already been inflicted by the prior failed intervention, and Isis were gobbling up territory throughout the region at an incredible pace. The results would have been too awful to contemplate, and we were spared an unmitigated disaster.
That's rubbish.
Assad used chemical weapons against his own population. We let him get away with it, and emboldened Russia (and others) in the process.
Either we have values or we do not. Syria showed we have fuck-all values.
So did Saddam. We didn't let him get away with it, and it ended in absolute disaster.
There's not really any relationship between that and the current situation. Putin turned his face against the West five years before, and nothing was done ; Syria wasn't much more than a confirmation of that. The West was effectively silent when he intervened in Georgia, and later South Ossetia, again five years before, which also coincided with the start of his attacks on civil society. That's when and where the deterrence angle really does have some merit.
We did let Saddam get away with it. The Halabja Massacre was in 1988, and AFAICR he had used them before that as well. We only invaded Iraq three years later after they invaded Kuwait.
No, Syria was a real turning point - although one of several. An evil had been done. Western governments were proclaiming it was an evil, but then, thanks to Miliband, we did nothing about that evil. This had two significant effects: 1) It told Russia that when push came to shove, we were divided and weak - and they could divide and weaken us more. 2) It allowed Russia to step into the vacuum, and believe they could win. 3) The west was unwilling to do anything military against evil.
Salisbury was a direct result of it. So is this.
Oddly, this still holds together even for the nutjobs who believe that that Assad did not use chemical weapons against his own population.
It would have emboldened and enabled an even more rapidly growing evil than Asad at the time - Isis - and made very little difference to Putin's opinion of the West, which was already entirely contemptuous. This is the transference of moral pride onto the grim strategic realities and equations on the ground at the time, I would say, and I think is more a kind of wish fulfilment.
Assad has probably killed more people than ISIS. But it's like comparing Hitler and Mao: both were evil men, and comparing their hideous crimes becomes pointless after a while. Just accept they were, and did, evil.
But the point remains: we have values. You do not use chemical weapons. He did. We did nothing.
We told evil people in the world that we would not stand up for our values.
And then Salisbury.
I remain a little confused as to your posts about Syria. Standing up to the evil Assad regime and replacing them with the psychotic Islamic State regime was a better option because...?
I was very pleased that we didn't enmesh ourselves in a civil war where there appeared to be about 4 sides fighting none of whom were the good guys.
You evidently have not read my posts then. firstly, it was not simply a case of replacing them with ISIS. The situation was much more complex than that. It created a vacuum that Russia gladly stepped into.
But most importantly, it is to do with standing up for our values. Thanks to Miliband, the west did not. He stopped the UK taking part, which stopped the US. The use of chemical weapons became acceptable: the poor mans nukes.
Then Salisbury.
It also showed that the west was divided when it come to defending values. Putin got the message that he could do whatever he wants, and we would argue amongst ourselves and not respond.
I hope he's wrong.
I guess you agreed with his u-turn, which might be why you're keen not to accept the consequences it has had.
You keep saying "standing up for our values" and I agree. But always realpolitik - and IIRC one of the chemical weapons attacks by Assad was done as the UN arrived to inspect for chemical weapons which Assad claimed not to have...
The situation absolutely was complex - at least 4 factions one of which was Assad another of which was ISIS. In the midst of all that there was a very real risk that a bad situation in Syria becomes a bad situation across the region. However bad Assad is - and he's a monster - he wasn't a direct threat to western society like ISIS. Hence the need for realpolitik. You don't stand up for your values by allowing psychotics to replace the bad man and foster jihad globally.
I utterly disagree with your last paragraph.
This was predictable. I believe (though I have not done so) that if you go back to that period, you will see me saying how destabilising the decision would be for the world. And so it has been.
In this case 'realpolitilk' is just a synonym for "I don't want to admit it, but we f*cked up."
It isn't a binary either/or. What happened was destabilising one way. The alternative was destabilising the other way. Or a third option down the middle where it just descends into utter chaos. We didn't enable Assad by refusing to enable ISIS and the same is true in reverse. Show me the good option to back in Syria 2014 and I would have supported it. The options were bad or bad
For me the conversation has been a touch jarring to read on both sides as the arguments seem to read from complete confidence as to how events would unfold if x or y had been done.
Surely in reality the starting points are we don't know, it was chaotic, with risks, costs and benefits on all options.
