The point has been made before but it’s worth making again. How can there be any ‘victory’ over Ukraine, now? Putin has unified all of Ukraine against him, they will never forget or forgive. He cannot permanently police, repress and occupy a nation of 44m, twice the size of France
He desperately needs a face-saving way out
Problem is there is no face saving way out and one wasn’t possible from the moment he sent the first troop across the border.
Agreed Putin is all in now....and he still has many cards to play...
Belarus is one, frying himself is another .. I'm not sure how many others there are.
The point has been made before but it’s worth making again. How can there be any ‘victory’ over Ukraine, now? Putin has unified all of Ukraine against him, they will never forget or forgive. He cannot permanently police, repress and occupy a nation of 44m, twice the size of France
He desperately needs a face-saving way out
Problem is there is no face saving way out and one wasn’t possible from the moment he sent the first troop across the border.
Agreed Putin is all in now....and he still has many cards to play...
Belarus is one, frying himself is another .. I'm not sure how many others there are.
Cutting off European gas supplies...using more deadly weapons in Ukraine....cutting off the supply of important world commodities....the man has the potential to cause serious damage...
In that case Putin should have invaded in the heart of winter and cut supplies then that would have had more impact . And they need the revenues from gas and oil.
Putin has miscalculated and once the bank runs start and the economic goes down the toilet his public support will drop.
Russian friends sharing texts with me of their colleagues in Russia's public service resigning over this invasion. Widespread disgust among Russian government employees over Putin's decision. https://twitter.com/NeilPHauer/status/1497904638678470658
Great article by Liam hallinan in telegraph about how well prepared putin is
The West's cost of living crisis gave Vladimir Putin impetus to strike
Imposing harsh sanctions on Russia is tough when Britain and US are struggling with inflation
LIAM HALLIGAN27 February 2022 • 6:00am
Why did Vladimir Putin decide now was the time to conquer Ukraine? Russia has for years resented the Western leanings of this country of 44 million, which covers an area bigger than France.
Last week, the Russian President surprised many when he suddenly forced the issue, bringing his festering sense of grievance over Ukraine to a head in the most ruthless fashion.
But consider the global economic backdrop, and various energy supply deals the Kremlin has cut over recent months and years – particularly with China – and the timing of this Russian incursion, from Putin’s perspective, makes brutal sense.
Russia provides around 40pc of the natural gas used across Western Europe, while accounting for 10pc of the world’s oil supply. These stark facts, previously of interest only to energy industry insiders, are suddenly common knowledge. Moscow’s invasion of Ukraine has brought the issue of Western energy security into sharp relief.
Posters are banned for infringement of copyright by pasting excessive amounts of newspaper copy.
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.
But, I also don't think we should encourage permanent resettlement (which is what that quickly becomes) that depopulates Ukraine and allows it to be colonised and pacified by Russia.
The fight for Ukraine's future is in Ukraine.
Ukraine is an impossible state, as presently constituted (its boundaries were drawn by a madman, Stalin).
My (wild) guess is that endpoint of all this is an Eastern/Southern Ukraine de facto absorbed into Russia proper and a Northern/Western bit that is a rump independent Ukrainian state.
I don't think Putin cares about the former bits of the Austro-Hungarian Empire.
This will be accompanied by ethnic cleansing, or at least very substantial population movements.
If you don't like which bit of the country you ended up in, you will move or be killed. All this happened in the West after WW2, it is just delayed in the East.
It was Kruschev who altered the boundaries by transferring Crimea in 1954, as part of his machinations to become boss.
It was formally ceded by Khruschev, but the idea was Stalin's.
The boundaries of the Ukrainian SSR changed quite a bit over its 72 year history.
As I believe the Kenyan ambassador to the UN remarked a few days back, virtually all of the borders in Africa were drawn by colonial powers, frequently cutting across linguistic and kinship boundaries that Africans, if left to their own devices, would've shown respect for. If they all started trying to steal parcels of land from one another on that basis, the whole continent would be consumed by warfare. If Russia is allowed to keep getting away with redrawing its boundaries based on historical grievances of this kind then it opens the door to total chaos.
Besides which, AIUI every region of Ukraine - including Crimea, albeit by a narrower margin than most of the others - voted in favour of Ukrainian independence in 1991.
Yes, strange that a plebiscite is the way to settle an issue, and yet the votes in 1991 can be ignored if doing so further's Russian interests.
As I recollect, John Major was in power in 1991. He is not still in power because there have been elections. The world is not frozen in 1991.
Yet, you don't think a boundary can ever be revisited.
If there is an overwhelming majority in every part of the Ukraine for the present boundaries, surely a plebsicite will confirm that ?
A powerful argument that the Ukrainian state can use to retain Donetsk and Luhansk, no? .
It's a fantasy to believe there can be a free vote in areas of Ukraine occupied by the Russians.
Edit: And besides, your talking point from a few days ago is that plebiscites do settle this issue for the long term, rather than creating the backwards and forwards conflict of war after war over the boundaries. You weren't arguing for every generation to redraw the borders with new plebiscites.
You are embarrassingly all over the place with this, because you refuse to stand up to Russian aggression, and so you are casting around for any sort of figleaf to explain how it could easily have been avoided.
There are ~ 20 million Russians in the Ukraine. That is a large minority. Whatever Ukraine does, it has to take that minority into account -- if it wishes to be a country drawn on the boundaries of the Ukrainian SSR.
Plebiscites are conducted at a district or town level
You can see the patchwork of Danish and German areas. You draw a new boundary with that detailed information. The historic region of the Duchy of Schleswig/Slesvig was split.
That was *not* done in 1991 for the Ukraine-Russia boundary, nor was it even what was asked.
What I strongly object to in your post is the statement that I "refuse to stand up to Russian aggression,"
Unless you propose to join the pb.com International Brigades, you are also not "standing up to Russian aggression "either.
We are all just posting words on a blog.
Objection: Russian speakers ≠ Russians, just as English speakers ≠ English.
I understand that. I am not English myself.
I used the demographics data of the Ukraine on wiki.
And, as has been pointed out, large numbers of those Russian speakers want to be in Ukraine, not Russia.
They voted that way in 1991 and the poll (below) shows that things haven't changed much.
A big part of the reason for this invasion was that Putins attempts at "uprisings" in Ukraine kept not working due to lack of local support.
And as has been pointed out, what better way to show that by a plebiscite.
Given you endlessly post a crappy CNN poll, why not check the quality of the data by doing a proper job?
I understand it would not have been easy, but it might have been easier than what we are now going to have to endure.
Complaining when someone posts legitimate polling data on PB.... That's an interesting approach.
The CNN poll used the standard methodologies for good polling - I did look. Interesting that you think it was "crappy" - why?
I suppose we are back to "Any poll you don't like the result of, is an outlier"....
Well, do you not accept that the regions in that map are rather big?
Like the Crimea, which has a Russian majority, is absorbed into some gigantic (& arbitrary) region of south/central Ukraine.
If you want to demonstrate that there was no appetite for Scottish independence, you could join Scotland with NE England and NW England and carry out a poll.
It would give you the misleading result you want.
Based on your criteria, the most "impossible" state in Europe is Russia itself. Do you think it should give independence to all the ethnic republics it contains?
Yes. I do. If there is an ethnic grouping in Russia that wishes to be independent, then of course.
I agree that Russia is an "impossible" state as well.
Does that count for the UK then? Should Bradford be able to declare itself an independent Pakistani state?
Wow - Chancellor Scholz has just announced that Germany will be spending 2% plus of its GDP on defence every year from now on. That is huge news. It means that the German defence budget becomes the biggest in Europe in purely monetary terms.
If Europe is to tool up instead of relying on America it makes it all the more important imo that the EU survives and prospers rather than fractures into competing nationalistic countries all thinking they're special and trying to make themselves great.
Sigh. No it really doesn't. Europe can very easily 'tool up' within the NATO structure and rely less upon the US without any overarching need for the EU.
This is not a call for the EU to disappear but a recognition that if you tie military cooperation to the EU then you will get fewer countries willing to take part because of all the rest of the rubbish that comes with it. Keep the EU for its political and trade links if you want and keep NATO as the military structure since it was specifically created for exactly this role and is ideally suited to it.
The essence of NATO is America defending Europe. The scenario I'm talking about (possible if not probable) is Europe deciding they can no longer be relied upon (eg since they've gone isolationist and/or got obsessed with China) and therefore building a top tier 'superpower' military itself. A different animal to NATO has thus emerged.
