I think what is coming out of this whole episode is that as the West has sowed, now is it reaping. For 30 years the West defined the world order. Someone out of line? Invade, depose, install a favourable regime. That was realpolitik. No one could or wanted to do anything about it.
I noticed @HYUFD getting a lot of stick on here last night when he was one of the few people who made sense. Yes indeed we are in a world of realpolitik when Russia as is can shout the odds and people have no choice but to listen. This is what the West has done since Desert Storm (and of course before).
So is Putin a madman? Was George W Bush? Was Obama? Perhaps. Each had a vision of a world order which had certain components and wherein actors behaved as they ought to have done and that vision was enforced by force if not voluntarily. And it's Putin's turn now.
Indeed, though Desert Storm was at least supported by a UN Security Council Resolution which George HW Bush got to his credit after Saddam invaded Kuwait, unlike Iraq 2003 or the Russian invasion of Ukraine now.
The Afghanistan war of 2001 was arguably self defence post 9/11, at least in terms of getting Bin Laden (albeit it was Obama who ultimately got him), so therefore justified under the UN Charter.
Stupid British media at it again, trying to find dividing lines over asylum policy, UK/EU relations and party funding.
There’s a bloody war on, please can they leave their pet obsessions aside for a few days, and let the politicians concentrate on what’s actually important at the moment?
Quite right, let HMG get on with concentrating on the important stuff.
Naked self-promotion on the back of this is very yucky indeed. Stop it Liz.
Are you sure this was a recent pic?
It is an old pic, where old in the context of Ukraine means it was taken more than a week ago.
(Snip)
In which case, Kinbalu should perhaps apologise...
Please look at this and consider whether @kinabalu has the vaguest hint of a point here
No, he really doesn't. Kinbalu was the one making a political point out of an out-of-context picture. At best, he jumped to an assumption.
The assumption being: if you have a woman in her 50s who is a pretentious posing airhead in Oct 2021 she is probably no different in feb 2022. seems fair.
Liz Truss is 46.
Just verified that and found she was at my college at Oxford. A bad morning.
She looked younger than her age until about 5 years ago. Must be a tough job being in cabinet.
She's the same age as me. Most people I know have aged rather more than one might hope in the last five years! I note Liz Truss has two daughters - I have three, and I look a lot older than I did half a decade ago. (My girls see photos of me from before they were born and are puzzled at why my hair is black). I'd say Liz Truss is in pretty good nick. Though having a good photographer presumably helps!
Stupid British media at it again, trying to find dividing lines over asylum policy, UK/EU relations and party funding.
There’s a bloody war on, please can they leave their pet obsessions aside for a few days, and let the politicians concentrate on what’s actually important at the moment?
Quite right, let HMG get on with concentrating on the important stuff.
Naked self-promotion on the back of this is very yucky indeed. Stop it Liz.
Are you sure this was a recent pic?
It is an old pic, where old in the context of Ukraine means it was taken more than a week ago.
(Snip)
In which case, Kinbalu should perhaps apologise...
Please look at this and consider whether @kinabalu has the vaguest hint of a point here
No, he really doesn't. Kinbalu was the one making a political point out of an out-of-context picture. At best, he jumped to an assumption.
The assumption being: if you have a woman in her 50s who is a pretentious posing airhead in Oct 2021 she is probably no different in feb 2022. seems fair.
It isn't. Kinbalu linked that photo and made out she was taking advantage of the current situation. He was wrong.
Still, I guess I'm going to get piled-on here, so I'll leave it at that.
And I linked to a very similar photo showing that he is without a shadow of a doubt right.
He wasn't; not in relation to that photo. And even with the photo you repeatedly linked to (do you have a fetish?), so blooming what?
The point about it is that it is pointless. In the october one she is at least *doing* something related to her job. The one from last week isn't even dressed up with an excuse that say she is having a presser with a Ukr bod which would be a reason for the two flags. It is simply time wasting Instagramming. Your position is pretty much on a par with demanding someone apologise to Harold Shipman's family for saying he killed 234 people when the actual count is 233
When we see tories riding to the defence of a verray parfit blonde in battledress I think it is reasonably clear where the fetish lies.
The Foreign Secretary of the UK expressing support for our Ukrainian friends and allies while they're being invaded is not a waste of time.
But if your objection is simply to people using Instagram then you just sound like a bitter and twisted old man banging on about young people of today going on television and not just the radio.
The issue is in your head, not a problem with her.
Sure.
Look, we should accept that the Truss of a few months ago is not the Truss of today, and a vile deception has been enacted by reproducing a self promoting photo that Fizzy Lizzy pumped out for public consumption in a different world.
As with many previous cases it's possible that Volodymyr Zelenskyy has created a future Ukraine that until last Thursday never actually existed.
I wonder whether, to a lesser extent, the same might be true for the EU.
Of course, their not fighting Russia, but they're facing an external threat together, and the details of national interests are being reduced by the pressure of events.
I suspect a lot of that is the sudden realisation by Germany that the world isn't working the way they thought it is.
Mind you I do look at German energy policy and think WTF have you been thinking - there are obvious flaws here that make no sense..
The question is whether, after the crisis, the temptation to snap back to East Politics will win out.
I think that is a 50/50 at the moment. It depends how bad this gets....
And finally. The very fact of resistance against so much superior enemy very much empowers the Ukrainian mythology. It's enormous mythos building we are witnessing. The very phenomenon of war is inconceivable without taking into account mythological dimension
Kamil Galeev @kamilkazani · 11h Replying to @kamilkazani Consider Venice. When Napoleon came they surrendered without a shot. Very smart, saved lives, saved the city. It's just killed the mythos of Venice. People lived but the Republic died. It was never restored and is unlikely to be restored again Kamil Galeev @kamilkazani · 11h Theorists of war of the bygone age understood it. Clausewitz pointed out that it's important not only if you lost independence but *how* you lost it. If you submitted without a fight, you saved lives. But you killed your mythos. You'll be digested by the conqueror Kamil Galeev @kamilkazani · 11h But if you lost after the brutal and bloody fight your mythos is alive. The memory of the last battle will live through the ages. It will shape the mythological space your descendants live in and they'll attempt to restore independence at the first opportunity. End of thread
As with many previous cases it's possible that Volodymyr Zelenskyy has created a future Ukraine that until last Thursday never actually existed.
Definitely true.
Ask Australians when and where Australia was born. They say: the beaches of Gallipoli. A battle which has become this huge mythological event in their minds, the bloody birth of an independent nation, no longer just a British colony
You can see it in the huge moving memorial to the Gallipoli dead in Sydney. It is ground zero of “Australian-ness”. It edges close to kitsch Fascism without, thankfully, crossing over
The Falklands was a bit similar. I remember it vividly. All sorts of sensible folk told Mrs Thatcher not to send the task force. Too risky. And, for what? A few farmers and a few sheep. Just negotiate a face-saving deal. Let's be grown up about it. The empire is dead. Etc etc.
Fortunately she, and many in the military, took a different line. "What kind of a country are we?" And the Navy, instinctively (apparently it's the least "intellectual" of the services), always heads straight towards the foe. I think they were quite persuasive despite the risks they were taking with men and materiel.
Rest is history.
(Of course, there will have been some political calculation but then, there always is.)
I remember at the time thinking “another chapter in the continuing decline of the West” - less than 7 years after the fall of Saigon - but it took Thatcher - as you observe - against a lot of the chattering classes to say enough!! I also recall the slightly condescending Time magazine cover of the task force with the headline “The Empire Strikes Back”.
It didn't do much for the coherence of the west in the long-run, however.
Eh?
I did everything for the coherence of the West.
Seven years later the Berlin Wall came tumbling down.
Stupid British media at it again, trying to find dividing lines over asylum policy, UK/EU relations and party funding.
There’s a bloody war on, please can they leave their pet obsessions aside for a few days, and let the politicians concentrate on what’s actually important at the moment?
Quite right, let HMG get on with concentrating on the important stuff.
Naked self-promotion on the back of this is very yucky indeed. Stop it Liz.
Are you sure this was a recent pic?
It is an old pic, where old in the context of Ukraine means it was taken more than a week ago.
(Snip)
In which case, Kinbalu should perhaps apologise...
and to trigger some more people
His "Groupe de ravitaillement en vol 2/91 Bretagne" patch is very much on the piss. That's the real crime here.
I’m just surprised they could find one with short enough legs.
Churchill was a bit shorter, don't forget. Heightism is one of those last acceptable prejuduces.
I think what is coming out of this whole episode is that as the West has sowed, now is it reaping. For 30 years the West defined the world order. Someone out of line? Invade, depose, install a favourable regime. That was realpolitik. No one could or wanted to do anything about it.
I noticed @HYUFD getting a lot of stick on here last night when he was one of the few people who made sense. Yes indeed we are in a world of realpolitik when Russia as is can shout the odds and people have no choice but to listen. This is what the West has done since Desert Storm (and of course before).
So is Putin a madman? Was George W Bush? Was Obama? Perhaps. Each had a vision of a world order which had certain components and wherein actors behaved as they ought to have done and that vision was enforced by force if not voluntarily. And it's Putin's turn now.
Indeed, though Desert Storm was at least supported by a UN Security Council Resolution unlike Iraq 2003 or the Russian invasion of Ukraine now
That is true absolutely. It helps but is not necessary.
Stupid British media at it again, trying to find dividing lines over asylum policy, UK/EU relations and party funding.
There’s a bloody war on, please can they leave their pet obsessions aside for a few days, and let the politicians concentrate on what’s actually important at the moment?
Quite right, let HMG get on with concentrating on the important stuff.
Naked self-promotion on the back of this is very yucky indeed. Stop it Liz.
Are you sure this was a recent pic?
It is an old pic, where old in the context of Ukraine means it was taken more than a week ago.
(Snip)
In which case, Kinbalu should perhaps apologise...
and to trigger some more people
His "Groupe de ravitaillement en vol 2/91 Bretagne" patch is very much on the piss. That's the real crime here.
I’m just surprised they could find one with short enough legs.
That's enough heightism! Macron is in any case taller than Thatcher and Churchill, though not Thatcher on Churchill's shoulders, and about the same height as our own beloved Boris.
Stupid British media at it again, trying to find dividing lines over asylum policy, UK/EU relations and party funding.
There’s a bloody war on, please can they leave their pet obsessions aside for a few days, and let the politicians concentrate on what’s actually important at the moment?
Quite right, let HMG get on with concentrating on the important stuff.
Naked self-promotion on the back of this is very yucky indeed. Stop it Liz.
Are you sure this was a recent pic?
It is an old pic, where old in the context of Ukraine means it was taken more than a week ago.
(Snip)
In which case, Kinbalu should perhaps apologise...
Please look at this and consider whether @kinabalu has the vaguest hint of a point here
Do you actually think a photo of the Foreign Secretary of the UK stood in front of the UK and Ukraine flags while we're allied with Ukraine during a war is remotely comparable to a kitsch fanfic painting of the then PM flying through the air riding a lion?