I would even suggest the precise details of how it was implemented are possibly just as important as the wider strategy being implemented. i.e the West could have chosen either of the two strategies suggested and in my mind there would be considerable overlap between the two based on much smaller decisions made during the implementation of each strategy.
On the refugee question, some serious thought needs to go in to this beyond the usual irrationality. We must confront the hard reality that there is no housing in the UK for refugees from Ukraine, and what exists in the private sector is of low quality and expensive. It is not a good place to resettle vulnerable people fleeing warzones. For people who have skills and can be self sufficient though, it is a different story.
I think we should look to countries in Eastern Europe. Much of the problems in the EU have been caused by their opposition to taking in refugees from Asia and Africa, on the grounds of cultural differences, resulting in large scale migration of these people to Northern European countries. Isn't this an opportunity for Hungary and Poland to seriously step up and do their bit?
Nominally, the war is about the fate of disputed territory in the East of the Ukraine.
In reality, the war is about the desire of the Ukraine to join the EU/NATO. This is opposed by Russia.
But, does the EU/NATO actually want Ukraine to join them ? Are these organisations going to welcome whatever Ukrainian state remains after Putin's barbarism ?
The fate of the Ukrainian refugees is a critical test of the West in all this.
If Ukraine were to join the EU, there would be large scale migration to the West through freedom of movement. The only other parts of the former USSR to join -- the much smaller Baltic states -- suffered very large drops in their populations (& those countries were comparatively prosperous compared to Ukraine). Hence, the EU has been -- it is fair to say -- rather circumspect about the consequences of the much larger & poorer Ukraine joining.
However, we now have a war that is likely to generate millions of refugees. The longer and bloodier the war, the more refugees. If this turns out to be a prolonged, bloody war of attrition, then ~ 5 million refugees (UN estimate) may well be on the low side.
So, the treatment of these refugees by the West now seems to me to be critical test of our integrity.
War means refugees. You don't get one without the other.
The counter-argument would be that, if we're getting the refugees anyway, the consequences of joining the EU may not be so bad. Similarly with NATO - the fear was that Ukraine joining would bring us into a conflict with Russia. Now the conflict has happened - in the eventuality that Russia is eventually defeated such that Ukraine becomes free and able to join - the consequences aren't so bad; for the foreseeable, we're faced up against Russia already.
Let's see what happens, shall we?
I am happy to take Ukrainian refugees, for avoidance of doubt.
I would place them in the UK in direct proportion to the bellicosity of the posters on pb,com.
Those pretty Cambridgeshire villages, the Wiltshire countryside
But, I expect that is where the refugees will not end up.
You are unfortunately correct.
My former school friends in market town Herefordshire had enough of queueing behind Eastern Europeans at the doctor's surgery last time they were here.
That is not a vote winner. Pictures of Boris handing out weaponry to the RAF to put on flights from Northolt on the other hand cleanses our soul without the inconvenience.
At present, weaponry is of more use to the Ukrainians.
Perhaps Roger's Gandhi suggestion is not far off target. Question is would the tanks have stopped 30 years ago after checking for TV news crews, and can they win this sort of war if they feel obliged to stop now
Transmitter Faults The transmitter has reported issues at the moment which is affecting some viewers.
TIMESTAMP STATION STATUS From 12:44am on 27th Feb 2022 BBC Radio 1 Off the air due to a fault From 12:44am on 27th Feb 2022 BBC Radio 2 Off the air due to a fault From 12:44am on 27th Feb 2022 BBC Radio 3 Off the air due to a fault From 12:44am on 27th Feb 2022 BBC Radio 4 Off the air due to a fault
Checks the horizon for incoming landing craft....
That's a terrifying escalation, Trident submarines are programmed to launch automatically if they don't get the shipping forecast.
Where is the information source for that transmitter change coming from ?
I have always guarded against optimism in relation to anything to do with Putin, because he always seems to win. This winning will ultimately come to an end at some point, but it is too early to make that call in relation to the current situation in Ukraine.
The war's only been going for two fucking days. There are many, many dark days ahead when those that have the resolve to do so must play their part by witlessly speculating on made up shit they've seen on Twitter.
It'll all be over by (Orthodox) Christmas.
I so want Ukraine to win. I have to keep telling myself that I'm viewing the news with that hope in mind, skewing my perceptions - and through a media that generally wants Ukraine to win as well.