This new 'hard power' could be shared under an integrated European foreign & defence policy or (other extreme) the EU could break up as national populist parties such as AfD and Front National and (insert for other countries, there's loads, they all have one) gain traction. Then we'd have an EU-less Europe of aggressively competing nationalistic nation states with all of that military dispersed under different commands in the various capital cities of the continent. What I'm saying is this prospect doesn't appeal.
So if Europe is going to tool up (possible AND probable) it's more than ever important that it holds together - and the most obvious way it holds together is via its main joint enterprise and platform (the EU) staying in rude health.
Nope. It is perfectly possible for Europe to defend itself within the NATO structure if it chooses to. It just needs to spend a huge amount more money to do so. Adding in the EU with all its political issues just makes it all a lot more difficult and ensures that other countries also vital to European defence stay out. How do you integrate Turkey, Norway, Iceland and the UK in an EU controlled military system?
Besides even without NATO there are already perfectly good military alliances involving countries outside the EU - The JEF being a good example.
"Speaking just as a media consumer, I've been kind of surprised by the inefficacy of Russia's propaganda efforts so far. People who know more about this than I do: Are the Russians just not even trying to shape Western perceptions of the war, or are they shockingly bad at it?"
A valid point, where is the ruthlessly effective social media op which put Trump in the WH, preserved the Union and got us out of the other one? Because all I am seeing anywhere is @PJohnson. Perhaps i have the wrong sort of twitter feed.
I don't know if I am supremely overjoyed that Germany is going to be spending a lot more on its military.
I would be happy for the UK to spend more, if we do so primarily on sea power. That's where success lies for us. Always has been, always will be. We should support our allies by Naval means, not getting bogged down in continental conflicts.
For the past 100 years the go to approach for land battles was the tank yet they can now be destroyed by a single $20,000 missile.
The idea that the sea is any better off in the 21st century May be equally false.
Yes. Look what’s happening to Russian armour against ‘cheap’ Turkish drones. How long can big lumbering ships remain relevant? They are just tanks at sea
AI, cyberwarfare, robot soldiers, drones of all sizes, hypersonic missiles - that’s the future.
And intelligence. One of the ‘heartening’ aspects of this awful nightmare is that US/UK intel has been bang on
Ships are different. There’s a lot of ocean to get lost in, and to launch missiles and air attacks from afar. Think of them as platforms rather than combatants, unless it goes wrong.
And yet I’ve read some naval experts who think the era of the aircraft carrier is coming to an end. Too big a target, too conspicuous. Nuke subs better, or laser-eyed fire-demons in space!
although I can't see the Spanish PM in the picture. must be some mistake...
"La ministra de @Defensagob ha asistido a su carga esta mañana."
Posting a link to someone using a weapons shipment as a photo opportunity to criticise someone for using a weapons shipment as a photo opportunity is a bit of a stretch.
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.
But, I also don't think we should encourage permanent resettlement (which is what that quickly becomes) that depopulates Ukraine and allows it to be colonised and pacified by Russia.
The fight for Ukraine's future is in Ukraine.
Ukraine is an impossible state, as presently constituted (its boundaries were drawn by a madman, Stalin).
My (wild) guess is that endpoint of all this is an Eastern/Southern Ukraine de facto absorbed into Russia proper and a Northern/Western bit that is a rump independent Ukrainian state.
I don't think Putin cares about the former bits of the Austro-Hungarian Empire.
This will be accompanied by ethnic cleansing, or at least very substantial population movements.
If you don't like which bit of the country you ended up in, you will move or be killed. All this happened in the West after WW2, it is just delayed in the East.
It was Kruschev who altered the boundaries by transferring Crimea in 1954, as part of his machinations to become boss.
It was formally ceded by Khruschev, but the idea was Stalin's.
The boundaries of the Ukrainian SSR changed quite a bit over its 72 year history.
As I believe the Kenyan ambassador to the UN remarked a few days back, virtually all of the borders in Africa were drawn by colonial powers, frequently cutting across linguistic and kinship boundaries that Africans, if left to their own devices, would've shown respect for. If they all started trying to steal parcels of land from one another on that basis, the whole continent would be consumed by warfare. If Russia is allowed to keep getting away with redrawing its boundaries based on historical grievances of this kind then it opens the door to total chaos.
Besides which, AIUI every region of Ukraine - including Crimea, albeit by a narrower margin than most of the others - voted in favour of Ukrainian independence in 1991.
Yes, strange that a plebiscite is the way to settle an issue, and yet the votes in 1991 can be ignored if doing so further's Russian interests.
As I recollect, John Major was in power in 1991. He is not still in power because there have been elections. The world is not frozen in 1991.
Yet, you don't think a boundary can ever be revisited.
If there is an overwhelming majority in every part of the Ukraine for the present boundaries, surely a plebsicite will confirm that ?
A powerful argument that the Ukrainian state can use to retain Donetsk and Luhansk, no? .
It's a fantasy to believe there can be a free vote in areas of Ukraine occupied by the Russians.
Edit: And besides, your talking point from a few days ago is that plebiscites do settle this issue for the long term, rather than creating the backwards and forwards conflict of war after war over the boundaries. You weren't arguing for every generation to redraw the borders with new plebiscites.
You are embarrassingly all over the place with this, because you refuse to stand up to Russian aggression, and so you are casting around for any sort of figleaf to explain how it could easily have been avoided.
There are ~ 20 million Russians in the Ukraine. That is a large minority. Whatever Ukraine does, it has to take that minority into account -- if it wishes to be a country drawn on the boundaries of the Ukrainian SSR.
Plebiscites are conducted at a district or town level
You can see the patchwork of Danish and German areas. You draw a new boundary with that detailed information. The historic region of the Duchy of Schleswig/Slesvig was split.
That was *not* done in 1991 for the Ukraine-Russia boundary, nor was it even what was asked.
What I strongly object to in your post is the statement that I "refuse to stand up to Russian aggression,"
Unless you propose to join the pb.com International Brigades, you are also not "standing up to Russian aggression "either.
We are all just posting words on a blog.
Objection: Russian speakers ≠ Russians, just as English speakers ≠ English.
I understand that. I am not English myself.
I used the demographics data of the Ukraine on wiki.
And, as has been pointed out, large numbers of those Russian speakers want to be in Ukraine, not Russia.
They voted that way in 1991 and the poll (below) shows that things haven't changed much.
A big part of the reason for this invasion was that Putins attempts at "uprisings" in Ukraine kept not working due to lack of local support.
And as has been pointed out, what better way to show that by a plebiscite.
Given you endlessly post a crappy CNN poll, why not check the quality of the data by doing a proper job?
I understand it would not have been easy, but it might have been easier than what we are now going to have to endure.
Complaining when someone posts legitimate polling data on PB.... That's an interesting approach.
The CNN poll used the standard methodologies for good polling - I did look. Interesting that you think it was "crappy" - why?
I suppose we are back to "Any poll you don't like the result of, is an outlier"....
Well, do you not accept that the regions in that map are rather big?
Like the Crimea, which has a Russian majority, is absorbed into some gigantic (& arbitrary) region of south/central Ukraine.
If you want to demonstrate that there was no appetite for Scottish independence, you could join Scotland with NE England and NW England and carry out a poll.
It would give you the misleading result you want.
Based on your criteria, the most "impossible" state in Europe is Russia itself. Do you think it should give independence to all the ethnic republics it contains?
Yes. I do. If there is an ethnic grouping in Russia that wishes to be independent, then of course.
I agree that Russia is an "impossible" state as well.
Does that count for the UK then? Should Bradford be able to declare itself an independent Pakistani state?
Should the Coastas be able to declare themselves an independent British State?
I don't know if I am supremely overjoyed that Germany is going to be spending a lot more on its military.
I would be happy for the UK to spend more, if we do so primarily on sea power. That's where success lies for us. Always has been, always will be. We should support our allies by Naval means, not getting bogged down in continental conflicts.
For the past 100 years the go to approach for land battles was the tank yet they can now be destroyed by a single $20,000 missile.
The idea that the sea is any better off in the 21st century May be equally false.
Yes. Look what’s happening to Russian armour against ‘cheap’ Turkish drones. How long can big lumbering ships remain relevant? They are just tanks at sea
AI, cyberwarfare, robot soldiers, drones of all sizes, hypersonic missiles - that’s the future.