I think it triggers the same dopamine receptors in your head
Just no.
Its only you that seems to be triggered by the Foreign Secretary of the UK expressing support for our Ukrainian friends and allies via a photograph.
And finally. The very fact of resistance against so much superior enemy very much empowers the Ukrainian mythology. It's enormous mythos building we are witnessing. The very phenomenon of war is inconceivable without taking into account mythological dimension
Kamil Galeev @kamilkazani · 11h Replying to @kamilkazani Consider Venice. When Napoleon came they surrendered without a shot. Very smart, saved lives, saved the city. It's just killed the mythos of Venice. People lived but the Republic died. It was never restored and is unlikely to be restored again Kamil Galeev @kamilkazani · 11h Theorists of war of the bygone age understood it. Clausewitz pointed out that it's important not only if you lost independence but *how* you lost it. If you submitted without a fight, you saved lives. But you killed your mythos. You'll be digested by the conqueror Kamil Galeev @kamilkazani · 11h But if you lost after the brutal and bloody fight your mythos is alive. The memory of the last battle will live through the ages. It will shape the mythological space your descendants live in and they'll attempt to restore independence at the first opportunity. End of thread
As with many previous cases it's possible that Volodymyr Zelenskyy has created a future Ukraine that until last Thursday never actually existed.
Definitely true.
Ask Australians when and where Australia was born. They say: the beaches of Gallipoli. A battle which has become this huge mythological event in their minds, the bloody birth of an independent nation, no longer just a British colony
You can see it in the huge moving memorial to the Gallipoli dead in Sydney. It is ground zero of “Australian-ness”. It edges close to kitsch Fascism without, thankfully, crossing over
The Falklands was a bit similar. I remember it vividly. All sorts of sensible folk told Mrs Thatcher not to send the task force. Too risky. And, for what? A few farmers and a few sheep. Just negotiate a face-saving deal. Let's be grown up about it. The empire is dead. Etc etc.
Fortunately she, and many in the military, took a different line. "What kind of a country are we?" And the Navy, instinctively (apparently it's the least "intellectual" of the services), always heads straight towards the foe. I think they were quite persuasive despite the risks they were taking with men and materiel.
Rest is history.
(Of course, there will have been some political calculation but then, there always is.)
I remember at the time thinking “another chapter in the continuing decline of the West” - less than 7 years after the fall of Saigon - but it took Thatcher - as you observe - against a lot of the chattering classes to say enough!! I also recall the slightly condescending Time magazine cover of the task force with the headline “The Empire Strikes Back”.
It didn't do much for the coherence of the west in the long-run, however.
Eh?
I did everything for the coherence of the West.
Seven years later the Berlin Wall came tumbling down.
Nothing remotely to do with the Falklands, though ; vast US military spending and Sovier post-Brezhnev decline and stasis.
I think what is coming out of this whole episode is that as the West has sowed, now is it reaping. For 30 years the West defined the world order. Someone out of line? Invade, depose, install a favourable regime. That was realpolitik. No one could or wanted to do anything about it.
I noticed @HYUFD getting a lot of stick on here last night when he was one of the few people who made sense. Yes indeed we are in a world of realpolitik when Russia as is can shout the odds and people have no choice but to listen. This is what the West has done since Desert Storm (and of course before).
So is Putin a madman? Was George W Bush? Was Obama? Perhaps. Each had a vision of a world order which had certain components and wherein actors behaved as they ought to have done and that vision was enforced by force if not voluntarily. And it's Putin's turn now.
- George W Bush demonstrably fucked up and created a series of disasters for America and the world. To the point where you do have to ask "What the fuck, George?"
- Obama tried for limited, achievable goals - apart from carrying on the Afghan comedy.
- Putin has launched a war that he has fucked up. He has united the disunited against him. In a few days he has guaranteed that is gaol of a Ukraine (and Eastern Europe) that is subservient to Russia won't happen. He has achieved the opposite of a long series of gaols. Among other things, to turn Nord Stream 2 on will now require both the Americans and the Germans to agree. Not just the Germans. So it is quite likely that that is dead for ever now.....
I think what is coming out of this whole episode is that as the West has sowed, now is it reaping. For 30 years the West defined the world order. Someone out of line? Invade, depose, install a favourable regime. That was realpolitik. No one could or wanted to do anything about it.
I noticed @HYUFD getting a lot of stick on here last night when he was one of the few people who made sense. Yes indeed we are in a world of realpolitik when Russia as is can shout the odds and people have no choice but to listen. This is what the West has done since Desert Storm (and of course before).
So is Putin a madman? Was George W Bush? Was Obama? Perhaps. Each had a vision of a world order which had certain components and wherein actors behaved as they ought to have done and that vision was enforced by force if not voluntarily. And it's Putin's turn now.
What bullshit.
When did the West invade a peaceful democracy in the past 30 years?
EDIT: As it happens anyway we are not in a world where people have no choice but to listen to Russia. Quite the opposite, we are in a world where we can say that what Russia has done is utterly unacceptable and to retaliate and put Russia back in their place.
And finally. The very fact of resistance against so much superior enemy very much empowers the Ukrainian mythology. It's enormous mythos building we are witnessing. The very phenomenon of war is inconceivable without taking into account mythological dimension
Kamil Galeev @kamilkazani · 11h Replying to @kamilkazani Consider Venice. When Napoleon came they surrendered without a shot. Very smart, saved lives, saved the city. It's just killed the mythos of Venice. People lived but the Republic died. It was never restored and is unlikely to be restored again Kamil Galeev @kamilkazani · 11h Theorists of war of the bygone age understood it. Clausewitz pointed out that it's important not only if you lost independence but *how* you lost it. If you submitted without a fight, you saved lives. But you killed your mythos. You'll be digested by the conqueror Kamil Galeev @kamilkazani · 11h But if you lost after the brutal and bloody fight your mythos is alive. The memory of the last battle will live through the ages. It will shape the mythological space your descendants live in and they'll attempt to restore independence at the first opportunity. End of thread
As with many previous cases it's possible that Volodymyr Zelenskyy has created a future Ukraine that until last Thursday never actually existed.
Definitely true.
Ask Australians when and where Australia was born. They say: the beaches of Gallipoli. A battle which has become this huge mythological event in their minds, the bloody birth of an independent nation, no longer just a British colony
You can see it in the huge moving memorial to the Gallipoli dead in Sydney. It is ground zero of “Australian-ness”. It edges close to kitsch Fascism without, thankfully, crossing over
The Falklands was a bit similar. I remember it vividly. All sorts of sensible folk told Mrs Thatcher not to send the task force. Too risky. And, for what? A few farmers and a few sheep. Just negotiate a face-saving deal. Let's be grown up about it. The empire is dead. Etc etc.
Fortunately she, and many in the military, took a different line. "What kind of a country are we?" And the Navy, instinctively (apparently it's the least "intellectual" of the services), always heads straight towards the foe. I think they were quite persuasive despite the risks they were taking with men and materiel.
Rest is history.
(Of course, there will have been some political calculation but then, there always is.)
I remember at the time thinking “another chapter in the continuing decline of the West” - less than 7 years after the fall of Saigon - but it took Thatcher - as you observe - against a lot of the chattering classes to say enough!! I also recall the slightly condescending Time magazine cover of the task force with the headline “The Empire Strikes Back”.
I too remember it. But the write-up was not condescending, rather admiring I would say.
How much is $20bn a day for Russia? According to Wikipedia, Russia's GDP is about $1,600bn. So at this rate Russia burns through its entire GDP in under 100 days. Of course, its GDP will be negatively impacted by the war, so possibly rather sooner. I mean, I hope the war doesn't go on for 100 days - but it's an indication of the kind of pressure Russia is under to finish this. Remember also there will be other things it will be spending its money on besides war...
$20 billion a day seems unlikely. 20 billion roubles, maybe, and even then you'd wonder about marginal versus fixed costs. Russia would be paying soldiers' wages even if they had remained in their barracks, for instance.
How much of their dollar reserves are they spending daily, to prop up their own currency on the international markets?
Even with interest rates lifted to 20%, there’s still a hundred roubles to the dollar today - if you can find someone willing to sell their dollars at anything close to the official rate.
It’ll be a good day for sellers of Western cars, gold, jewelery and electronics in Moscow today, with everyone desparate to swap their roubles for something of intrinsic global value.
Why, if you had such valuable goods, want to exchange them for a worthless currency?
I think they'll already be communicating with each other in some way off record, and with the oligarchs.
I think this misunderstands the oligarchs position. The deal is Putin allows them to rob Russia blind in exchange for complete political non involvement, on pain of polonium or 30 years in prison. They just aren't in any useful loop.
Not much use if you can't enjoy the fruits of your robbery.
Cash flow. the lesson from germany and zimbabwe and taking a wheelbarrow full of money to buy 1/2 dozen eggs is the resilience/irreplaceability of cash as a medium of exchange. You cannot sustainably barter jewellery and cars for eggs.
Friend of mine finally found a bunch of British pro-Putin, pro-Russian-army, “fuck Ukraine” types on Twitter - spoiling for an argument
They were all rabid Scot Nats. Hate NATO, apparently
The cheerleaders for the Kremlin are an extremely motley crew, from Fox News to Ultra Scot Nats to Farageists and Stop the War. And one of my parents.
I’m not sure I can recall an alliance like it
I think those ‘rabid Scots Nats’ are almost entirely Albanians and supporters of Salmond (an individual for whom you were a Pom Pom girl a year ago)? Presumably you’d have shared some common ground over their pro Putin stance only a couple of months ago.
Anti-NATO sentiment is quite mainstream within the SNP. Their official policy for many years was to withdraw from NATO, only changing it before IndyRef2 when they realised it was polling very badly and was a drag on their chances. Angus Robertson, who presided over the U-turn, took a lot of stick at the time.
Is or was? The past is another country.
I'm old enough to remember when the SCons were a strongly pro EU party (or sub branch as the case may be).
Oh, still "is" for quite a few.
Linked to that is the policy to throw out Trident and wax lyrical about the immorality of possessing nuclear weapons. Despite NATO being an explicitly nuclear alliance. Of course, you don't have to have nukes to be in NATO, but stripping one of its three members to possess them of their capacity is rather problematic in a NATO context. Would go down extremely badly with US so almost certainly an IndyScot would wriggle out of it if it came to it, but all the same.
For someone who regularly states indy ref II is dead, you certainly manage to regurgitate a lot of PF II stuff.
Gonnae love seeing all those yeahbutnobutyeah the EU is eevul types working out which way to jump on Ukraine being fast tracked into the EU.
Unless all Russian troops have left Ukrainian soil and/or Putin has been toppled as President of Russia, Ukraine is not going into the EU, NATO or any other block as it will still have much of its territory occupied by Russia.