I'd feel much better about saying how the war was going if we knew what Russia's strategy was at the beginning. It's perfectly possible that it is all going well to some plan. It's also possible that they've hit large problems and are having to change strategy.
Any plan that the Russians had went out of the window on day one as is the case in most wars. Nobody knows what the fuck is going on as is also the case in most wars. Least of all those blowing the shit out each other on the front line.
A bayonet is a weapon with a worker at both ends, as Father Lenin said.
A fine quotation. The best commentary I have read so far. There is something uniquely ugly at this time in history seeing a bunch of young people on both sides disgorging each other as proxy for leaders who wish to fulfill their ambitions.
It's even uglier reading commentators from the sidelines cheering their sides on while taking no active part. This is 2022. If there aren't other ways of resolving this then we should be living in caves
Hang on a minute. In the case of Ukraine, what evil 'ambition' does Zelenskyy have aside from keeping his country free?
Don't equate Ukraine and Russia in this.
I can't see a lot of difference between a young Russian conscript in a tank being shot to pieces or another young Russian/Ukrainian conscript being shot to pieces. Neither are making decisions and neither can do anything about the situation they find themselves in.
What happened to the Gandhi method? See what the Russians can do with 50,000,000 citizens engaging in civil disobedience with the rest of the world giving them every support other than military
Whilst I dont go fully with what Roger is saying , it is getting tedious on here listening to many glorifying killing and posting (sometimes fakes) reports from twitter about it. Also the armchair generals who based on nothing are talking as if the collective PB was in charge of the Russian operation it would be over by now . All points to a secret love of war sadly which may be a human condition more prevalent in politicos . We even have had somebody this morning calling post WW2 UK and US troops pussies for not loving bayoneting people.
I wish PB was in charge of the Russian war operation, for the very good reason it would never have started if we were.
If you look at the Kharkiv local council seat to the west of the river you can clear see that there is more support… we should target them in the first instance and redraw the boundaries
The Telegraph on Tory defence cuts, reducing the army to 72,000 soldiers with a mere 148 tanks and none of the armoured combat vehicles necessary alongside them; with eight infantry battalions down to four.
Meanwhile our war stocks of replacement vehicles, weapons and ammunition have been stripped bare by an ill-judged imitation of industry’s “just-in-time” policies – not for efficiency but to save money. We sent only 2,000 anti-tank missiles to Ukraine and I suspect we don’t have many more to spare. https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2022/02/26/age-conventional-warfare-back-britain-isnt-ready/ (£££)
Yes, the military has been chronically underfunded for decades. Including during Blair's time in power - remember the wizard wheeze where one of the carriers was technically fit for duty in a month, when it had had most of its engines removed for spares for its sisters?
Mistakes in defence procurement pale into insignificance compared to the disastrous decision of Miliband to vote against intervention in Syria. We are where we are now, in part, because of that decision. Oh, and how some people on here cheered it on! They got one over the government! Hurrah!
The mass bombing of Syria government positions when Isis were in the ascendant would have been an absolute catastrophe. Isis may have overrun the entire region, attacked Israel and Lebanon too, and it still be in utter chaos. Miliband's intervention may well have averted an even worse disaster than Iraq, and was quite possibly even one of the most important by a British politician in the forty or fifty years since Harold Wilson and Vietnam.
Your scenario is very weak. Let me give a much stronger one, one backed up by events:
Letting Assad get away with using chemical weapons showed the west as being utterly weak and divided, not willing to stand up to our principles. It created a power vacuum that Putin felt he could step into, gave Russia vital military skills, led to Salisbury, and has directly led to the invasion of Ukraine
We were faced with two evils. We chose the one that went directly against our values, and Putin noticed that. He also noticed that we would back down.
This was exactly the form of reasoning the led up to the invasion of Iraq, but now chaos had already been inflicted by the prior failed intervention, and Isis were gobbling up territory throughout the region at an incredible pace. The results would have been too awful to contemplate, and we were spared an unmitigated disaster.
That's rubbish.
Assad used chemical weapons against his own population. We let him get away with it, and emboldened Russia (and others) in the process.
Either we have values or we do not. Syria showed we have fuck-all values.
So did Saddam. We didn't let him get away with it, and it ended in absolute disaster.