And intelligence. One of the ‘heartening’ aspects of this awful nightmare is that US/UK intel has been bang on
Ships are different. There’s a lot of ocean to get lost in, and to launch missiles and air attacks from afar. Think of them as platforms rather than combatants, unless it goes wrong.
And yet I’ve read some naval experts who think the era of the aircraft carrier is coming to an end. Too big a target, too conspicuous. Nuke subs better, or laser-eyed fire-demons in space!
They said that quite frequently in the 1950s, 1960s, 1970s, 1980s, 1990s.....
In a big ocean a ship 1,000 feet long isn't actually much more conspicuous than one 500 foot long.
Fcuk, Oxfordshire is the 'frontline', the Rooshians are here!
Would Johnson in military fatigues have worked better?
Might have got Nadine feeling a bit funny downstairs, but as for the rest of us..
Oh wow Johnson porn! It's not just Nadine, doubtless a few on here getting a little excited in the trouser department with that "cut out and keep" momento.
"Speaking just as a media consumer, I've been kind of surprised by the inefficacy of Russia's propaganda efforts so far. People who know more about this than I do: Are the Russians just not even trying to shape Western perceptions of the war, or are they shockingly bad at it?"
A valid point, where is the ruthlessly effective social media op which put Trump in the WH, preserved the Union and got us out of the other one? Because all I am seeing anywhere is @PJohnson. Perhaps i have the wrong sort of twitter feed.
Yes. That adds to the idea this stupid war was a one-man decision by Putin, dumped on his alarmed advisors and generals at the last minute. With much dissent. No one had prepared for it, the bots and trolls were blindsided
Russian friends sharing texts with me of their colleagues in Russia's public service resigning over this invasion. Widespread disgust among Russian government employees over Putin's decision. https://twitter.com/NeilPHauer/status/1497904638678470658
On Monday morning you have to wonder how many Russians will be thinking "How did our 'peacekeeping' mission cause a run on the banks...?"
I know there is a lot of interest in opinion polls and whether Starmer with win through, but how the world will have changed since GE19
Brexit happened, covid happened, and unbelievably war in Europe happened, and this changes everything and in view of the lavish promises of additional billions for the NHS, education, law and order, climate change, and now military sprending has anyone stopped for a minute to ask where is all the money coming from
Wealth taxes are possible but they will not touch this increased spending, and what if we have, as likely, much higher interest rates
I am completely on the fence for GE 24 as I could vote for any of the three main parties( not Plaid though) and how this shakes out will be fascinating, and of course Boris is more than likely to be gone
“ I could vote for any of the three main parties( not Plaid though) ” top trolling. 🙂 with 49K! PB posts, you are certainly getting the hang of it
I woke up more resilient this morning after spending evening away from it with friends. It was big shock to system last week this horrible war in Europe was happening, shock and horror can test resilience against getting down. Going out now for Roast Beef and Yorkshires and I think will turn iPhone off
Russia has yet to secure a city in Ukraine. Casualties higher than anticipated. Sanctions harsher than expected. Life is going to start getting harder for ordinary Russians and the truth of this war will get harder to keep from a population with so many close links to Ukraine https://twitter.com/JamesAALongman/status/1497916418360291331
Wow - Chancellor Scholz has just announced that Germany will be spending 2% plus of its GDP on defence every year from now on. That is huge news. It means that the German defence budget becomes the biggest in Europe in purely monetary terms.
If Europe is to tool up instead of relying on America it makes it all the more important imo that the EU survives and prospers rather than fractures into competing nationalistic countries all thinking they're special and trying to make themselves great.
I'm a fan of the EU for various reasons, and I think it's a net benefit, but this take is wrong.
Look at how the UK has been willing and able to help and to cooperate with other countries, inside and outside the EU, in response to the Ukraine crisis. It is possible for democratic countries to organise their mutual defence - they only have to have the will to do so, and it is that willingness that is the key thing, not whether they are part of a loose federation.
The reaction to this crisis is one thing but I'm talking about the overall situation that could emerge if America is on its way out (as guarantor of peace in Europe) and Europe itself has to step up. In that event, in which of the following would a great big dollop of new European military might be best managed. Under a common European foreign & defence policy with a strong EU? Or with the EU collapsing as countries go parochial and decide to "take back control"? For me it's a no-brainer and the pitfalls and dangers of the second are obvious.
Russian friends sharing texts with me of their colleagues in Russia's public service resigning over this invasion. Widespread disgust among Russian government employees over Putin's decision. https://twitter.com/NeilPHauer/status/1497904638678470658
On Monday morning you have to wonder how many Russians will be thinking "How did our 'peacekeeping' mission cause a run on the banks...?"
Also, ‘how come I suddenly can’t fly anywhere in Europe?’
Today EU country after EU country is closing its airspace to Russia. Italy, the Netherlands, Ireland, Germany and Belgium made the announcement in the last couple of hours. The move is expected to be formalised on an EU-wide level this afternoon https://twitter.com/BBCkatyaadler/status/1497917320303362048
Wow - Chancellor Scholz has just announced that Germany will be spending 2% plus of its GDP on defence every year from now on. That is huge news. It means that the German defence budget becomes the biggest in Europe in purely monetary terms.
If Europe is to tool up instead of relying on America it makes it all the more important imo that the EU survives and prospers rather than fractures into competing nationalistic countries all thinking they're special and trying to make themselves great.
I'm a fan of the EU for various reasons, and I think it's a net benefit, but this take is wrong.
Look at how the UK has been willing and able to help and to cooperate with other countries, inside and outside the EU, in response to the Ukraine crisis. It is possible for democratic countries to organise their mutual defence - they only have to have the will to do so, and it is that willingness that is the key thing, not whether they are part of a loose federation.
The reaction to this crisis is one thing but I'm talking about the overall situation that could emerge if America is on its way out (as guarantor of peace in Europe) and Europe itself has to step up. In that event, in which of the following would a great big dollop of new European military might be best managed -
Under a common European foreign & defence policy with a strong EU?
Or with the EU collapsing as countries go parochial and decide to "take back control"?
For me it's a no-brainer and the pitfalls and dangers of the second are obvious.
It worked fine for the entire Cold War, when everyone in Europe was spending a far higher percentage of GDP than 2% on the military.
2% would just mean that Germany would have an airforce with more than a couple of planes that actually fly.
I don't know if I am supremely overjoyed that Germany is going to be spending a lot more on its military.
I would be happy for the UK to spend more, if we do so primarily on sea power. That's where success lies for us. Always has been, always will be. We should support our allies by Naval means, not getting bogged down in continental conflicts.
For the past 100 years the go to approach for land battles was the tank yet they can now be destroyed by a single $20,000 missile.
The idea that the sea is any better off in the 21st century May be equally false.
Yes. Look what’s happening to Russian armour against ‘cheap’ Turkish drones. How long can big lumbering ships remain relevant? They are just tanks at sea
AI, cyberwarfare, robot soldiers, drones of all sizes, hypersonic missiles - that’s the future.
And intelligence. One of the ‘heartening’ aspects of this awful nightmare is that US/UK intel has been bang on
I recall reading somewhere that towards the end of the (First) Cold War the US Navy refused to participate in wargaming all-out conventional war scenarios as they consistently resulted in the entire American (and everyone else’s) surface fleet being sunk within the first couple of days.
Similarly a few years back the Americans held an exercise in the Gulf simulating war with Iran where a US Marine Corps general was assigned as “red” commander and used known Revolutionary Guard tactics to “swarm” warships and take them out. The US Navy promptly suspended the exercise and demanded it be restarted with the USMC tactics disallowed.
Russia has yet to secure a city in Ukraine. Casualties higher than anticipated. Sanctions harsher than expected. Life is going to start getting harder for ordinary Russians and the truth of this war will get harder to keep from a population with so many close links to Ukraine https://twitter.com/JamesAALongman/status/1497916418360291331
Article by Peter hitchens in mail suggesting west has deliberately provoked this war with russia. It is very good reading even if you disagree with him
Article by Peter hitchens in mail suggesting west has deliberately provoked this war with russia. It is very good reading even if you disagree with him
If there was a computer game called Bell End, where you had to do battle with infinitely spawning bell ends, the end of level boss would be Dan Hannan. He is the great chieftan o' the bell end race. He is the gold, silver, and bronze medallist of the bell end Olympics. Ask not for whom the bell end toils: he toils for himself. If a bell end had a bell end, and that bell end had a bell on the end, it would be Dan Hannan.