If Kyiv falls to Putin's troops that will be even more the case
Point of Order.
Would that not be Indyref III, since they have already had two goes and lost both?
If you want to find some genuine Scottish cavemen, log on to any comments thread at the National.
There have been some weird kinks on PB, but some bloke in the English sticks logging on to comments threads at The National is right up there.
Not at all, no different to someone perusing the Mail or the Guardian or ConHome to look at the comments.
Friend of mine finally found a bunch of British pro-Putin, pro-Russian-army, “fuck Ukraine” types on Twitter - spoiling for an argument
They were all rabid Scot Nats. Hate NATO, apparently
The cheerleaders for the Kremlin are an extremely motley crew, from Fox News to Ultra Scot Nats to Farageists and Stop the War. And one of my parents.
I’m not sure I can recall an alliance like it
I think those ‘rabid Scots Nats’ are almost entirely Albanians and supporters of Salmond (an individual for whom you were a Pom Pom girl a year ago)? Presumably you’d have shared some common ground over their pro Putin stance only a couple of months ago.
Anti-NATO sentiment is quite mainstream within the SNP. Their official policy for many years was to withdraw from NATO, only changing it before IndyRef2 when they realised it was polling very badly and was a drag on their chances. Angus Robertson, who presided over the U-turn, took a lot of stick at the time.
Is or was? The past is another country.
I'm old enough to remember when the SCons were a strongly pro EU party (or sub branch as the case may be).
Oh, still "is" for quite a few.
Linked to that is the policy to throw out Trident and wax lyrical about the immorality of possessing nuclear weapons. Despite NATO being an explicitly nuclear alliance. Of course, you don't have to have nukes to be in NATO, but stripping one of its three members to possess them of their capacity is rather problematic in a NATO context. Would go down extremely badly with US so almost certainly an IndyScot would wriggle out of it if it came to it, but all the same.
For someone who regularly states indy ref II is dead, you certainly manage to regurgitate a lot of PF II stuff.
Gonnae love seeing all those yeahbutnobutyeah the EU is eevul types working out which way to jump on Ukraine being fast tracked into the EU.
Unless all Russian troops have left Ukrainian soil and/or Putin has been toppled as President of Russia, Ukraine is not going into the EU, NATO or any other block as it will still have much of its territory occupied by Russia.
If Kyiv falls to Putin's troops that will be even more the case
I think you are right, but it's why the demands about NATO membership being rejected were nonsensical. Putin had what he wanted without further invasion.
Friend of mine finally found a bunch of British pro-Putin, pro-Russian-army, “fuck Ukraine” types on Twitter - spoiling for an argument
They were all rabid Scot Nats. Hate NATO, apparently
The cheerleaders for the Kremlin are an extremely motley crew, from Fox News to Ultra Scot Nats to Farageists and Stop the War. And one of my parents.
I’m not sure I can recall an alliance like it
I think those ‘rabid Scots Nats’ are almost entirely Albanians and supporters of Salmond (an individual for whom you were a Pom Pom girl a year ago)? Presumably you’d have shared some common ground over their pro Putin stance only a couple of months ago.
Anti-NATO sentiment is quite mainstream within the SNP. Their official policy for many years was to withdraw from NATO, only changing it before IndyRef2 when they realised it was polling very badly and was a drag on their chances. Angus Robertson, who presided over the U-turn, took a lot of stick at the time.
Is or was? The past is another country.
I'm old enough to remember when the SCons were a strongly pro EU party (or sub branch as the case may be).
Oh, still "is" for quite a few.
Linked to that is the policy to throw out Trident and wax lyrical about the immorality of possessing nuclear weapons. Despite NATO being an explicitly nuclear alliance. Of course, you don't have to have nukes to be in NATO, but stripping one of its three members to possess them of their capacity is rather problematic in a NATO context. Would go down extremely badly with US so almost certainly an IndyScot would wriggle out of it if it came to it, but all the same.
For someone who regularly states indy ref II is dead, you certainly manage to regurgitate a lot of PF II stuff.
Gonnae love seeing all those yeahbutnobutyeah the EU is eevul types working out which way to jump on Ukraine being fast tracked into the EU.
You don't appear to be answering the point.
"yeahbutnobutyeah" seems to be the prevailing line with ScotNats since the economic case for Indy collapsed.
And, yes, I do reckon IndyRef2 is dead, so all this is a bit beside the point TBH.
Feel free to stop latching on to my posts to discuss (checks notes) IndyRef2 and IndyScot then.
You get a good few unionist stalkers on here, mainly southern mind you.
Stupid British media at it again, trying to find dividing lines over asylum policy, UK/EU relations and party funding.
There’s a bloody war on, please can they leave their pet obsessions aside for a few days, and let the politicians concentrate on what’s actually important at the moment?
Quite right, let HMG get on with concentrating on the important stuff.
Naked self-promotion on the back of this is very yucky indeed. Stop it Liz.
Are you sure this was a recent pic?
It is an old pic, where old in the context of Ukraine means it was taken more than a week ago.
(Snip)
In which case, Kinbalu should perhaps apologise...
Please look at this and consider whether @kinabalu has the vaguest hint of a point here
Do you actually think a photo of the Foreign Secretary of the UK stood in front of the UK and Ukraine flags while we're allied with Ukraine during a war is remotely comparable to a kitsch fanfic painting of the then PM flying through the air riding a lion?
I think it triggers the same dopamine receptors in your head
Just no.
Its only you that seems to be triggered by the Foreign Secretary of the UK expressing support for our Ukrainian friends and allies via a photograph.
And finally. The very fact of resistance against so much superior enemy very much empowers the Ukrainian mythology. It's enormous mythos building we are witnessing. The very phenomenon of war is inconceivable without taking into account mythological dimension
Kamil Galeev @kamilkazani · 11h Replying to @kamilkazani Consider Venice. When Napoleon came they surrendered without a shot. Very smart, saved lives, saved the city. It's just killed the mythos of Venice. People lived but the Republic died. It was never restored and is unlikely to be restored again Kamil Galeev @kamilkazani · 11h Theorists of war of the bygone age understood it. Clausewitz pointed out that it's important not only if you lost independence but *how* you lost it. If you submitted without a fight, you saved lives. But you killed your mythos. You'll be digested by the conqueror Kamil Galeev @kamilkazani · 11h But if you lost after the brutal and bloody fight your mythos is alive. The memory of the last battle will live through the ages. It will shape the mythological space your descendants live in and they'll attempt to restore independence at the first opportunity. End of thread
As with many previous cases it's possible that Volodymyr Zelenskyy has created a future Ukraine that until last Thursday never actually existed.
Definitely true.
Ask Australians when and where Australia was born. They say: the beaches of Gallipoli. A battle which has become this huge mythological event in their minds, the bloody birth of an independent nation, no longer just a British colony
You can see it in the huge moving memorial to the Gallipoli dead in Sydney. It is ground zero of “Australian-ness”. It edges close to kitsch Fascism without, thankfully, crossing over
The Falklands was a bit similar. I remember it vividly. All sorts of sensible folk told Mrs Thatcher not to send the task force. Too risky. And, for what? A few farmers and a few sheep. Just negotiate a face-saving deal. Let's be grown up about it. The empire is dead. Etc etc.
Fortunately she, and many in the military, took a different line. "What kind of a country are we?" And the Navy, instinctively (apparently it's the least "intellectual" of the services), always heads straight towards the foe. I think they were quite persuasive despite the risks they were taking with men and materiel.
Rest is history.
(Of course, there will have been some political calculation but then, there always is.)
I remember at the time thinking “another chapter in the continuing decline of the West” - less than 7 years after the fall of Saigon - but it took Thatcher - as you observe - against a lot of the chattering classes to say enough!! I also recall the slightly condescending Time magazine cover of the task force with the headline “The Empire Strikes Back”.
I too remember it. But the write-up was not condescending, rather admiring I would say.
There was a funny writeup on the article published by the Russian military in a journal out of Frunze about the Falklands - I'll have to find it.
The logistics for that made a deep impression on them IIRC. Also naval aviation vs missiles.
Stupid British media at it again, trying to find dividing lines over asylum policy, UK/EU relations and party funding.
There’s a bloody war on, please can they leave their pet obsessions aside for a few days, and let the politicians concentrate on what’s actually important at the moment?
Quite right, let HMG get on with concentrating on the important stuff.
Naked self-promotion on the back of this is very yucky indeed. Stop it Liz.
Are you sure this was a recent pic?
It is an old pic, where old in the context of Ukraine means it was taken more than a week ago.
(Snip)
In which case, Kinbalu should perhaps apologise...
Please look at this and consider whether @kinabalu has the vaguest hint of a point here
Stupid British media at it again, trying to find dividing lines over asylum policy, UK/EU relations and party funding.
There’s a bloody war on, please can they leave their pet obsessions aside for a few days, and let the politicians concentrate on what’s actually important at the moment?
Quite right, let HMG get on with concentrating on the important stuff.
Naked self-promotion on the back of this is very yucky indeed. Stop it Liz.
Are you sure this was a recent pic?
It is an old pic, where old in the context of Ukraine means it was taken more than a week ago.
(Snip)
In which case, Kinbalu should perhaps apologise...
Please look at this and consider whether @kinabalu has the vaguest hint of a point here
Do you actually think a photo of the Foreign Secretary of the UK stood in front of the UK and Ukraine flags while we're allied with Ukraine during a war is remotely comparable to a kitsch fanfic painting of the then PM flying through the air riding a lion?
I think it triggers the same dopamine receptors in your head
I think what is coming out of this whole episode is that as the West has sowed, now is it reaping. For 30 years the West defined the world order. Someone out of line? Invade, depose, install a favourable regime. That was realpolitik. No one could or wanted to do anything about it.
I noticed @HYUFD getting a lot of stick on here last night when he was one of the few people who made sense. Yes indeed we are in a world of realpolitik when Russia as is can shout the odds and people have no choice but to listen. This is what the West has done since Desert Storm (and of course before).
So is Putin a madman? Was George W Bush? Was Obama? Perhaps. Each had a vision of a world order which had certain components and wherein actors behaved as they ought to have done and that vision was enforced by force if not voluntarily. And it's Putin's turn now.
What bullshit.
When did the West invade a peaceful democracy in the past 30 years?
EDIT: As it happens anyway we are not in a world where people have no choice but to listen to Russia. Quite the opposite, we are in a world where we can say that what Russia has done is utterly unacceptable and to retaliate and put Russia back in their place.
Democracy? Why is that a criterion and says who.
The West has invaded countries because it has disagreed with the way they have been run. For the past 30 years. And now Russia is doing the same.
Edit: and as for putting Russia back in its place I'm sure we will try to do that. What place is that though. You sound like an end of history guy. The world order is changing and you evidently can't accept that.