There's not really any relationship between that and the current situation. Putin turned his face against the West five years before, and nothing was done ; Syria wasn't much more than a confirmation of that. The West was effectively silent when he intervened in Georgia, and later South Ossetia, again five years before, which also coincided with the start of his attacks on civil society. That's when and where the deterrence angle really does have some merit.
We did let Saddam get away with it. The Halabja Massacre was in 1988, and AFAICR he had used them before that as well. We only invaded Iraq three years later after they invaded Kuwait.
No, Syria was a real turning point - although one of several. An evil had been done. Western governments were proclaiming it was an evil, but then, thanks to Miliband, we did nothing about that evil. This had two significant effects: 1) It told Russia that when push came to shove, we were divided and weak - and they could divide and weaken us more. 2) It allowed Russia to step into the vacuum, and believe they could win. 3) The west was unwilling to do anything military against evil.
Salisbury was a direct result of it. So is this.
Oddly, this still holds together even for the nutjobs who believe that that Assad did not use chemical weapons against his own population.
It would have emboldened and enabled an even more rapidly growing evil than Asad at the time - Isis - and made very little difference to Putin's opinion of the West, which was already entirely contemptuous. This is the transference of moral pride onto the grim strategic realities and equations on the ground at the time, I would say, and I think is more a kind of wish fulfilment.
Assad has probably killed more people than ISIS. But it's like comparing Hitler and Mao: both were evil men, and comparing their hideous crimes becomes pointless after a while. Just accept they were, and did, evil.
But the point remains: we have values. You do not use chemical weapons. He did. We did nothing.
We told evil people in the world that we would not stand up for our values.
And then Salisbury.
I remain a little confused as to your posts about Syria. Standing up to the evil Assad regime and replacing them with the psychotic Islamic State regime was a better option because...?
I was very pleased that we didn't enmesh ourselves in a civil war where there appeared to be about 4 sides fighting none of whom were the good guys.
You evidently have not read my posts then. firstly, it was not simply a case of replacing them with ISIS. The situation was much more complex than that. It created a vacuum that Russia gladly stepped into.
But most importantly, it is to do with standing up for our values. Thanks to Miliband, the west did not. He stopped the UK taking part, which stopped the US. The use of chemical weapons became acceptable: the poor mans nukes.
Then Salisbury.
It also showed that the west was divided when it come to defending values. Putin got the message that he could do whatever he wants, and we would argue amongst ourselves and not respond.
I hope he's wrong.
I guess you agreed with his u-turn, which might be why you're keen not to accept the consequences it has had.
You keep saying "standing up for our values" and I agree. But always realpolitik - and IIRC one of the chemical weapons attacks by Assad was done as the UN arrived to inspect for chemical weapons which Assad claimed not to have...
The situation absolutely was complex - at least 4 factions one of which was Assad another of which was ISIS. In the midst of all that there was a very real risk that a bad situation in Syria becomes a bad situation across the region. However bad Assad is - and he's a monster - he wasn't a direct threat to western society like ISIS. Hence the need for realpolitik. You don't stand up for your values by allowing psychotics to replace the bad man and foster jihad globally.
I utterly disagree with your last paragraph.
This was predictable. I believe (though I have not done so) that if you go back to that period, you will see me saying how destabilising the decision would be for the world. And so it has been.
In this case 'realpolitilk' is just a synonym for "I don't want to admit it, but we f*cked up."
It isn't a binary either/or. What happened was destabilising one way. The alternative was destabilising the other way. Or a third option down the middle where it just descends into utter chaos. We didn't enable Assad by refusing to enable ISIS and the same is true in reverse. Show me the good option to back in Syria 2014 and I would have supported it. The options were bad or bad
For me the conversation has been a touch jarring to read on both sides as the arguments seem to read from complete confidence as to how events would unfold if x or y had been done.
Surely in reality the starting points are we don't know, it was chaotic, with risks, costs and benefits on all options.
I would even suggest the precise details of how it was implemented are possibly just as important as the wider strategy being implemented. i.e the West could have chosen either of the two strategies suggested and in my mind there would be considerable overlap between the two based on much smaller decisions made during the implementation of each strategy.
There are rarely good solutions in the Middle East.
Comments
I really don't see much of that. There's a lot of anger about Russia's actions, but I think most (everyone?) on here would be happy if the Russians just retreated back over the border without any more shots being fired. That would be a happy dream to me.