Wow - Chancellor Scholz has just announced that Germany will be spending 2% plus of its GDP on defence every year from now on. That is huge news. It means that the German defence budget becomes the biggest in Europe in purely monetary terms.
If Europe is to tool up instead of relying on America it makes it all the more important imo that the EU survives and prospers rather than fractures into competing nationalistic countries all thinking they're special and trying to make themselves great.
I'm a fan of the EU for various reasons, and I think it's a net benefit, but this take is wrong.
Look at how the UK has been willing and able to help and to cooperate with other countries, inside and outside the EU, in response to the Ukraine crisis. It is possible for democratic countries to organise their mutual defence - they only have to have the will to do so, and it is that willingness that is the key thing, not whether they are part of a loose federation.
The reaction to this crisis is one thing but I'm talking about the overall situation that could emerge if America is on its way out (as guarantor of peace in Europe) and Europe itself has to step up. In that event, in which of the following would a great big dollop of new European military might be best managed. Under a common European foreign & defence policy with a strong EU? Or with the EU collapsing as countries go parochial and decide to "take back control"? For me it's a no-brainer and the pitfalls and dangers of the second are obvious.
There is a third alternative. An overarching European “NATO” which can include non EU and non NATO powers. Meaning the UK, Norway, Sweden, Ireland, Finland, Iceland can all be part of the structure. That makes much more sense than relying on the ponderous bureaucracy of the EU - which excludes the UK, one of the three main militaries in Europe
Article by Peter hitchens in mail suggesting west has deliberately provoked this war with russia. It is very good reading even if you disagree with him
Peter Hitchens in The Mail - that's The Daily Fail squared or something?
"Speaking just as a media consumer, I've been kind of surprised by the inefficacy of Russia's propaganda efforts so far. People who know more about this than I do: Are the Russians just not even trying to shape Western perceptions of the war, or are they shockingly bad at it?"
A valid point, where is the ruthlessly effective social media op which put Trump in the WH, preserved the Union and got us out of the other one? Because all I am seeing anywhere is @PJohnson. Perhaps i have the wrong sort of twitter feed.
Out of curiosity (and, perversely, because it's proposed that it be banned), I had a look at the rt.com website yesterday. It's curiously amateurish, like a reasonable effort by an undergraduate. To my surprise it's not totally one-sided - the Western measures and criticisms are reported extensively, alongside the Russian statements, but the commentaries (including one by a former UKIP MEP pontificating on the French electoral system) look unedited for quality. It does have a few snippets that I've not seen in the western press - e.g. apparently a petition requiring the Finnish Parliament to discuss NATO membership has reached the required 50,000 signatures, which is a development that one wouldn't think Russia would welcome. It's certainly not Trump-style effective propaganda, and I can think of more obviously biased publications that we all take for granted, so I wouldn't make it illegal. It's just not very good.
Article by Peter hitchens in mail suggesting west has deliberately provoked this war with russia. It is very good reading even if you disagree with him
Wow - Chancellor Scholz has just announced that Germany will be spending 2% plus of its GDP on defence every year from now on. That is huge news. It means that the German defence budget becomes the biggest in Europe in purely monetary terms.
If Europe is to tool up instead of relying on America it makes it all the more important imo that the EU survives and prospers rather than fractures into competing nationalistic countries all thinking they're special and trying to make themselves great.
I'm a fan of the EU for various reasons, and I think it's a net benefit, but this take is wrong.
Look at how the UK has been willing and able to help and to cooperate with other countries, inside and outside the EU, in response to the Ukraine crisis. It is possible for democratic countries to organise their mutual defence - they only have to have the will to do so, and it is that willingness that is the key thing, not whether they are part of a loose federation.
The reaction to this crisis is one thing but I'm talking about the overall situation that could emerge if America is on its way out (as guarantor of peace in Europe) and Europe itself has to step up. In that event, in which of the following would a great big dollop of new European military might be best managed. Under a common European foreign & defence policy with a strong EU? Or with the EU collapsing as countries go parochial and decide to "take back control"? For me it's a no-brainer and the pitfalls and dangers of the second are obvious.
There is a third alternative. An overarching European “NATO” which can include non EU and non NATO powers. Meaning the UK, Norway, Sweden, Ireland, Finland, Iceland can all be part of the structure. That makes much more sense than relying on the ponderous bureaucracy of the EU - which excludes the UK, one of the three main militaries in Europe
And Turkey and Iceland, both of whome are pretty fundamental to European security.
Treat with caution, but Ukrainian info obviously less likely to be bent than Russian:
Why? The Ukrainian state is in an existential struggle for survival. They will lie their arses off if they think it will help.
yes its a bit strange to think the ukrainians are suddenly so angelic they will not lie in the face of trying to keep free. Wishful thinking by some on here. I think even us Brits (that invented cricket!) told porkies about having the capability of a weapon to make the Channel an inferno to prevent a german invasion
Tangentially, what was the perverted science Churchill was on about? "But if we fail, then the whole world, including the United States, including all that we have known and cared for, will sink into the abyss of a new Dark Age made more sinister, and perhaps more protracted, by the lights of perverted science." I always sort of assumed he meant nukes but a. he is talking about after losing the war and b. he said around this time that our existing explosives were quite explosive enough, no need to explore that avenue
I always read that as ‘race science’
Wasn’t Churchill, like many of the great and good, an early adherent of eugenics? It would be nice to think he’d had his eyes opened, yet ‘Keep England white’ makes me skeptical.
I always took "perverted science" to be a reference to loathsome medical experiments.
Article by Peter hitchens in mail suggesting west has deliberately provoked this war with russia. It is very good reading even if you disagree with him
Have an hour off for lunch. You have earned it.
Potato with a clove of garlic stuck in it like Guy Burgess in An Englishman Abroad.
Great article by Liam hallinan in telegraph about how well prepared putin is
The West's cost of living crisis gave Vladimir Putin impetus to strike
Imposing harsh sanctions on Russia is tough when Britain and US are struggling with inflation
LIAM HALLIGAN27 February 2022 • 6:00am
Why did Vladimir Putin decide now was the time to conquer Ukraine? Russia has for years resented the Western leanings of this country of 44 million, which covers an area bigger than France.
Last week, the Russian President surprised many when he suddenly forced the issue, bringing his festering sense of grievance over Ukraine to a head in the most ruthless fashion.
But consider the global economic backdrop, and various energy supply deals the Kremlin has cut over recent months and years – particularly with China – and the timing of this Russian incursion, from Putin’s perspective, makes brutal sense.
Russia provides around 40pc of the natural gas used across Western Europe, while accounting for 10pc of the world’s oil supply. These stark facts, previously of interest only to energy industry insiders, are suddenly common knowledge. Moscow’s invasion of Ukraine has brought the issue of Western energy security into sharp relief.
Gas is the main tool. But it's an odd time to strike. It's nearly the end of winter.
If there was a computer game called Bell End, where you had to do battle with infinitely spawning bell ends, the end of level boss would be Dan Hannan. He is the great chieftan o' the bell end race. He is the gold, silver, and bronze medallist of the bell end Olympics. Ask not for whom the bell end toils: he toils for himself. If a bell end had a bell end, and that bell end had a bell on the end, it would be Dan Hannan.
Article by Peter hitchens in mail suggesting west has deliberately provoked this war with russia. It is very good reading even if you disagree with him
However good a reading it is it wouldn't make sense. It would take a very significant act of overt aggression to justify invasion, and not even Putin has come up with such a reason, instead spending his time moaning about the existence of Ukraine as a state, NATO expansion 25 years ago (which cannot therefore be a pretext for action taking place right now) and defence of the 'independent' republics, which would not necessitate assaulting Kyiv or much of the rest o fthe country.
I'm sorry, but no one has yet advanced a plausible explanation of how talk, diplomatic alliances and vague fears of 'threat' somehow provoke hundreds of thousands of troops to invade.
Next he'll be moaning about group think and how unfair it is that people criticise him.
Looks like Melitopol (pop: 150k) is the only city to fall and remain occupied for over 12 hours so far, question is how good the insurgency is, if they offer some decent resistance that's 2-5,000 russian tied up and out of the war.
Article by Peter hitchens in mail suggesting west has deliberately provoked this war with russia. It is very good reading even if you disagree with him
Peter Hitchens in The Mail - that's The Daily Fail squared or something?
Does Peter Hitchens actually believe that? 🤭. Or is it he’s a hack with bills to pay, because seriously if RT published that there would be calls in parliament to shut Putin’s mouthpiece down
Wow - Chancellor Scholz has just announced that Germany will be spending 2% plus of its GDP on defence every year from now on. That is huge news. It means that the German defence budget becomes the biggest in Europe in purely monetary terms.