I think what is coming out of this whole episode is that as the West has sowed, now is it reaping. For 30 years the West defined the world order. Someone out of line? Invade, depose, install a favourable regime. That was realpolitik. No one could or wanted to do anything about it.
I noticed @HYUFD getting a lot of stick on here last night when he was one of the few people who made sense. Yes indeed we are in a world of realpolitik when Russia as is can shout the odds and people have no choice but to listen. This is what the West has done since Desert Storm (and of course before).
So is Putin a madman? Was George W Bush? Was Obama? Perhaps. Each had a vision of a world order which had certain components and wherein actors behaved as they ought to have done and that vision was enforced by force if not voluntarily. And it's Putin's turn now.
What bullshit.
When did the West invade a peaceful democracy in the past 30 years?
EDIT: As it happens anyway we are not in a world where people have no choice but to listen to Russia. Quite the opposite, we are in a world where we can say that what Russia has done is utterly unacceptable and to retaliate and put Russia back in their place.
Minor proviso: as long as we have Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb.
I think what is coming out of this whole episode is that as the West has sowed, now is it reaping. For 30 years the West defined the world order. Someone out of line? Invade, depose, install a favourable regime. That was realpolitik. No one could or wanted to do anything about it.
I noticed @HYUFD getting a lot of stick on here last night when he was one of the few people who made sense. Yes indeed we are in a world of realpolitik when Russia as is can shout the odds and people have no choice but to listen. This is what the West has done since Desert Storm (and of course before).
So is Putin a madman? Was George W Bush? Was Obama? Perhaps. Each had a vision of a world order which had certain components and wherein actors behaved as they ought to have done and that vision was enforced by force if not voluntarily. And it's Putin's turn now.
Utter rubbish. You’re suggesting moral equivalence where there is none. This is an invasion with the intent to conquer and absorb another country.
How much is $20bn a day for Russia? According to Wikipedia, Russia's GDP is about $1,600bn. So at this rate Russia burns through its entire GDP in under 100 days. Of course, its GDP will be negatively impacted by the war, so possibly rather sooner. I mean, I hope the war doesn't go on for 100 days - but it's an indication of the kind of pressure Russia is under to finish this. Remember also there will be other things it will be spending its money on besides war...
$20 billion a day seems unlikely. 20 billion roubles, maybe, and even then you'd wonder about marginal versus fixed costs. Russia would be paying soldiers' wages even if they had remained in their barracks, for instance.
How much of their dollar reserves are they spending daily, to prop up their own currency on the international markets?
Even with interest rates lifted to 20%, there’s still a hundred roubles to the dollar today - if you can find someone willing to sell their dollars at anything close to the official rate.
It’ll be a good day for sellers of Western cars, gold, jewelery and electronics in Moscow today, with everyone desparate to swap their roubles for something of intrinsic global value.
Why, if you had such valuable goods, want to exchange them for a worthless currency?
{Hugo Stinnes, Inflationskönig, has entered the chat}
And finally. The very fact of resistance against so much superior enemy very much empowers the Ukrainian mythology. It's enormous mythos building we are witnessing. The very phenomenon of war is inconceivable without taking into account mythological dimension
Kamil Galeev @kamilkazani · 11h Replying to @kamilkazani Consider Venice. When Napoleon came they surrendered without a shot. Very smart, saved lives, saved the city. It's just killed the mythos of Venice. People lived but the Republic died. It was never restored and is unlikely to be restored again Kamil Galeev @kamilkazani · 11h Theorists of war of the bygone age understood it. Clausewitz pointed out that it's important not only if you lost independence but *how* you lost it. If you submitted without a fight, you saved lives. But you killed your mythos. You'll be digested by the conqueror Kamil Galeev @kamilkazani · 11h But if you lost after the brutal and bloody fight your mythos is alive. The memory of the last battle will live through the ages. It will shape the mythological space your descendants live in and they'll attempt to restore independence at the first opportunity. End of thread
As with many previous cases it's possible that Volodymyr Zelenskyy has created a future Ukraine that until last Thursday never actually existed.
Definitely true.
Ask Australians when and where Australia was born. They say: the beaches of Gallipoli. A battle which has become this huge mythological event in their minds, the bloody birth of an independent nation, no longer just a British colony
You can see it in the huge moving memorial to the Gallipoli dead in Sydney. It is ground zero of “Australian-ness”. It edges close to kitsch Fascism without, thankfully, crossing over
The Falklands was a bit similar. I remember it vividly. All sorts of sensible folk told Mrs Thatcher not to send the task force. Too risky. And, for what? A few farmers and a few sheep. Just negotiate a face-saving deal. Let's be grown up about it. The empire is dead. Etc etc.
Fortunately she, and many in the military, took a different line. "What kind of a country are we?" And the Navy, instinctively (apparently it's the least "intellectual" of the services), always heads straight towards the foe. I think they were quite persuasive despite the risks they were taking with men and materiel.
Rest is history.
(Of course, there will have been some political calculation but then, there always is.)
I remember at the time thinking “another chapter in the continuing decline of the West” - less than 7 years after the fall of Saigon - but it took Thatcher - as you observe - against a lot of the chattering classes to say enough!! I also recall the slightly condescending Time magazine cover of the task force with the headline “The Empire Strikes Back”.
Bring out the pictures of spitfire's, polish Welington's boots , it is back to past glories time.
Stupid British media at it again, trying to find dividing lines over asylum policy, UK/EU relations and party funding.
There’s a bloody war on, please can they leave their pet obsessions aside for a few days, and let the politicians concentrate on what’s actually important at the moment?
Quite right, let HMG get on with concentrating on the important stuff.
Naked self-promotion on the back of this is very yucky indeed. Stop it Liz.
Are you sure this was a recent pic?
It is an old pic, where old in the context of Ukraine means it was taken more than a week ago.
(Snip)
In which case, Kinbalu should perhaps apologise...
Please look at this and consider whether @kinabalu has the vaguest hint of a point here
No, he really doesn't. Kinbalu was the one making a political point out of an out-of-context picture. At best, he jumped to an assumption.
The assumption being: if you have a woman in her 50s who is a pretentious posing airhead in Oct 2021 she is probably no different in feb 2022. seems fair.
Liz Truss is 46.
Just verified that and found she was at my college at Oxford. A bad morning.
She looked younger than her age until about 5 years ago. Must be a tough job being in cabinet.
It is all the partying and wining and dining they do, not work for sure.
Stupid British media at it again, trying to find dividing lines over asylum policy, UK/EU relations and party funding.
There’s a bloody war on, please can they leave their pet obsessions aside for a few days, and let the politicians concentrate on what’s actually important at the moment?
Quite right, let HMG get on with concentrating on the important stuff.
Naked self-promotion on the back of this is very yucky indeed. Stop it Liz.
Are you sure this was a recent pic?
It is an old pic, where old in the context of Ukraine means it was taken more than a week ago.
(Snip)
In which case, Kinbalu should perhaps apologise...
Please look at this and consider whether @kinabalu has the vaguest hint of a point here
No, he really doesn't. Kinbalu was the one making a political point out of an out-of-context picture. At best, he jumped to an assumption.
The assumption being: if you have a woman in her 50s who is a pretentious posing airhead in Oct 2021 she is probably no different in feb 2022. seems fair.
Stupid British media at it again, trying to find dividing lines over asylum policy, UK/EU relations and party funding.
There’s a bloody war on, please can they leave their pet obsessions aside for a few days, and let the politicians concentrate on what’s actually important at the moment?
Quite right, let HMG get on with concentrating on the important stuff.
Naked self-promotion on the back of this is very yucky indeed. Stop it Liz.
It isn't. That image is from 2021. I'd guess taken by the Daily Mail photographer during the HMS Queen Elizabeth World Tour.
You're tight. He should have tried to put a stop to her two years ago
Yeah, we all know your view. Any woman should just put up to being abused by the 'talent', or become hairdressers. How *dare* a woman become prominent in her own right?
Those comments never aged well, did they Rog? Given what happened in your industry.
Your (and Kinbalu's) attitude might also explain why Labour's never elected a female leader.
For you who have turned virtue signalling into an art form.....you can bore the pants off the BBC complaints department for years with this one ....
I think what is coming out of this whole episode is that as the West has sowed, now is it reaping. For 30 years the West defined the world order. Someone out of line? Invade, depose, install a favourable regime. That was realpolitik. No one could or wanted to do anything about it.
I noticed @HYUFD getting a lot of stick on here last night when he was one of the few people who made sense. Yes indeed we are in a world of realpolitik when Russia as is can shout the odds and people have no choice but to listen. This is what the West has done since Desert Storm (and of course before).
So is Putin a madman? Was George W Bush? Was Obama? Perhaps. Each had a vision of a world order which had certain components and wherein actors behaved as they ought to have done and that vision was enforced by force if not voluntarily. And it's Putin's turn now.
I don't know if you're thinking about the perception of what used to be called the 3rd world but I think equating Obama with Putin is madness. Did he sometimes use force unnecessarily? Perhaps. If people want to compare Zelensky to Saddam Hussein or the Taliban fine. But values do matter to some people.
Stupid British media at it again, trying to find dividing lines over asylum policy, UK/EU relations and party funding.
There’s a bloody war on, please can they leave their pet obsessions aside for a few days, and let the politicians concentrate on what’s actually important at the moment?
Quite right, let HMG get on with concentrating on the important stuff.
Naked self-promotion on the back of this is very yucky indeed. Stop it Liz.
Are you sure this was a recent pic?
It is an old pic, where old in the context of Ukraine means it was taken more than a week ago.
(Snip)
In which case, Kinbalu should perhaps apologise...
and to trigger some more people
His "Groupe de ravitaillement en vol 2/91 Bretagne" patch is very much on the piss. That's the real crime here.
I’m just surprised they could find one with short enough legs.
Churchill was a bit shorter, don't forget. Heightism is one of those last acceptable prejuduces.
Sad to say that short people do get picked on a lot. They are frequently overlooked.
I think what is coming out of this whole episode is that as the West has sowed, now is it reaping. For 30 years the West defined the world order. Someone out of line? Invade, depose, install a favourable regime. That was realpolitik. No one could or wanted to do anything about it.
I noticed @HYUFD getting a lot of stick on here last night when he was one of the few people who made sense. Yes indeed we are in a world of realpolitik when Russia as is can shout the odds and people have no choice but to listen. This is what the West has done since Desert Storm (and of course before).
So is Putin a madman? Was George W Bush? Was Obama? Perhaps. Each had a vision of a world order which had certain components and wherein actors behaved as they ought to have done and that vision was enforced by force if not voluntarily. And it's Putin's turn now.
What bullshit.
When did the West invade a peaceful democracy in the past 30 years?
EDIT: As it happens anyway we are not in a world where people have no choice but to listen to Russia. Quite the opposite, we are in a world where we can say that what Russia has done is utterly unacceptable and to retaliate and put Russia back in their place.
Democracy? Why is that a criterion and says who.