But we're facing an aggressor capable of evil acts. In the light of that, and their future ambitions, people are scared.
In fact, I'd argue that fear is the predominant feeling on here.
In reality, the war is about the desire of the Ukraine to join the EU/NATO. This is opposed by Russia.
But, does the EU/NATO actually want Ukraine to join them ? Are these organisations going to welcome whatever Ukrainian state remains after Putin's barbarism ?
The fate of the Ukrainian refugees is a critical test of the West in all this.
If Ukraine were to join the EU, there would be large scale migration to the West through freedom of movement. The only other parts of the former USSR to join -- the much smaller Baltic states -- suffered very large drops in their populations (& those countries were comparatively prosperous compared to Ukraine). Hence, the EU has been -- it is fair to say -- rather circumspect about the consequences of the much larger & poorer Ukraine joining.
However, we now have a war that is likely to generate millions of refugees. The longer and bloodier the war, the more refugees. If this turns out to be a prolonged, bloody war of attrition, then ~ 5 million refugees (UN estimate) may well be on the low side.
So, the treatment of these refugees by the West now seems to me to be critical test of our integrity.
War means refugees. You don't get one without the other.
This is not "refugees" in that the beggers come here illegally and take our benefits and our jobs. We're talking about people who have had to flee the fighting who want to go home and rebuild.
We could help. We are not. Our hearts have been hardened to human suffering for the benefit of political support for the governing party.
It's also why politicians and people on here often descend to 'war', 'fight', 'battle' when talking about politics.
These things aren’t easy.
But it’s very hard to argue that a democratic country fighting what is a blatantly illegal invasion launched by a corrupt and repressive regime, which seeks to impose the same on them, is doing the wrong thing.
The issue with warfare has always been how older men with power can get younger men to fight and die to defend and expand it. It is why religion proved such a useful tool for rulers.
1. If nationals from NATO countries get involved, there is a pretext for Putin to claim NATO itself is attacking Russia. At a minimum, that may swing wavering support in Russia behind him.
2. You don't know who is going to join up and where that leads to after the Ukraine conflict ends. Bosnia was a training ground for many irregulars whose subsequent activities were directly contrary to our interests.
But there is another. With maybe three exceptions, none of our regular posters have much knowledge of the military, so we're trying to make sense of things that are outside our experience and the only way we can is the normal way - news reports and information on the relative strengths of the parties.
So far, these aren't proving very fruitful for making sense of what's happening. Russia are doing much less well than they themselves expected, and their actions lack logic based on such information as we have. So we're puzzled as well as fearful.
It's possible of course that the reason why things don't make sense is that the Russian high command are totally mad and stupid. But that's an even more alarming thought.
Russia is a middle income country, with a population of 144 million but an economy smaller than South Korea. It's self-sufficient in vital basic resources (oil, gas, electricity generation, food) but if it ends up being cut off from both Western and Chinese trade and technology over time then it is really going to suffer. Good.
However, if it's helping Ukrainian morale then I'm all for it.
Mr. B2, religion has been cause or a factor in many wars, but it was rarely a concern in the ancient world which saw even more of it. And young men have a predilection for violence naturally.
https://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/markets/article-10554643/The-UK-millionaires-want-pay-tax.html
https://twitter.com/PickardJE/status/1497693699077255168?t=vRyzZ2oxkKvtpNsMjRZUHQ&s=19
The situation absolutely was complex - at least 4 factions one of which was Assad another of which was ISIS. In the midst of all that there was a very real risk that a bad situation in Syria becomes a bad situation across the region. However bad Assad is - and he's a monster - he wasn't a direct threat to western society like ISIS. Hence the need for realpolitik. You don't stand up for your values by allowing psychotics to replace the bad man and foster jihad globally.
A few people are noting the human tragedy of young men killing each other. I've found the glorification of the Ukrainian effort oddly enticing, so I'll reflect on that myself.
The problem is these posters tend to be the usual suspects. It seems to me to be an advanced form of whataboutery, and allows them to avoid facing down their disgraceful pro-Putin instincts. See all the corporate calls for "peace" by F1 and FIFA, etc. I've been much more impressed by Sturgeon, the Irish, who have anti-NATO tendencies but have the moral courage to recognise Putin for what he is.