If Europe is to tool up instead of relying on America it makes it all the more important imo that the EU survives and prospers rather than fractures into competing nationalistic countries all thinking they're special and trying to make themselves great.
I'm a fan of the EU for various reasons, and I think it's a net benefit, but this take is wrong.
Look at how the UK has been willing and able to help and to cooperate with other countries, inside and outside the EU, in response to the Ukraine crisis. It is possible for democratic countries to organise their mutual defence - they only have to have the will to do so, and it is that willingness that is the key thing, not whether they are part of a loose federation.
The reaction to this crisis is one thing but I'm talking about the overall situation that could emerge if America is on its way out (as guarantor of peace in Europe) and Europe itself has to step up. In that event, in which of the following would a great big dollop of new European military might be best managed -
Under a common European foreign & defence policy with a strong EU?
Or with the EU collapsing as countries go parochial and decide to "take back control"?
For me it's a no-brainer and the pitfalls and dangers of the second are obvious.
It worked fine for the entire Cold War, when everyone in Europe was spending a far higher percentage of GDP than 2% on the military.
2% would just mean that Germany would have an airforce with more than a couple of planes that actually fly.
Indeed. Though I do have a slight worry that it’s about to become apparent to Putin that he no longer commands the third shock army or outnumbers NATO in conventional forces; and he’ll throw a mardy. We really need his generals to get rid.
Article by Peter hitchens in mail suggesting west has deliberately provoked this war with russia. It is very good reading even if you disagree with him
Have an hour off for lunch. You have earned it.
He could add another half an hour to brush up on his punctuation, particularly the use of capital letters.
Mind you his English is much better than my Russian.so credit where it is due.
Article by Peter hitchens in mail suggesting west has deliberately provoked this war with russia. It is very good reading even if you disagree with him
I hope that they're at least paying you for this.
For this low-grade rubbish? Free would be expensive.
Article by Peter hitchens in mail suggesting west has deliberately provoked this war with russia. It is very good reading even if you disagree with him
Article by Peter hitchens in mail suggesting west has deliberately provoked this war with russia. It is very good reading even if you disagree with him
I hope that they're at least paying you for this.
Read the article it is very good and full of much wisdom. Hitches view is if you annoy a wasp you can't blame the wasp if it stings you
Experts on YouTube again show how crap the MSM are. The MSM spend days screaming SWIFT, block SWIFT, SWIFT, SWIFT, SWIFT, did I mention SWIFT.
SWIFT became the football. First blocking it was BAD - because some European countries didn't like it. Now blocking it is GOOD, because the water down block is OK the Hungary....
Think of al the stupid stuff about COVID that got printed. Why should they suddenly get international relations and finance right?
Article by Peter hitchens in mail suggesting west has deliberately provoked this war with russia. It is very good reading even if you disagree with him
Peter Hitchens in The Mail - that's The Daily Fail squared or something?
Does Peter Hitchens actually believe that? 🤭. Or is it he’s a hack with bills to pay, because seriously if RT published that there would be calls in parliament to shut Putin’s mouthpiece down
That kind of analysis is as useful as someone arguing in 1940 that we brought the war on ourselves with the the Versailles Treaty.
Wow - Chancellor Scholz has just announced that Germany will be spending 2% plus of its GDP on defence every year from now on. That is huge news. It means that the German defence budget becomes the biggest in Europe in purely monetary terms.
If Europe is to tool up instead of relying on America it makes it all the more important imo that the EU survives and prospers rather than fractures into competing nationalistic countries all thinking they're special and trying to make themselves great.
I'm a fan of the EU for various reasons, and I think it's a net benefit, but this take is wrong.
Look at how the UK has been willing and able to help and to cooperate with other countries, inside and outside the EU, in response to the Ukraine crisis. It is possible for democratic countries to organise their mutual defence - they only have to have the will to do so, and it is that willingness that is the key thing, not whether they are part of a loose federation.
The reaction to this crisis is one thing but I'm talking about the overall situation that could emerge if America is on its way out (as guarantor of peace in Europe) and Europe itself has to step up. In that event, in which of the following would a great big dollop of new European military might be best managed. Under a common European foreign & defence policy with a strong EU? Or with the EU collapsing as countries go parochial and decide to "take back control"? For me it's a no-brainer and the pitfalls and dangers of the second are obvious.
There is a third alternative. An overarching European “NATO” which can include non EU and non NATO powers. Meaning the UK, Norway, Sweden, Ireland, Finland, Iceland can all be part of the structure. That makes much more sense than relying on the ponderous bureaucracy of the EU - which excludes the UK, one of the three main militaries in Europe
Article by Peter hitchens in mail suggesting west has deliberately provoked this war with russia. It is very good reading even if you disagree with him
Article by Peter hitchens in mail suggesting west has deliberately provoked this war with russia. It is very good reading even if you disagree with him
I hope that they're at least paying you for this.
Read the article it is very good and full of much wisdom. Hitches view is if you annoy a wasp you can't blame the wasp if it stings you
Putin Sock Puppet coming on PB....on a hiding to nothing. Its one thing trying to spread misinformation on tw@tter and facebook, but PB, we don't even let regulars get away with typos / grammatical errors, or claims of famous films being Christmas ones, let alone factual (mis)information go....Its the political equivalent of having a quiz off with the EggHeads.
Fcuk, Oxfordshire is the 'frontline', the Rooshians are here!
Would Johnson in military fatigues have worked better?
Might have got Nadine feeling a bit funny downstairs, but as for the rest of us..
Why is it every time I see Bozo in a photo I immediately think of Benny Hill?
Matt Lucas. In fact Boris there does a better Matt Lucas than Matt does a Boris
Okay then how should he have dressed? The Ukrainians think we are led by Winston Churchill and they celebrate with God Save The Queen each time a UK weapon blows up Russian tank 👍🏻 So Boris should be there in the field in the dark in a dinner jacket? I’m channeling Carry on up the Kyhber - just popping out for a moment to see the bombs off dear.
Wow - Chancellor Scholz has just announced that Germany will be spending 2% plus of its GDP on defence every year from now on. That is huge news. It means that the German defence budget becomes the biggest in Europe in purely monetary terms.
If Europe is to tool up instead of relying on America it makes it all the more important imo that the EU survives and prospers rather than fractures into competing nationalistic countries all thinking they're special and trying to make themselves great.
I'm a fan of the EU for various reasons, and I think it's a net benefit, but this take is wrong.
Look at how the UK has been willing and able to help and to cooperate with other countries, inside and outside the EU, in response to the Ukraine crisis. It is possible for democratic countries to organise their mutual defence - they only have to have the will to do so, and it is that willingness that is the key thing, not whether they are part of a loose federation.
The reaction to this crisis is one thing but I'm talking about the overall situation that could emerge if America is on its way out (as guarantor of peace in Europe) and Europe itself has to step up. In that event, in which of the following would a great big dollop of new European military might be best managed -
Under a common European foreign & defence policy with a strong EU?
Or with the EU collapsing as countries go parochial and decide to "take back control"?
For me it's a no-brainer and the pitfalls and dangers of the second are obvious.
It worked fine for the entire Cold War, when everyone in Europe was spending a far higher percentage of GDP than 2% on the military.
2% would just mean that Germany would have an airforce with more than a couple of planes that actually fly.
Even 2% across the board should give NATO some pretty impressive firepower. Even now, after years of defence cuts, a united NATO still has terrifying military power.
The Ukrainian crisis is good news for Britain's relationship with the EU. We've shown ourselves to be a reliable security partner, and earned brownie points with many of the states for our robust response.
How funny if a second order effect of Putin's invasion was to improve UK-EU relations.
Article by Peter hitchens in mail suggesting west has deliberately provoked this war with russia. It is very good reading even if you disagree with him
Article by Peter hitchens in mail suggesting west has deliberately provoked this war with russia. It is very good reading even if you disagree with him
I hope that they're at least paying you for this.
Read the article it is very good and full of much wisdom. Hitches view is if you annoy a wasp you can't blame the wasp if it stings you
You think a Peter Hitchens article in the Mail is "full of much wisdom"?
OK. Thanks for telling us everything about your mental state.
I don't know if I am supremely overjoyed that Germany is going to be spending a lot more on its military.