The West has invaded countries because it has disagreed with the way they have been run. For the past 30 years. And now Russia is doing the same.
Edit: and as for putting Russia back in its place I'm sure we will try to do that. What place is that though. You sound like an end of history guy. The world order is changing and you evidently can't accept that.
I say it is a criterion, its my post you're responding to. As to why - because democracies give people a peaceful way to resolve their differences with ballots instead of bullets. Dictatorships generally only change course when someone compels them to do so and that typically requires some sort of force.
Invading a peaceful democracy and invading a dictatorship are two completely different things.
What place is Russia's? Its a relatively minor country living off past glories, with an economy that is worse than Italy's and negligible power in the world. It is a bit player at best going forwards.
The world is indeed changing, but it is Putin that objects to that not me. Our long-term threat in the East is and remains China and not Russia.
I think what is coming out of this whole episode is that as the West has sowed, now is it reaping. For 30 years the West defined the world order. Someone out of line? Invade, depose, install a favourable regime. That was realpolitik. No one could or wanted to do anything about it.
I noticed @HYUFD getting a lot of stick on here last night when he was one of the few people who made sense. Yes indeed we are in a world of realpolitik when Russia as is can shout the odds and people have no choice but to listen. This is what the West has done since Desert Storm (and of course before).
So is Putin a madman? Was George W Bush? Was Obama? Perhaps. Each had a vision of a world order which had certain components and wherein actors behaved as they ought to have done and that vision was enforced by force if not voluntarily. And it's Putin's turn now.
What bullshit.
When did the West invade a peaceful democracy in the past 30 years?
EDIT: As it happens anyway we are not in a world where people have no choice but to listen to Russia. Quite the opposite, we are in a world where we can say that what Russia has done is utterly unacceptable and to retaliate and put Russia back in their place.
Democracy? Why is that a criterion and says who.
The West has invaded countries because it has disagreed with the way they have been run. For the past 30 years. And now Russia is doing the same.
Edit: and as for putting Russia back in its place I'm sure we will try to do that. What place is that though. You sound like an end of history guy. The world order is changing and you evidently can't accept that.
The difference is between what is a blatant war of aggression - recognised as a war crime in international law - against what (largely) weren't.
I'll grant you that Iraq 2003 was fought on what turned out to be a lie - which is why it's seen as a disastrous mistake by large sections of the electorates in the countries who fought it. But even that had some sort of threadbare UN cover at the time.
Stupid British media at it again, trying to find dividing lines over asylum policy, UK/EU relations and party funding.
There’s a bloody war on, please can they leave their pet obsessions aside for a few days, and let the politicians concentrate on what’s actually important at the moment?
Quite right, let HMG get on with concentrating on the important stuff.
Naked self-promotion on the back of this is very yucky indeed. Stop it Liz.
Are you sure this was a recent pic?
It is an old pic, where old in the context of Ukraine means it was taken more than a week ago.
(Snip)
In which case, Kinbalu should perhaps apologise...
and to trigger some more people
His "Groupe de ravitaillement en vol 2/91 Bretagne" patch is very much on the piss. That's the real crime here.
I’m just surprised they could find one with short enough legs.
Churchill was a bit shorter, don't forget. Heightism is one of those last acceptable prejuduces.
Sad to say that short people do get picked on a lot. They are frequently overlooked.
Stupid British media at it again, trying to find dividing lines over asylum policy, UK/EU relations and party funding.
There’s a bloody war on, please can they leave their pet obsessions aside for a few days, and let the politicians concentrate on what’s actually important at the moment?
Quite right, let HMG get on with concentrating on the important stuff.
Naked self-promotion on the back of this is very yucky indeed. Stop it Liz.
Are you sure this was a recent pic?
It is an old pic, where old in the context of Ukraine means it was taken more than a week ago.
(Snip)
In which case, Kinbalu should perhaps apologise...
Please look at this and consider whether @kinabalu has the vaguest hint of a point here
Do you actually think a photo of the Foreign Secretary of the UK stood in front of the UK and Ukraine flags while we're allied with Ukraine during a war is remotely comparable to a kitsch fanfic painting of the then PM flying through the air riding a lion?
I think it triggers the same dopamine receptors in your head
Just no.
Its only you that seems to be triggered by the Foreign Secretary of the UK expressing support for our Ukrainian friends and allies via a photograph.
Russian nuclear alert Truss's fault says Kremlin: MOSCOW. Feb 28 (Interfax) - Russian President Vladimir Putin decided to put the deterrence forces on high alert, in particular, after the statements made by the British foreign secretary, Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov says https://twitter.com/DominicWaghorn/status/1498260827807404033
"@SkyNews BREAKING NEWS: The website of Russia's state news agency TASS is believed to have been hacked and is now displaying anti-war messages, according to Reuters."
I think what is coming out of this whole episode is that as the West has sowed, now is it reaping. For 30 years the West defined the world order. Someone out of line? Invade, depose, install a favourable regime. That was realpolitik. No one could or wanted to do anything about it.
I noticed @HYUFD getting a lot of stick on here last night when he was one of the few people who made sense. Yes indeed we are in a world of realpolitik when Russia as is can shout the odds and people have no choice but to listen. This is what the West has done since Desert Storm (and of course before).
So is Putin a madman? Was George W Bush? Was Obama? Perhaps. Each had a vision of a world order which had certain components and wherein actors behaved as they ought to have done and that vision was enforced by force if not voluntarily. And it's Putin's turn now.
What bullshit.
When did the West invade a peaceful democracy in the past 30 years?
EDIT: As it happens anyway we are not in a world where people have no choice but to listen to Russia. Quite the opposite, we are in a world where we can say that what Russia has done is utterly unacceptable and to retaliate and put Russia back in their place.
Democracy? Why is that a criterion and says who.
The West has invaded countries because it has disagreed with the way they have been run. For the past 30 years. And now Russia is doing the same.
Edit: and as for putting Russia back in its place I'm sure we will try to do that. What place is that though. You sound like an end of history guy. The world order is changing and you evidently can't accept that.
The difference is between what is a blatant war of aggression - recognised as a war crime in international law - against what (largely) weren't.
I'll grant you that Iraq 2003 was fought on what turned out to be a lie - which is why it's seen as a disastrous mistake by large sections of the electorates in the countries who fought it. But even that had some sort of threadbare UN cover at the time.
And it does not justify today's war crimes.
Is Iraq a democracy today? I think Iraq was a mistake, but 20 years later it's probably in a better place.
Russian nuclear alert Truss's fault says Kremlin: MOSCOW. Feb 28 (Interfax) - Russian President Vladimir Putin decided to put the deterrence forces on high alert, in particular, after the statements made by the British foreign secretary, Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov says https://twitter.com/DominicWaghorn/status/1498260827807404033
Of al the shitty excuses that have been trotted out by all sides so far, "Liz Truss made me do it" is the poorest by a long shot.
I think what is coming out of this whole episode is that as the West has sowed, now is it reaping. For 30 years the West defined the world order. Someone out of line? Invade, depose, install a favourable regime. That was realpolitik. No one could or wanted to do anything about it.
I noticed @HYUFD getting a lot of stick on here last night when he was one of the few people who made sense. Yes indeed we are in a world of realpolitik when Russia as is can shout the odds and people have no choice but to listen. This is what the West has done since Desert Storm (and of course before).
So is Putin a madman? Was George W Bush? Was Obama? Perhaps. Each had a vision of a world order which had certain components and wherein actors behaved as they ought to have done and that vision was enforced by force if not voluntarily. And it's Putin's turn now.
What bullshit.
When did the West invade a peaceful democracy in the past 30 years?
EDIT: As it happens anyway we are not in a world where people have no choice but to listen to Russia. Quite the opposite, we are in a world where we can say that what Russia has done is utterly unacceptable and to retaliate and put Russia back in their place.
Democracy? Why is that a criterion and says who.
The West has invaded countries because it has disagreed with the way they have been run. For the past 30 years. And now Russia is doing the same.
Edit: and as for putting Russia back in its place I'm sure we will try to do that. What place is that though. You sound like an end of history guy. The world order is changing and you evidently can't accept that.
I say it is a criterion, its my post you're responding to. As to why - because democracies give people a peaceful way to resolve their differences with ballots instead of bullets. Dictatorships generally only change course when someone compels them to do so and that typically requires some sort of force.
Invading a peaceful democracy and invading a dictatorship are two completely different things.....
In international law, that's not really the case. A war of aggression is a war of aggression.
Of course it's far more likely that the circumstances (eg a UN resolution authorising force) to justify a war are going to exist in the case of a dictatorship. But the mere fact of a dictatorship in no way justifies an invasion.
I think what is coming out of this whole episode is that as the West has sowed, now is it reaping. For 30 years the West defined the world order. Someone out of line? Invade, depose, install a favourable regime. That was realpolitik. No one could or wanted to do anything about it.
I noticed @HYUFD getting a lot of stick on here last night when he was one of the few people who made sense. Yes indeed we are in a world of realpolitik when Russia as is can shout the odds and people have no choice but to listen. This is what the West has done since Desert Storm (and of course before).
So is Putin a madman? Was George W Bush? Was Obama? Perhaps. Each had a vision of a world order which had certain components and wherein actors behaved as they ought to have done and that vision was enforced by force if not voluntarily. And it's Putin's turn now.
Utter rubbish. You’re suggesting moral equivalence where there is none. This is an invasion with the intent to conquer and absorb another country.
Morality has nothing to do with it. Where were the weapons of mass destruction; we decided we wanted to depose Saddam (and others) and we did. And everyone else looked on.
I think what is coming out of this whole episode is that as the West has sowed, now is it reaping. For 30 years the West defined the world order. Someone out of line? Invade, depose, install a favourable regime. That was realpolitik. No one could or wanted to do anything about it.
I noticed @HYUFD getting a lot of stick on here last night when he was one of the few people who made sense. Yes indeed we are in a world of realpolitik when Russia as is can shout the odds and people have no choice but to listen. This is what the West has done since Desert Storm (and of course before).
So is Putin a madman? Was George W Bush? Was Obama? Perhaps. Each had a vision of a world order which had certain components and wherein actors behaved as they ought to have done and that vision was enforced by force if not voluntarily. And it's Putin's turn now.
What bullshit.
When did the West invade a peaceful democracy in the past 30 years?
EDIT: As it happens anyway we are not in a world where people have no choice but to listen to Russia. Quite the opposite, we are in a world where we can say that what Russia has done is utterly unacceptable and to retaliate and put Russia back in their place.
Democracy? Why is that a criterion and says who.
The West has invaded countries because it has disagreed with the way they have been run. For the past 30 years. And now Russia is doing the same.
Edit: and as for putting Russia back in its place I'm sure we will try to do that. What place is that though. You sound like an end of history guy. The world order is changing and you evidently can't accept that.