Asked for an update on the situation on the ground, the foreign secretary said: "What we're seeing is that Ukrainian forces are continuing to resist Russian advances, we haven't seen overnight significant changes in what is happening on the ground but we are seeing... very, very strong and brave Ukrainian resistance." Ms Truss said this resistance is likely to have been unexpected to the Russians."
https://news.sky.com/story/ukraine-russia-war-live-latest-news-putin-kyiv-invasion-12541713
This was predictable. I believe (though I have not done so) that if you go back to that period, you will see me saying how destabilising the decision would be for the world. And so it has been.
In this case 'realpolitilk' is just a synonym for "I don't want to admit it, but we f*cked up."
I am happy to take Ukrainian refugees, for avoidance of doubt.
I would place them in the UK in direct proportion to the bellicosity of the posters on pb,com.
Those pretty Cambridgeshire villages, the Wiltshire countryside
But, I expect that is where the refugees will not end up.
I can never really predict their position or reliability, or indeed where their sympathies really lie.
https://twitter.com/faulknerwolves/status/1497613737079062534?s=21
It really feels like financial sanctions have really been stepped up quite significantly from an initially slow start. I hope we continue to find ways to tighten them further.
Well said Malc.
*Afaics the Russians seemed to have abandoned the Great Patriotic War policy of using women on the front line, but open to correction on this.
1. "UK millionaires" also encompasses an awful lot of people who ideally want to pay less tax, and give lots of money to the Conservative Party to try to achieve this
2. Soaking the rich is insufficient. There are too few of them. And thus we come back to the eternal problem of wealthy middle-class old people and their immense store of property wealth, which no politician dare touch
Rich people who want to do a bit of redistribution will have to achieve it through philanthropy instead.
The pretty parts of South East England are on a war footing.
But I think a poster referred to someone with a homophobic slur last night? (possible was edited by the responder in the block quotes). I think we should go after each other for the content of our posts, and occasionally our assumed motivations, nothing more.
This should be aimed as a temporary measure pending a restoration of independent Ukrainian Government.
All other efforts should be focused on helping them defeat the invasion, because none of them really want to leave - they want to go back home.
The transmitter has reported issues at the moment which is affecting some viewers.
TIMESTAMP STATION STATUS
From 12:44am on 27th Feb 2022 BBC Radio 1 Off the air due to a fault
From 12:44am on 27th Feb 2022 BBC Radio 2 Off the air due to a fault
From 12:44am on 27th Feb 2022 BBC Radio 3 Off the air due to a fault
From 12:44am on 27th Feb 2022 BBC Radio 4 Off the air due to a fault
Checks the horizon for incoming landing craft....
Walked the gundogs this morning?
Young people have been fighting imagined colonial legacies from 200 years ago, perhaps they could try fighting a real life colonist, and see how that goes.
Nevertheless, I think it overstates its case. We will never know, of course, but I don't think there's much evidence that the significant influx of Russian money to London made the government more reluctant to impose sanctions or supply weapons when Russia invaded. We have certainly not been tough enough on Russia in the past, but I think that's because policymakers have underestimated the threat, not because they thought it would be too expensive to counter it. Until this latest invasion, Putin was quite skilled in knowing just how far to push the West. In many instances, the UK has been ahead of other countries, like, say, India or Germany. And in other cases, there has been a justified scepticism about whether sanctions actually deter mad dictators. That's quite apart from the question of whether, if they weren't able to go to London, they'd simply go to Paris or the Caymans or Cyprus or somewhere else instead. And having them in London actually lets us seize their assets if their government does something unacceptable - as it has, and as we have started to - so gives them something to lose.
What does make governments significantly more reluctant to act I think is the integration of the real economy with that of a rogue state. TWe have certainly seen this with Germany over the last week - their non-financial economy is far more integrated with Russia than ours is. Politicians have to get reelected, after all, and relatively few votes will be swayed by sanctions against money laundering, while lots will be determined if gas prices soar further or if the car industry collapses.
And the other negative effects listed aren't really due to our acceptance of Russian money either. Not opening the borders to Ukranian refugees is far more because the government thinks that the public doesn't want more immigration (together with the usual snail's pace and incompetence at the Home Office) rather than because Russia launders money through the City. Absurdly high house prices in central London are far more due to ridiculous planning laws and real interest rates of -5% than foreign cash, and of all the issues confronting the country, the price of flats in Knightsbridge is pretty low on the list.