I would be happy for the UK to spend more, if we do so primarily on sea power. That's where success lies for us. Always has been, always will be. We should support our allies by Naval means, not getting bogged down in continental conflicts.
For the past 100 years the go to approach for land battles was the tank yet they can now be destroyed by a single $20,000 missile.
The idea that the sea is any better off in the 21st century May be equally false.
Yes. Look what’s happening to Russian armour against ‘cheap’ Turkish drones. How long can big lumbering ships remain relevant? They are just tanks at sea
AI, cyberwarfare, robot soldiers, drones of all sizes, hypersonic missiles - that’s the future.
And intelligence. One of the ‘heartening’ aspects of this awful nightmare is that US/UK intel has been bang on
I recall reading somewhere that towards the end of the (First) Cold War the US Navy refused to participate in wargaming all-out conventional war scenarios as they consistently resulted in the entire American (and everyone else’s) surface fleet being sunk within the first couple of days.
Similarly a few years back the Americans held an exercise in the Gulf simulating war with Iran where a US Marine Corps general was assigned as “red” commander and used known Revolutionary Guard tactics to “swarm” warships and take them out. The US Navy promptly suspended the exercise and demanded it be restarted with the USMC tactics disallowed.
That's not what happened at Millennium Challenge 2002. Lt Gen Van Riper simulated the sinking of a CVN with a mass cruise misslie attack that oversaturated the CSG's AD capacity.
That has somehow mutated into in the Internet truism that you can sink carriers with a 'swarm' of pedalos.
In the real world nobody has damaged a carrier in combat since 1945. The end of the age of the carriers will come as it did for battleships but not yet and not soon.
Article by Peter hitchens in mail suggesting west has deliberately provoked this war with russia. It is very good reading even if you disagree with him
Article by Peter hitchens in mail suggesting west has deliberately provoked this war with russia. It is very good reading even if you disagree with him
I hope that they're at least paying you for this.
Read the article it is very good and full of much wisdom. Hitches view is if you annoy a wasp you can't blame the wasp if it stings you
"full of much wisdom" has a deliciously Russian cadence. Keep trying, comrade, for noble cause of Greater Russia and for to make misguide West see truth!
Article by Peter hitchens in mail suggesting west has deliberately provoked this war with russia. It is very good reading even if you disagree with him
Article by Peter hitchens in mail suggesting west has deliberately provoked this war with russia. It is very good reading even if you disagree with him
I hope that they're at least paying you for this.
Read the article it is very good and full of much wisdom. Hitches view is if you annoy a wasp you can't blame the wasp if it stings you
Putin Sock Puppet coming on PB....on a hiding to nothing. Its one thing trying to spread misinformation on tw@tter and facebook, but PB, we don't even let regulars get away with typos / grammatical errors, or claims of famous films being Christmas ones, let alone factual (mis)information go....Its the political equivalent of having a quiz off with the EggHeads.
Wow - Chancellor Scholz has just announced that Germany will be spending 2% plus of its GDP on defence every year from now on. That is huge news. It means that the German defence budget becomes the biggest in Europe in purely monetary terms.
If Europe is to tool up instead of relying on America it makes it all the more important imo that the EU survives and prospers rather than fractures into competing nationalistic countries all thinking they're special and trying to make themselves great.
West Germany formed the backbone of NATO's conventional forces during the Cold War so it's wrong to see rearmament as a totally new thing that requires deeper European integration.
You don't mean it's wrong you mean it's not necessarily right. Which is true. But it is preferable (to put it mildly) that a large increase in European military power is not accompanied by the EU fracturing (a la Brexit) into separate and competing flavours of populist nationalism. There might be only a small chance of this but it has a potentially enormous downside - so it's worth flagging up, I think.
Article by Peter hitchens in mail suggesting west has deliberately provoked this war with russia. It is very good reading even if you disagree with him
However good a reading it is it wouldn't make sense. It would take a very significant act of overt aggression to justify invasion, and not even Putin has come up with such a reason, instead spending his time moaning about the existence of Ukraine as a state, NATO expansion 25 years ago (which cannot therefore be a pretext for action taking place right now) and defence of the 'independent' republics, which would not necessitate assaulting Kyiv or much of the rest o fthe country.
I'm sorry, but no one has yet advanced a plausible explanation of how talk, diplomatic alliances and vague fears of 'threat' somehow provoke hundreds of thousands of troops to invade.
Next he'll be moaning about group think and how unfair it is that people criticise him.
Article by Peter hitchens in mail suggesting west has deliberately provoked this war with russia. It is very good reading even if you disagree with him
Peter Hitchens in The Mail - that's The Daily Fail squared or something?
Does Peter Hitchens actually believe that? 🤭. Or is it he’s a hack with bills to pay, because seriously if RT published that there would be calls in parliament to shut Putin’s mouthpiece down
I think he is actually serious, enabled and supported by the fact that he gets a tribe of fools who clap at his utterances. That and lots of money.
If someone paid you 6 figures a year to spout obnoxious crap, part time, and lots of people giving you likes.... well, you'd be tempted right?
Article by Peter hitchens in mail suggesting west has deliberately provoked this war with russia. It is very good reading even if you disagree with him
I hope that they're at least paying you for this.
For this low-grade rubbish? Free would be expensive.
Even PB's repeat masquerader could manage better. Unless Eadronic is doing his bit for the war effort by portraying a Russian astroturfer as the least persuasive thing since Theresa May went knocking doors on Deeside?
Article by Peter hitchens in mail suggesting west has deliberately provoked this war with russia. It is very good reading even if you disagree with him
Article by Peter hitchens in mail suggesting west has deliberately provoked this war with russia. It is very good reading even if you disagree with him
I hope that they're at least paying you for this.
Read the article it is very good and full of much wisdom. Hitches view is if you annoy a wasp you can't blame the wasp if it stings you
Hitch - and you - seem to be of the view that there are certain groups of people with special rights. That Russia has some God given right to interfere with its neighbours. It's none of Russia's business if the Ukraine joins the EU or NATO. They may not like it, but ultimately that's a decision for the countries of NATO and the people of the Ukraine. Russia doesn't get a say.
Wow - Chancellor Scholz has just announced that Germany will be spending 2% plus of its GDP on defence every year from now on. That is huge news. It means that the German defence budget becomes the biggest in Europe in purely monetary terms.
If Europe is to tool up instead of relying on America it makes it all the more important imo that the EU survives and prospers rather than fractures into competing nationalistic countries all thinking they're special and trying to make themselves great.
I'm a fan of the EU for various reasons, and I think it's a net benefit, but this take is wrong.
Look at how the UK has been willing and able to help and to cooperate with other countries, inside and outside the EU, in response to the Ukraine crisis. It is possible for democratic countries to organise their mutual defence - they only have to have the will to do so, and it is that willingness that is the key thing, not whether they are part of a loose federation.
The reaction to this crisis is one thing but I'm talking about the overall situation that could emerge if America is on its way out (as guarantor of peace in Europe) and Europe itself has to step up. In that event, in which of the following would a great big dollop of new European military might be best managed. Under a common European foreign & defence policy with a strong EU? Or with the EU collapsing as countries go parochial and decide to "take back control"? For me it's a no-brainer and the pitfalls and dangers of the second are obvious.
There is a third alternative. An overarching European “NATO” which can include non EU and non NATO powers. Meaning the UK, Norway, Sweden, Ireland, Finland, Iceland can all be part of the structure. That makes much more sense than relying on the ponderous bureaucracy of the EU - which excludes the UK, one of the three main militaries in Europe
NATO+?
NATO always considered "Sweden, Ireland, Finland, Iceland" as associate members. Certainly Sweden and Finland were closely consulted and integrated into Cold War planning. For Iceland see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GIUK_gap. Norway is a member of NATO....
I don't know if I am supremely overjoyed that Germany is going to be spending a lot more on its military.
I would be happy for the UK to spend more, if we do so primarily on sea power. That's where success lies for us. Always has been, always will be. We should support our allies by Naval means, not getting bogged down in continental conflicts.
For the past 100 years the go to approach for land battles was the tank yet they can now be destroyed by a single $20,000 missile.
The idea that the sea is any better off in the 21st century May be equally false.
Yes. Look what’s happening to Russian armour against ‘cheap’ Turkish drones. How long can big lumbering ships remain relevant? They are just tanks at sea
AI, cyberwarfare, robot soldiers, drones of all sizes, hypersonic missiles - that’s the future.