Says us. Unless you are saying that dictatorship is a good thing then the right of self determination as expressed through free and fair elections is something that we should be willing to fight for.
I am truly staggered that you could even ask the question as to why dictatorships are bad from your safe comfy chair in England whilst a Russian dictator is proving exactly what is wrong with it for all the world to see.
At least PJohnson had the decency to try and pretend he was on the side of Ukraine.
I think what is coming out of this whole episode is that as the West has sowed, now is it reaping. For 30 years the West defined the world order. Someone out of line? Invade, depose, install a favourable regime. That was realpolitik. No one could or wanted to do anything about it.
I noticed @HYUFD getting a lot of stick on here last night when he was one of the few people who made sense. Yes indeed we are in a world of realpolitik when Russia as is can shout the odds and people have no choice but to listen. This is what the West has done since Desert Storm (and of course before).
So is Putin a madman? Was George W Bush? Was Obama? Perhaps. Each had a vision of a world order which had certain components and wherein actors behaved as they ought to have done and that vision was enforced by force if not voluntarily. And it's Putin's turn now.
What bullshit.
When did the West invade a peaceful democracy in the past 30 years?
EDIT: As it happens anyway we are not in a world where people have no choice but to listen to Russia. Quite the opposite, we are in a world where we can say that what Russia has done is utterly unacceptable and to retaliate and put Russia back in their place.
Democracy? Why is that a criterion and says who.
The West has invaded countries because it has disagreed with the way they have been run. For the past 30 years. And now Russia is doing the same.
Edit: and as for putting Russia back in its place I'm sure we will try to do that. What place is that though. You sound like an end of history guy. The world order is changing and you evidently can't accept that.
The difference is between what is a blatant war of aggression - recognised as a war crime in international law - against what (largely) weren't.
I'll grant you that Iraq 2003 was fought on what turned out to be a lie - which is why it's seen as a disastrous mistake by large sections of the electorates in the countries who fought it. But even that had some sort of threadbare UN cover at the time.
And it does not justify today's war crimes.
Is Iraq a democracy today? I think Iraq was a mistake, but 20 years later it's probably in a better place.
If Russia gets its way, Ukraine won't exist.
Of course.
But we were discussing the legality or otherwise of waging war.
Russian nuclear alert Truss's fault says Kremlin: MOSCOW. Feb 28 (Interfax) - Russian President Vladimir Putin decided to put the deterrence forces on high alert, in particular, after the statements made by the British foreign secretary, Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov says https://twitter.com/DominicWaghorn/status/1498260827807404033
Wait, I thought the "grim reality" was that this war was all being decided by Washington and the Berlin/Paris axis, but it turns out our own dear Cos-play Liz has personally brought us closer to Armageddon?
Yay! Go us
Next: TASS reveals Putin has ordered a nuclear strike on the entire continent of Europe after being called a "pussy" by an anonymous dildo knapper in a political betting website run by a balding Lib Dem from Bedford
I think what is coming out of this whole episode is that as the West has sowed, now is it reaping. For 30 years the West defined the world order. Someone out of line? Invade, depose, install a favourable regime. That was realpolitik. No one could or wanted to do anything about it.
I noticed @HYUFD getting a lot of stick on here last night when he was one of the few people who made sense. Yes indeed we are in a world of realpolitik when Russia as is can shout the odds and people have no choice but to listen. This is what the West has done since Desert Storm (and of course before).
So is Putin a madman? Was George W Bush? Was Obama? Perhaps. Each had a vision of a world order which had certain components and wherein actors behaved as they ought to have done and that vision was enforced by force if not voluntarily. And it's Putin's turn now.
Utter rubbish. You’re suggesting moral equivalence where there is none. This is an invasion with the intent to conquer and absorb another country.
Morality has nothing to do with it. Where were the weapons of mass destruction; we decided we wanted to depose Saddam (and others) and we did. And everyone else looked on.
And we were right to do so. 👍
Zelenskyy is not Saddam. Ukraine is not Iraq. Russia is not the USA or even the UK.
OT. Putin surviving as President of Russia can only happen if there isn't a full scale nuclear apocalypse. If there is all out nuclear war there will be no Russian state left for him to be the President of.
OT. Putin surviving as President of Russia can only happen if there isn't a full scale nuclear apocalypse. If there is all out nuclear war there will be no Russian state left for him to be the President of.
If there is all out nuclear war then how long will it take Smarkets to pay out though?
Russian nuclear alert Truss's fault says Kremlin: MOSCOW. Feb 28 (Interfax) - Russian President Vladimir Putin decided to put the deterrence forces on high alert, in particular, after the statements made by the British foreign secretary, Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov says https://twitter.com/DominicWaghorn/status/1498260827807404033
I did not realise that Sunak's leadership campaign was so extensively organised. Ambitious guy.
I think what is coming out of this whole episode is that as the West has sowed, now is it reaping. For 30 years the West defined the world order. Someone out of line? Invade, depose, install a favourable regime. That was realpolitik. No one could or wanted to do anything about it.
I noticed @HYUFD getting a lot of stick on here last night when he was one of the few people who made sense. Yes indeed we are in a world of realpolitik when Russia as is can shout the odds and people have no choice but to listen. This is what the West has done since Desert Storm (and of course before).
So is Putin a madman? Was George W Bush? Was Obama? Perhaps. Each had a vision of a world order which had certain components and wherein actors behaved as they ought to have done and that vision was enforced by force if not voluntarily. And it's Putin's turn now.
What bullshit.
When did the West invade a peaceful democracy in the past 30 years?
EDIT: As it happens anyway we are not in a world where people have no choice but to listen to Russia. Quite the opposite, we are in a world where we can say that what Russia has done is utterly unacceptable and to retaliate and put Russia back in their place.
Democracy? Why is that a criterion and says who.
The West has invaded countries because it has disagreed with the way they have been run. For the past 30 years. And now Russia is doing the same.
Edit: and as for putting Russia back in its place I'm sure we will try to do that. What place is that though. You sound like an end of history guy. The world order is changing and you evidently can't accept that.
The difference is between what is a blatant war of aggression - recognised as a war crime in international law - against what (largely) weren't.
I'll grant you that Iraq 2003 was fought on what turned out to be a lie - which is why it's seen as a disastrous mistake by large sections of the electorates in the countries who fought it. But even that had some sort of threadbare UN cover at the time.
And it does not justify today's war crimes.
Is Iraq a democracy today? I think Iraq was a mistake, but 20 years later it's probably in a better place.
If Russia gets its way, Ukraine won't exist.
Of course.
But we were discussing the legality or otherwise of waging war.
Presumably the UN wouldn't pass a resolution authorising Western powers to liberate Ukraine.
But it would be entirely justified, even if the calculation is that we shouldn't do it.
Russian nuclear alert Truss's fault says Kremlin: MOSCOW. Feb 28 (Interfax) - Russian President Vladimir Putin decided to put the deterrence forces on high alert, in particular, after the statements made by the British foreign secretary, Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov says https://twitter.com/DominicWaghorn/status/1498260827807404033
Of al the shitty excuses that have been trotted out by all sides so far, "Liz Truss made me do it" is the poorest by a long shot.
Well, hang on, she is Foreign Secretary of a nuclear power, much as we might all wish otherwise. Are you saying that foreign powers should ignore anything she says and treat her as strictly ornamental?
it would help if they identified the precise bit of arse-gravy from her mouth that triggered them, so we'll know next time
How much is $20bn a day for Russia? According to Wikipedia, Russia's GDP is about $1,600bn. So at this rate Russia burns through its entire GDP in under 100 days. Of course, its GDP will be negatively impacted by the war, so possibly rather sooner. I mean, I hope the war doesn't go on for 100 days - but it's an indication of the kind of pressure Russia is under to finish this. Remember also there will be other things it will be spending its money on besides war...
$20 billion a day seems unlikely. 20 billion roubles, maybe, and even then you'd wonder about marginal versus fixed costs. Russia would be paying soldiers' wages even if they had remained in their barracks, for instance.
How much of their dollar reserves are they spending daily, to prop up their own currency on the international markets?
Even with interest rates lifted to 20%, there’s still a hundred roubles to the dollar today - if you can find someone willing to sell their dollars at anything close to the official rate.
It’ll be a good day for sellers of Western cars, gold, jewelery and electronics in Moscow today, with everyone desparate to swap their roubles for something of intrinsic global value.
Why, if you had such valuable goods, want to exchange them for a worthless currency?
{Hugo Stinnes, Inflationskönig, has entered the chat}
Interesting link. Not least for the fact that Herr Stinnes has what I would describe as bog-brush hair a la Barry Chuckle. Which I have never come across outside either the UK or the last 60 years.
Russian nuclear alert Truss's fault says Kremlin: MOSCOW. Feb 28 (Interfax) - Russian President Vladimir Putin decided to put the deterrence forces on high alert, in particular, after the statements made by the British foreign secretary, Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov says https://twitter.com/DominicWaghorn/status/1498260827807404033
Of al the shitty excuses that have been trotted out by all sides so far, "Liz Truss made me do it" is the poorest by a long shot.
Well yes, but Putin's regime has clearly identified The Truss and the photo-shoot stuff as the weakest link and has decided to feed the narrative. We should never have got ourselves into the position to allow them to do this.
"Anonymous @LatestAnonPress #TangoDown: Ministry of Communications and Informatization of the Republic of Belarus. http://mpt.gov.by #TangoDown: State Authority for Military Industry of the Republic of Belarus http://vpk.gov.by #TangoDown: Belarus Military http://mil.by"
Russian nuclear alert Truss's fault says Kremlin: MOSCOW. Feb 28 (Interfax) - Russian President Vladimir Putin decided to put the deterrence forces on high alert, in particular, after the statements made by the British foreign secretary, Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov says https://twitter.com/DominicWaghorn/status/1498260827807404033
Wait, I thought the "grim reality" was that this war was all being decided by Washington and the Berlin/Paris axis, but it turns out our own dear Cos-play Liz has personally brought us closer to Armageddon?
Yay! Go us
Next: TASS reveals Putin has ordered a nuclear strike on the entire continent of Europe after being called a "pussy" by an anonymous dildo knapper in a political betting website run by a balding Lib Dem from Bedford
It's reassuring to know that HER BRITTANIC MAJESTY'S UNITED KINGDOM OF GREAT BRITAIN AND (weather permitting) NORTHERN IRELAND is still so influential.
OT. Putin surviving as President of Russia can only happen if there isn't a full scale nuclear apocalypse. If there is all out nuclear war there will be no Russian state left for him to be the President of.