I think the way to hit Putin is with weapons, less so with economic sanctions.
What the bellicose are really frightened of is refugees in their pretty towns and villages.
Of course, people want to leave Ukraine. It is going to be a bloody & murderous place for some time, whatever happens.
If I was a young person in Ukraine, I'd want to get the feck out of there and have a decent life somewhere else.
War means refugees.
That's one hell of a bill coming our (or more likely to the younger among us) way.
But just taking back illegally occupied territories doesn’t provide a legitimate causi belli for the future
'After you, your Lordship.....'
1. Globally mainstream as first Russia starts to use it, then rich elites in other volatile countries embrace it
2. Increasingly blocked from the banking system as the West try to stop Russians using it as a loophole
3. Not much change from the status quo
The solution cannot be one of tackling the money coming in, and telling politicians that they are just going to have to be poorer - that's like telling corporations that they are just going to have to make less profit. So it has to be that politicians have financial incentives to do the right thing, not the wrong thing. So, I am thinking of launching an app, along the following lines. The app allows any private UK voter to register, and they are allowed to donate a pound to any politician of their choice. It can only be one pound, per politician, per year. The app has an API link up with the 'they work for you' website or similar, and your pound donation must be linked to an action taken by that politician, for example, voting against the live export of animals, or making a speech on behalf of Tibet. A politician could make thousands or even millions of pounds by making popular decisions, far exceeding their earnings potential from all other sources.
Many voices lament that this opens a new, dark chapter of history. I’m afraid there’s an even less palatable truth. The world has been on a trajectory towards an event like this for some time.
The response to earlier aggressions was some heavy denouncing and some light sanctioning, counter-measures that were much too puny to deter the Russian leader. All the blood of this conflict is on his hands, but some of the guilt is borne by a variety of actors in the west who have enabled or emboldened Putin.
Lenin had a phrase to describe these people. Useful idiots.
Successive governments have indulged, facilitated and encouraged Russian oligarchs to purchase influence in our political, commercial and cultural life. Our capital acquired the nickname Londongrad because of its global reputation as a laundromat for dirty money. Take the cash first – and don’t ask too many questions afterwards. That has been the Tory party’s attitude to plutocrats bearing gifts.
Since the fall of the Berlin Wall and the disarmament that followed, the UK and its neighbours have mainly spent the “peace dividend” on giving ageing populations better healthcare and pensions than they would otherwise have enjoyed. Liberal democracies urgently need to rediscover the resolve to defend their values against tyranny that they displayed during the cold war. The autocrats in Moscow and Beijing believe that the west is divided, decadent and in decline. They have to be proved wrong.
Then again by this stage of the 20th century we had had the horrors of WW1 and Spanish Flu...
Is that plausible?
Putin has propagandised the war from its outset, but they give constant lie to the nonsense reported by Russian state media. You might not like these videos, but citizen journalism, with all its flaws, is massively important.
Asylum, as we all know, is a complex and contentious issue, and Britain doesn't have infinite room to accommodate all the people who might want to come here. However, the UK is also part of a large alliance taking concerted action to help Ukraine, and part of that is going to have to be giving shelter to refugees who, unless the Ukrainians somehow pull off a stellar victory against huge odds, are going to be exiled from home for years.
Simply dumping several million people in the laps of the governments of the border states under such circumstances isn't acceptable.
So support to Poland to help them support Ukraine is central - and the trilateral alliance recognises this.
If a Russian occupation of Ukraine lasts more than a year or so we might have to rethink that, as it ceases then to look so much like a temporary movement of people.
My former school friends in market town Herefordshire had enough of queueing behind Eastern Europeans at the doctor's surgery last time they were here.
That is not a vote winner. Pictures of Boris handing out weaponry to the RAF to put on flights from Northolt on the other hand cleanses our soul without the inconvenience.
Surely in reality the starting points are we don't know, it was chaotic, with risks, costs and benefits on all options.
I would even suggest the precise details of how it was implemented are possibly just as important as the wider strategy being implemented. i.e the West could have chosen either of the two strategies suggested and in my mind there would be considerable overlap between the two based on much smaller decisions made during the implementation of each strategy.
Ukrainian civilians block a Russian tank column
Perhaps Roger's Gandhi suggestion is not far off target. Question is would the tanks have stopped 30 years ago after checking for TV news crews, and can they win this sort of war if they feel obliged to stop now