And intelligence. One of the ‘heartening’ aspects of this awful nightmare is that US/UK intel has been bang on
I recall reading somewhere that towards the end of the (First) Cold War the US Navy refused to participate in wargaming all-out conventional war scenarios as they consistently resulted in the entire American (and everyone else’s) surface fleet being sunk within the first couple of days.
Similarly a few years back the Americans held an exercise in the Gulf simulating war with Iran where a US Marine Corps general was assigned as “red” commander and used known Revolutionary Guard tactics to “swarm” warships and take them out. The US Navy promptly suspended the exercise and demanded it be restarted with the USMC tactics disallowed.
That's not what happened at Millennium Challenge 2002. Lt Gen Van Riper simulated the sinking of a CVN with a mass cruise misslie attack that oversaturated the CSG's AD capacity.
That has somehow mutated into in the Internet truism that you can sink carriers with a 'swarm' of pedalos.
In the real world nobody has damaged a carrier in combat since 1945. The end of the age of the carriers will come as it did for battleships but not yet and not soon.
Don’t carriers need lots of other ships protecting them though? So you are not just committing to cost of each carrier, but to growing size of navy to protect the carrier?
Russian friends sharing texts with me of their colleagues in Russia's public service resigning over this invasion. Widespread disgust among Russian government employees over Putin's decision. https://twitter.com/NeilPHauer/status/1497904638678470658
On Monday morning you have to wonder how many Russians will be thinking "How did our 'peacekeeping' mission cause a run on the banks...?"
How was an apartment block in Kiev oppressing our brethren in the Donbas?
Article by Peter hitchens in mail suggesting west has deliberately provoked this war with russia. It is very good reading even if you disagree with him
However good a reading it is it wouldn't make sense. It would take a very significant act of overt aggression to justify invasion, and not even Putin has come up with such a reason, instead spending his time moaning about the existence of Ukraine as a state, NATO expansion 25 years ago (which cannot therefore be a pretext for action taking place right now) and defence of the 'independent' republics, which would not necessitate assaulting Kyiv or much of the rest o fthe country.
I'm sorry, but no one has yet advanced a plausible explanation of how talk, diplomatic alliances and vague fears of 'threat' somehow provoke hundreds of thousands of troops to invade.
Next he'll be moaning about group think and how unfair it is that people criticise him.
Article by Peter hitchens in mail suggesting west has deliberately provoked this war with russia. It is very good reading even if you disagree with him
Peter Hitchens in The Mail - that's The Daily Fail squared or something?
Does Peter Hitchens actually believe that? 🤭. Or is it he’s a hack with bills to pay, because seriously if RT published that there would be calls in parliament to shut Putin’s mouthpiece down
I think he is actually serious, enabled and supported by the fact that he gets a tribe of fools who clap at his utterances. That and lots of money.
If someone paid you 6 figures a year to spout obnoxious crap, part time, and lots of people giving you likes.... well, you'd be tempted right?
I'd never shill for fascism, not for all the tiramisu money could buy
Wow - Chancellor Scholz has just announced that Germany will be spending 2% plus of its GDP on defence every year from now on. That is huge news. It means that the German defence budget becomes the biggest in Europe in purely monetary terms.
If Europe is to tool up instead of relying on America it makes it all the more important imo that the EU survives and prospers rather than fractures into competing nationalistic countries all thinking they're special and trying to make themselves great.
I'm a fan of the EU for various reasons, and I think it's a net benefit, but this take is wrong.
Look at how the UK has been willing and able to help and to cooperate with other countries, inside and outside the EU, in response to the Ukraine crisis. It is possible for democratic countries to organise their mutual defence - they only have to have the will to do so, and it is that willingness that is the key thing, not whether they are part of a loose federation.
The reaction to this crisis is one thing but I'm talking about the overall situation that could emerge if America is on its way out (as guarantor of peace in Europe) and Europe itself has to step up. In that event, in which of the following would a great big dollop of new European military might be best managed. Under a common European foreign & defence policy with a strong EU? Or with the EU collapsing as countries go parochial and decide to "take back control"? For me it's a no-brainer and the pitfalls and dangers of the second are obvious.
There is a third alternative. An overarching European “NATO” which can include non EU and non NATO powers. Meaning the UK, Norway, Sweden, Ireland, Finland, Iceland can all be part of the structure. That makes much more sense than relying on the ponderous bureaucracy of the EU - which excludes the UK, one of the three main militaries in Europe
Putin Sock Puppet coming on PB....on a hiding to nothing. Its one thing trying to spread misinformation on tw@tter and facebook, but PB, we don't even let regulars get away with typos / grammatical errors, or claims of famous films being Christmas ones, let alone factual (mis)information go....Its the political equivalent of having a quiz off with the EggHeads.
Pineapple is good on ALL pizza
Bets enjoyed while listening to Radiohead while programming in Python.
With occasional pauses to beat a fox to death with a baseball bat. In your wife's kimono.
Wow - Chancellor Scholz has just announced that Germany will be spending 2% plus of its GDP on defence every year from now on. That is huge news. It means that the German defence budget becomes the biggest in Europe in purely monetary terms.
If Europe is to tool up instead of relying on America it makes it all the more important imo that the EU survives and prospers rather than fractures into competing nationalistic countries all thinking they're special and trying to make themselves great.
I'm a fan of the EU for various reasons, and I think it's a net benefit, but this take is wrong.
Look at how the UK has been willing and able to help and to cooperate with other countries, inside and outside the EU, in response to the Ukraine crisis. It is possible for democratic countries to organise their mutual defence - they only have to have the will to do so, and it is that willingness that is the key thing, not whether they are part of a loose federation.
The reaction to this crisis is one thing but I'm talking about the overall situation that could emerge if America is on its way out (as guarantor of peace in Europe) and Europe itself has to step up. In that event, in which of the following would a great big dollop of new European military might be best managed. Under a common European foreign & defence policy with a strong EU? Or with the EU collapsing as countries go parochial and decide to "take back control"? For me it's a no-brainer and the pitfalls and dangers of the second are obvious.
There is a third alternative. An overarching European “NATO” which can include non EU and non NATO powers. Meaning the UK, Norway, Sweden, Ireland, Finland, Iceland can all be part of the structure. That makes much more sense than relying on the ponderous bureaucracy of the EU - which excludes the UK, one of the three main militaries in Europe
NATO+?
NATO always considered "Sweden, Ireland, Finland, Iceland" as associate members. Certainly Sweden and Finland were closely consulted and integrated into Cold War planning. For Iceland see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GIUK_gap. Norway is a member of NATO....
He is clearly a man of many talents, so what makes you think he is pretending.....
Unfortunately I tend to think that comedians are already far too acknowledged legislators of the world, after this the fcukers are going to be unbearable.
Fcuk, Oxfordshire is the 'frontline', the Rooshians are here!
Would Johnson in military fatigues have worked better?
Might have got Nadine feeling a bit funny downstairs, but as for the rest of us..
Why is it every time I see Bozo in a photo I immediately think of Benny Hill?
Matt Lucas. In fact Boris there does a better Matt Lucas than Matt does a Boris
Okay then how should he have dressed? The Ukrainians think we are led by Winston Churchill and they celebrate with God Save The Queen each time a UK weapon blows up Russian tank 👍🏻 So Boris should be there in the field in the dark in a dinner jacket? I’m channeling Carry on up the Kyhber - just popping out for a moment to see the bombs off dear.
Good grief I wasn't making any point at all other than the expression on his face looks like Matt Lucas. That's it. Nothing about his dress.
However if you do want my opinion, no politician should dress in military fatigues unless they have earnt them. It makes them look like pillocks.
My word. There’s a few videos of these smashed Russian columns - I thought for a while they were just different angles of the same scene. But that one is new and definitely different.
How do the Ukrainians get the firepower to do THAT? Must be a drone strike?
Article by Peter hitchens in mail suggesting west has deliberately provoked this war with russia. It is very good reading even if you disagree with him
Article by Peter hitchens in mail suggesting west has deliberately provoked this war with russia. It is very good reading even if you disagree with him
I hope that they're at least paying you for this.
Read the article it is very good and full of much wisdom. Hitches view is if you annoy a wasp you can't blame the wasp if it stings you
Not sure annoyance merits a full blown military invasion. If it were the bloke with the dirt bike down the street would be worried.
Article by Peter hitchens in mail suggesting west has deliberately provoked this war with russia. It is very good reading even if you disagree with him
Article by Peter hitchens in mail suggesting west has deliberately provoked this war with russia. It is very good reading even if you disagree with him
I hope that they're at least paying you for this.