And finally. The very fact of resistance against so much superior enemy very much empowers the Ukrainian mythology. It's enormous mythos building we are witnessing. The very phenomenon of war is inconceivable without taking into account mythological dimension
Kamil Galeev @kamilkazani · 11h Replying to @kamilkazani Consider Venice. When Napoleon came they surrendered without a shot. Very smart, saved lives, saved the city. It's just killed the mythos of Venice. People lived but the Republic died. It was never restored and is unlikely to be restored again Kamil Galeev @kamilkazani · 11h Theorists of war of the bygone age understood it. Clausewitz pointed out that it's important not only if you lost independence but *how* you lost it. If you submitted without a fight, you saved lives. But you killed your mythos. You'll be digested by the conqueror Kamil Galeev @kamilkazani · 11h But if you lost after the brutal and bloody fight your mythos is alive. The memory of the last battle will live through the ages. It will shape the mythological space your descendants live in and they'll attempt to restore independence at the first opportunity. End of thread
As with many previous cases it's possible that Volodymyr Zelenskyy has created a future Ukraine that until last Thursday never actually existed.
Definitely true.
Ask Australians when and where Australia was born. They say: the beaches of Gallipoli. A battle which has become this huge mythological event in their minds, the bloody birth of an independent nation, no longer just a British colony
You can see it in the huge moving memorial to the Gallipoli dead in Sydney. It is ground zero of “Australian-ness”. It edges close to kitsch Fascism without, thankfully, crossing over
The Falklands was a bit similar. I remember it vividly. All sorts of sensible folk told Mrs Thatcher not to send the task force. Too risky. And, for what? A few farmers and a few sheep. Just negotiate a face-saving deal. Let's be grown up about it. The empire is dead. Etc etc.
Fortunately she, and many in the military, took a different line. "What kind of a country are we?" And the Navy, instinctively (apparently it's the least "intellectual" of the services), always heads straight towards the foe. I think they were quite persuasive despite the risks they were taking with men and materiel.
Rest is history.
(Of course, there will have been some political calculation but then, there always is.)
I remember at the time thinking “another chapter in the continuing decline of the West” - less than 7 years after the fall of Saigon - but it took Thatcher - as you observe - against a lot of the chattering classes to say enough!! I also recall the slightly condescending Time magazine cover of the task force with the headline “The Empire Strikes Back”.
It didn't do much for the coherence of the west in the long-run, however.
I think what is coming out of this whole episode is that as the West has sowed, now is it reaping. For 30 years the West defined the world order. Someone out of line? Invade, depose, install a favourable regime. That was realpolitik. No one could or wanted to do anything about it.
I noticed @HYUFD getting a lot of stick on here last night when he was one of the few people who made sense. Yes indeed we are in a world of realpolitik when Russia as is can shout the odds and people have no choice but to listen. This is what the West has done since Desert Storm (and of course before).
So is Putin a madman? Was George W Bush? Was Obama? Perhaps. Each had a vision of a world order which had certain components and wherein actors behaved as they ought to have done and that vision was enforced by force if not voluntarily. And it's Putin's turn now.
What bullshit.
When did the West invade a peaceful democracy in the past 30 years?
EDIT: As it happens anyway we are not in a world where people have no choice but to listen to Russia. Quite the opposite, we are in a world where we can say that what Russia has done is utterly unacceptable and to retaliate and put Russia back in their place.
Democracy? Why is that a criterion and says who.
The West has invaded countries because it has disagreed with the way they have been run. For the past 30 years. And now Russia is doing the same.
Edit: and as for putting Russia back in its place I'm sure we will try to do that. What place is that though. You sound like an end of history guy. The world order is changing and you evidently can't accept that.
Says us. Unless you are saying that dictatorship is a good thing then the right of self determination as expressed through free and fair elections is something that we should be willing to fight for.
I am truly staggered that you could even ask the question as to why dictatorships are bad from your safe comfy chair in England whilst a Russian dictator is proving exactly what is wrong with it for all the world to see.
At least PJohnson had the decency to try and pretend he was on the side of Ukraine.
Topping seems to be taking the position that a past wrong might justify a current crime - against a country which had no part in it. It is a ridiculous and morally despicable position.
He has some sort of point about the legality or otherwise of invading other countries, but he's making an extremely poor case for it.
Russian nuclear alert Truss's fault says Kremlin: MOSCOW. Feb 28 (Interfax) - Russian President Vladimir Putin decided to put the deterrence forces on high alert, in particular, after the statements made by the British foreign secretary, Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov says https://twitter.com/DominicWaghorn/status/1498260827807404033
Wait, I thought the "grim reality" was that this war was all being decided by Washington and the Berlin/Paris axis, but it turns out our own dear Cos-play Liz has personally brought us closer to Armageddon?
Yay! Go us
Next: TASS reveals Putin has ordered a nuclear strike on the entire continent of Europe after being called a "pussy" by an anonymous dildo knapper in a political betting website run by a balding Lib Dem from Bedford
As the melted me won't get a chance post apocalypse, can I just say: "You bastard!!"
Russian nuclear alert Truss's fault says Kremlin: MOSCOW. Feb 28 (Interfax) - Russian President Vladimir Putin decided to put the deterrence forces on high alert, in particular, after the statements made by the British foreign secretary, Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov says https://twitter.com/DominicWaghorn/status/1498260827807404033
I did not realise that Sunak's leadership campaign was so extensively organised. Ambitious guy.
liz's campaign. This will massively boost her with the membership.
Russian nuclear alert Truss's fault says Kremlin: MOSCOW. Feb 28 (Interfax) - Russian President Vladimir Putin decided to put the deterrence forces on high alert, in particular, after the statements made by the British foreign secretary, Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov says https://twitter.com/DominicWaghorn/status/1498260827807404033
Of al the shitty excuses that have been trotted out by all sides so far, "Liz Truss made me do it" is the poorest by a long shot.
Well, hang on, she is Foreign Secretary of a nuclear power, much as we might all wish otherwise. Are you saying that foreign powers should ignore anything she says and treat her as strictly ornamental?
it would help if they identified the precise bit of arse-gravy from her mouth that triggered them, so we'll know next time
We are a nuclear power indeed. More seriously that could damage Britain's popularity a bit in this conflict so far. A fine line between redoubtable ally and too gung-ho.
Not that I think it's in reality anything even remotely approaching a main reason, ofcourse. Lavrov seems to have a particularly gleeful hatred of Truss, so he would probably wants to see her squirm a bit.
Sky and BBC now talking about a report on climate change
Not sure anyone will be listening when Putin is threatening a nuclear war
Given how eco-bonkers Sky News has gone in the past couple of years, I am surprised they are doing special reports on just how bad for the environment war is....all those terrible emissions from tank engines and alike.
The "grilling" of Ben Wallace on there was another example of high quality journalism....he was asked 2-3 times if the UK had sent arms to Ukraine during the conflict, to which they were told, yes, but I can't tell you what or how for obvious reason...well why not, he was asked....then asked why haven't we been arming the Ukrainian to the teeth since 2014...erhh 1) because Russia would argue that was a NATO aggression and 2) Previous Ukrainian leader was bent as a nine bob note (and there is widespread corruption there) and we only have to look at history to see how this has gone backfired on numerous occasions for the West when they have decided to iffy arm regimes against enemies.
I think what is coming out of this whole episode is that as the West has sowed, now is it reaping. For 30 years the West defined the world order. Someone out of line? Invade, depose, install a favourable regime. That was realpolitik. No one could or wanted to do anything about it.
I noticed @HYUFD getting a lot of stick on here last night when he was one of the few people who made sense. Yes indeed we are in a world of realpolitik when Russia as is can shout the odds and people have no choice but to listen. This is what the West has done since Desert Storm (and of course before).
So is Putin a madman? Was George W Bush? Was Obama? Perhaps. Each had a vision of a world order which had certain components and wherein actors behaved as they ought to have done and that vision was enforced by force if not voluntarily. And it's Putin's turn now.
What bullshit.
When did the West invade a peaceful democracy in the past 30 years?
EDIT: As it happens anyway we are not in a world where people have no choice but to listen to Russia. Quite the opposite, we are in a world where we can say that what Russia has done is utterly unacceptable and to retaliate and put Russia back in their place.
Democracy? Why is that a criterion and says who.
The West has invaded countries because it has disagreed with the way they have been run. For the past 30 years. And now Russia is doing the same.
Edit: and as for putting Russia back in its place I'm sure we will try to do that. What place is that though. You sound like an end of history guy. The world order is changing and you evidently can't accept that.
What has any of this to do with the price of fish? You sound like the Soviets deflecting criticism with "In America they lynch negroes".
Realpolitik means that the current Russian government should pay a high price for launching an unprovoked attack on Ukraine. For once, doing what is right matches doing what is expedient.
A new renewable energy source is being tested - drill 8 miles down and use the geothermal heat.
I saw the Cornish experiment in the mid-80s - Camborne School of Mines Hot Dry Rock Geothermal Project in the Carnmenellis granite. I believe the Eden Project is involved in experiments that way. But this new thing sounds much deeper.
There's actually a working geothermal heating system in the middle of Southampton.
"By 2007, the system had 11 km (6.8 miles) of pipes, and was producing 40 GWh of heat, 22 GWh of electricity and 8 GWh of cooling per year."
The biggest problem with deep geothermal has been the cost of drilling the hole. These guys are claiming to have a novel, cheap method for that. I am a bit skeptical.....
From the deep, dark recesses of my mind, another issue is that unless carefully planned, they get less efficient as the extraction of hot water cools the surrounding rock faster than the heat can be replenished. Basically, you keep on needing to drill to 'get' heat into the system.
Don't know why that's different in Southampton. I think Ian West's geology website has something on it...
As an aside, if you want to dig a deep vertical tunnel, then Mikhail Tsiferov's rocket-engine tunnelling machine is perfect. Drills at five metres per minute through rock, faster through soil.
Great for shallow holes but no good for anything of any great depth. The big issue will remain the inability to get the drilled rock out of the hole. It mentions carrying fragments up to 15cm across but there is a rapid loss of lift as the cuttings get further from the source of the lift (the rocket) and eventually they will fall back and block the hole behind the device.
Yeah, my tongue might have been slightly in my cheek. It's just something I'd love to see working. From a safe distance...
If you just want to ram a hole in the ground, Ted Taylor was of the opinion that he could design a nuclear shaped charge that would dig a tunnel 1000 feet long by 10-20 feet.
Not as cool an idea as that one about propelling ships by launching nuclear missiles out the back.
The rock tunnelling shaped charge idea came out of Project Orion. Shaped charges were part of the design for that.
Seems like when you buy a sandwich toaster and for a while use it all the time - they had nukes and were just looking to use them for everything.
I think what is coming out of this whole episode is that as the West has sowed, now is it reaping. For 30 years the West defined the world order. Someone out of line? Invade, depose, install a favourable regime. That was realpolitik. No one could or wanted to do anything about it.
I noticed @HYUFD getting a lot of stick on here last night when he was one of the few people who made sense. Yes indeed we are in a world of realpolitik when Russia as is can shout the odds and people have no choice but to listen. This is what the West has done since Desert Storm (and of course before).