Read the article it is very good and full of much wisdom. Hitches view is if you annoy a wasp you can't blame the wasp if it stings you
Hitch - and you - seem to be of the view that there are certain groups of people with special rights. That Russia has some God given right to interfere with its neighbours. It's none of Russia's business if the Ukraine joins the EU or NATO. They may not like it, but ultimately that's a decision for the countries of NATO and the people of the Ukraine. Russia doesn't get a say.
Sadly a lot of people ascribe to that view, though they may not realise it. Anyone who has talked of a Russian sphere is buying into it.
It might well have been less awkward if some nations were content to limit their options, but there's no getting away from that if they want to go down a path that is their affair, and it isn't anyone else's fault but the aggressor if they'd violently prevent that.
I don't know if I am supremely overjoyed that Germany is going to be spending a lot more on its military.
I would be happy for the UK to spend more, if we do so primarily on sea power. That's where success lies for us. Always has been, always will be. We should support our allies by Naval means, not getting bogged down in continental conflicts.
For the past 100 years the go to approach for land battles was the tank yet they can now be destroyed by a single $20,000 missile.
The idea that the sea is any better off in the 21st century May be equally false.
Yes. Look what’s happening to Russian armour against ‘cheap’ Turkish drones. How long can big lumbering ships remain relevant? They are just tanks at sea
AI, cyberwarfare, robot soldiers, drones of all sizes, hypersonic missiles - that’s the future.
And intelligence. One of the ‘heartening’ aspects of this awful nightmare is that US/UK intel has been bang on
I recall reading somewhere that towards the end of the (First) Cold War the US Navy refused to participate in wargaming all-out conventional war scenarios as they consistently resulted in the entire American (and everyone else’s) surface fleet being sunk within the first couple of days.
Similarly a few years back the Americans held an exercise in the Gulf simulating war with Iran where a US Marine Corps general was assigned as “red” commander and used known Revolutionary Guard tactics to “swarm” warships and take them out. The US Navy promptly suspended the exercise and demanded it be restarted with the USMC tactics disallowed.
That's not what happened at Millennium Challenge 2002. Lt Gen Van Riper simulated the sinking of a CVN with a mass cruise misslie attack that oversaturated the CSG's AD capacity.
That has somehow mutated into in the Internet truism that you can sink carriers with a 'swarm' of pedalos.
In the real world nobody has damaged a carrier in combat since 1945. The end of the age of the carriers will come as it did for battleships but not yet and not soon.
Don’t carriers need lots of other ships protecting them though? So you are not just committing to cost of each carrier, but to growing size of navy to protect the carrier?
More than the group of ships combine capabilities to defend themselves against the various threats above and below water, while the carrier is able to project power (make other people really, really unhappy) over an area 500 miles in radius.
Comments
In that case Putin should have invaded in the heart of winter and cut supplies then that would have had more impact . And they need the revenues from gas and oil.
Putin has miscalculated and once the bank runs start and the economic goes down the toilet his public support will drop.
https://twitter.com/FerdiGiugliano/status/1497908230676168709
https://twitter.com/NeilPHauer/status/1497904638678470658
And we walked past the FM transmitter, and there was a guy up there with a spanner mending it. Not that he's yet succeeded.
Besides even without NATO there are already perfectly good military alliances involving countries outside the EU - The JEF being a good example.
"Speaking just as a media consumer, I've been kind of surprised by the inefficacy of Russia's propaganda efforts so far. People who know more about this than I do: Are the Russians just not even trying to shape Western perceptions of the war, or are they shockingly bad at it?"
A valid point, where is the ruthlessly effective social media op which put Trump in the WH, preserved the Union and got us out of the other one? Because all I am seeing anywhere is @PJohnson. Perhaps i have the wrong sort of twitter feed.
Posting a link to someone using a weapons shipment as a photo opportunity to criticise someone for using a weapons shipment as a photo opportunity is a bit of a stretch.
The Economic Effects of Russia’s Invasion of Ukraine
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3QlpTlz073k
Lab 45%
Con 32%
LD 12%
Grn 6%
oth 5%
Midlands
Con 49%
Lab 39%
Grn 5%
LD 5%
oth 3%
London
Lab 52%
Con 19%
LD 15%
Grn 7%
oth 7%
South
Con 39%
Lab 33%
LD 14%
Grn 8%
oth 6%
Wales
Lab 37%
PC 21%
Con 21%
LD 15%
Grn 2%
oth 5%
Scotland
SNP 51%
Lab 20%
Con 17%
Grn 4%
LD 4%
oth 4%
GB
Lab 38%
Con 34%
LD 11%
Grn 6%
SNP 4%
PC 1%
oth 5%
(Opinium/The Observer; 23-25 February; 2,068)
In a big ocean a ship 1,000 feet long isn't actually much more conspicuous than one 500 foot long.
https://twitter.com/hemicker/status/1497877126338514944?s=20&t=8-LL_L9XuBxOObviowM3rQ
Edit: just realised, it'll be 'they're just making it easier for those refugees to come to the Yookay'!
I woke up more resilient this morning after spending evening away from it with friends. It was big shock to system last week this horrible war in Europe was happening, shock and horror can test resilience against getting down. Going out now for Roast Beef and Yorkshires and I think will turn iPhone off
https://twitter.com/JamesAALongman/status/1497916418360291331
🔺 Update: Downing Street is drawing up plans to offer Ukrainians refuge in Britain after a minister was criticised for suggesting they could apply to come and pick fruit and vegetables
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/downing-street-draws-up-plans-to-resettle-ukrainians-in-britain-brdv969dp?utm_medium=Social&utm_source=Twitter#Echobox=1645965923
https://twitter.com/BBCkatyaadler/status/1497917320303362048
2% would just mean that Germany would have an airforce with more than a couple of planes that actually fly.
Similarly a few years back the Americans held an exercise in the Gulf simulating war with Iran where a US Marine Corps general was assigned as “red” commander and used known Revolutionary Guard tactics to “swarm” warships and take them out. The US Navy promptly suspended the exercise and demanded it be restarted with the USMC tactics disallowed.
https://twitter.com/Liveuamap/status/1497917235540676612
Maybe sixty years ago that would have made a difference, but Germany has rather fewer combat veterans nowadays.
And if other countries also threaten a boycott FIFA would have no choice . Russia being thrown out would have a big impact on the Russian psyche .
I'm sorry, but no one has yet advanced a plausible explanation of how talk, diplomatic alliances and vague fears of 'threat' somehow provoke hundreds of thousands of troops to invade.
Next he'll be moaning about group think and how unfair it is that people criticise him.
Mind you his English is much better than my Russian.so credit where it is due.
Think of al the stupid stuff about COVID that got printed. Why should they suddenly get international relations and finance right?
https://www.johndcook.com/blog/2021/01/18/gell-mann-amnesia/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TlJywp7E3Gw
https://twitter.com/IAPonomarenko/status/1497918774657355778
Looks to be all Russian to me, probably hundreds of deaths in the vehicles pictured.
I’m channeling Carry on up the Kyhber - just popping out for a moment to see the bombs off dear.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HbmZrzN3WFE
How funny if a second order effect of Putin's invasion was to improve UK-EU relations.
OK. Thanks for telling us everything about your mental state.
That has somehow mutated into in the Internet truism that you can sink carriers with a 'swarm' of pedalos.
In the real world nobody has damaged a carrier in combat since 1945. The end of the age of the carriers will come as it did for battleships but not yet and not soon.
Keep trying, comrade, for noble cause of Greater Russia and for to make misguide West see truth!
If someone paid you 6 figures a year to spout obnoxious crap, part time, and lots of people giving you likes.... well, you'd be tempted right?
If Ukraine didn't qualify gift them the slot Russia were occupying
Unless Eadronic is doing his bit for the war effort by portraying a Russian astroturfer as the least persuasive thing since Theresa May went knocking doors on Deeside?
That looks like very fears fighting is going on there.
With occasional pauses to beat a fox to death with a baseball bat. In your wife's kimono.
However if you do want my opinion, no politician should dress in military fatigues unless they have earnt them. It makes them look like pillocks.
How do the Ukrainians get the firepower to do THAT? Must be a drone strike?
If it were the bloke with the dirt bike down the street would be worried.
It might well have been less awkward if some nations were content to limit their options, but there's no getting away from that if they want to go down a path that is their affair, and it isn't anyone else's fault but the aggressor if they'd violently prevent that.