So is Putin a madman? Was George W Bush? Was Obama? Perhaps. Each had a vision of a world order which had certain components and wherein actors behaved as they ought to have done and that vision was enforced by force if not voluntarily. And it's Putin's turn now.
What bullshit.
When did the West invade a peaceful democracy in the past 30 years?
EDIT: As it happens anyway we are not in a world where people have no choice but to listen to Russia. Quite the opposite, we are in a world where we can say that what Russia has done is utterly unacceptable and to retaliate and put Russia back in their place.
Democracy? Why is that a criterion and says who.
The West has invaded countries because it has disagreed with the way they have been run. For the past 30 years. And now Russia is doing the same.
Edit: and as for putting Russia back in its place I'm sure we will try to do that. What place is that though. You sound like an end of history guy. The world order is changing and you evidently can't accept that.
Says us. Unless you are saying that dictatorship is a good thing then the right of self determination as expressed through free and fair elections is something that we should be willing to fight for.
I am truly staggered that you could even ask the question as to why dictatorships are bad from your safe comfy chair in England whilst a Russian dictator is proving exactly what is wrong with it for all the world to see.
At least PJohnson had the decency to try and pretend he was on the side of Ukraine.
I am making no comment on the morality or desirability of Russia's actions which seem to me to be outrageous. I am however noting that from the invasion of Iraq onwards and for the subsequent 30 years the West has largely had the monopoly on interfering with nations by force and now Russia is doing the same.
You will see and read a lot about a "new world order" in the coming days and I am simply pointing out that western liberal democracies weren't "it" in terms of historical progression. Indeed I am noting that the West has behaved in analagous ways previously to the way in which Russia is behaving now.
And you and others whine about "values" and "morality" and "democracy" so you can feel much better about yourselves. Perhaps you have changed your facebook profile to include a Ukranian flag, bless your heart. You are meanwhile missing the point about the geo-political forces emerging today as we are seeing before our very eyes.
Christ. Some horrific footage coming out of Kharkiv now. Russia is going full Grozny. Missiles launched at residential districts, just to kill
NSFW
"Ukraine's interior ministry says dozens killed, hundreds injured civilians after massive GRAD shelling of Kharkiv *while negotiations are ongoing". If true, these are the worst faith "negotiations" recent history has seen."
I think what is coming out of this whole episode is that as the West has sowed, now is it reaping. For 30 years the West defined the world order. Someone out of line? Invade, depose, install a favourable regime. That was realpolitik. No one could or wanted to do anything about it.
I noticed @HYUFD getting a lot of stick on here last night when he was one of the few people who made sense. Yes indeed we are in a world of realpolitik when Russia as is can shout the odds and people have no choice but to listen. This is what the West has done since Desert Storm (and of course before).
So is Putin a madman? Was George W Bush? Was Obama? Perhaps. Each had a vision of a world order which had certain components and wherein actors behaved as they ought to have done and that vision was enforced by force if not voluntarily. And it's Putin's turn now.
What bullshit.
When did the West invade a peaceful democracy in the past 30 years?
EDIT: As it happens anyway we are not in a world where people have no choice but to listen to Russia. Quite the opposite, we are in a world where we can say that what Russia has done is utterly unacceptable and to retaliate and put Russia back in their place.
Democracy? Why is that a criterion and says who.
The West has invaded countries because it has disagreed with the way they have been run. For the past 30 years. And now Russia is doing the same.
Edit: and as for putting Russia back in its place I'm sure we will try to do that. What place is that though. You sound like an end of history guy. The world order is changing and you evidently can't accept that.
Says us. Unless you are saying that dictatorship is a good thing then the right of self determination as expressed through free and fair elections is something that we should be willing to fight for.
I am truly staggered that you could even ask the question as to why dictatorships are bad from your safe comfy chair in England whilst a Russian dictator is proving exactly what is wrong with it for all the world to see.
At least PJohnson had the decency to try and pretend he was on the side of Ukraine.
Topping seems to be taking the position that a past wrong might justify a current crime - against a country which had no part in it. It is a ridiculous and morally despicable position.
He has some sort of point about the legality or otherwise of invading other countries, but he's making an extremely poor case for it.
I'm not making a point about anything justifying anything. I am observing that for 30 years the West has been dominant militarily and strategically and now Russia wants to play for its own perverse reasons. I am making no value judgement about anything, I am just looking at where we are now and how we got here.
I think what is coming out of this whole episode is that as the West has sowed, now is it reaping. For 30 years the West defined the world order. Someone out of line? Invade, depose, install a favourable regime. That was realpolitik. No one could or wanted to do anything about it.
I noticed @HYUFD getting a lot of stick on here last night when he was one of the few people who made sense. Yes indeed we are in a world of realpolitik when Russia as is can shout the odds and people have no choice but to listen. This is what the West has done since Desert Storm (and of course before).
So is Putin a madman? Was George W Bush? Was Obama? Perhaps. Each had a vision of a world order which had certain components and wherein actors behaved as they ought to have done and that vision was enforced by force if not voluntarily. And it's Putin's turn now.
What bullshit.
When did the West invade a peaceful democracy in the past 30 years?
EDIT: As it happens anyway we are not in a world where people have no choice but to listen to Russia. Quite the opposite, we are in a world where we can say that what Russia has done is utterly unacceptable and to retaliate and put Russia back in their place.
Democracy? Why is that a criterion and says who.
The West has invaded countries because it has disagreed with the way they have been run. For the past 30 years. And now Russia is doing the same.
Edit: and as for putting Russia back in its place I'm sure we will try to do that. What place is that though. You sound like an end of history guy. The world order is changing and you evidently can't accept that.
What has any of this to do with the price of fish? You sound like the Soviets deflecting criticism with "In America they lynch negroes".
Realpolitik means that the current Russian government should pay a high price for launching an unprovoked attack on Ukraine. For once, doing what is right matches doing what is expedient.
Russia will certainly pay a high price for launching an attack on Ukraine. Let's see how high a price. That is indeed realpolitik. Will Europe force higher energy prices on its population by refusing to by Russian gas? We will see. Realpolitik is also that Russia gets to roll its tanks into Ukraine without anyone, practically, able to stop them. Not NATO, not the EU, and not the UK.
A new renewable energy source is being tested - drill 8 miles down and use the geothermal heat.
I saw the Cornish experiment in the mid-80s - Camborne School of Mines Hot Dry Rock Geothermal Project in the Carnmenellis granite. I believe the Eden Project is involved in experiments that way. But this new thing sounds much deeper.
There's actually a working geothermal heating system in the middle of Southampton.
"By 2007, the system had 11 km (6.8 miles) of pipes, and was producing 40 GWh of heat, 22 GWh of electricity and 8 GWh of cooling per year."
The biggest problem with deep geothermal has been the cost of drilling the hole. These guys are claiming to have a novel, cheap method for that. I am a bit skeptical.....
From the deep, dark recesses of my mind, another issue is that unless carefully planned, they get less efficient as the extraction of hot water cools the surrounding rock faster than the heat can be replenished. Basically, you keep on needing to drill to 'get' heat into the system.
Don't know why that's different in Southampton. I think Ian West's geology website has something on it...
As an aside, if you want to dig a deep vertical tunnel, then Mikhail Tsiferov's rocket-engine tunnelling machine is perfect. Drills at five metres per minute through rock, faster through soil.
Great for shallow holes but no good for anything of any great depth. The big issue will remain the inability to get the drilled rock out of the hole. It mentions carrying fragments up to 15cm across but there is a rapid loss of lift as the cuttings get further from the source of the lift (the rocket) and eventually they will fall back and block the hole behind the device.
Yeah, my tongue might have been slightly in my cheek. It's just something I'd love to see working. From a safe distance...
If you just want to ram a hole in the ground, Ted Taylor was of the opinion that he could design a nuclear shaped charge that would dig a tunnel 1000 feet long by 10-20 feet.
Not as cool an idea as that one about propelling ships by launching nuclear missiles out the back.
The rock tunnelling shaped charge idea came out of Project Orion. Shaped charges were part of the design for that.
Seems like when you buy a sandwich toaster and for a while use it all the time - they had nukes and were just looking to use them for everything.
No, Orion was beautiful.
The big version could get us to Alpa Centauri, by using all the nukes ever made.... talk about swords to ploughshares.....
I think what is coming out of this whole episode is that as the West has sowed, now is it reaping. For 30 years the West defined the world order. Someone out of line? Invade, depose, install a favourable regime. That was realpolitik. No one could or wanted to do anything about it.
I noticed @HYUFD getting a lot of stick on here last night when he was one of the few people who made sense. Yes indeed we are in a world of realpolitik when Russia as is can shout the odds and people have no choice but to listen. This is what the West has done since Desert Storm (and of course before).
So is Putin a madman? Was George W Bush? Was Obama? Perhaps. Each had a vision of a world order which had certain components and wherein actors behaved as they ought to have done and that vision was enforced by force if not voluntarily. And it's Putin's turn now.
I don't know if you're thinking about the perception of what used to be called the 3rd world but I think equating Obama with Putin is madness. Did he sometimes use force unnecessarily? Perhaps. If people want to compare Zelensky to Saddam Hussein or the Taliban fine. But values do matter to some people.
I don't agree with what Putin is doing ... but let's make the cases equivalent.
Suppose the South-Western section of the US wanted to secede. The land was after all captured from Mexico comparatively recently in a bloody war. Chicano people are a majority in parts of it & there are certainly political movements that don't want a border separating people in Mexico & the US who share much common heritage & history.
What do you think the response of the US President would be?
And in fact, Trump's comments are very revealing in this regard. He obviously sees the analogy between Russia/Ukraine and US/Mexico.
I think Trump -- and actually many US presidents -- would act just as Putin is acting. They would prevent the secession (as they see it).
Of course this is a thought experiment. But, I think the forces that motivate Putin are not that far from the surface in many Western democracies.
I think what is coming out of this whole episode is that as the West has sowed, now is it reaping. For 30 years the West defined the world order. Someone out of line? Invade, depose, install a favourable regime. That was realpolitik. No one could or wanted to do anything about it.
I noticed @HYUFD getting a lot of stick on here last night when he was one of the few people who made sense. Yes indeed we are in a world of realpolitik when Russia as is can shout the odds and people have no choice but to listen. This is what the West has done since Desert Storm (and of course before).
So is Putin a madman? Was George W Bush? Was Obama? Perhaps. Each had a vision of a world order which had certain components and wherein actors behaved as they ought to have done and that vision was enforced by force if not voluntarily. And it's Putin's turn now.
What bullshit.
When did the West invade a peaceful democracy in the past 30 years?
EDIT: As it happens anyway we are not in a world where people have no choice but to listen to Russia. Quite the opposite, we are in a world where we can say that what Russia has done is utterly unacceptable and to retaliate and put Russia back in their place.
Democracy? Why is that a criterion and says who.
The West has invaded countries because it has disagreed with the way they have been run. For the past 30 years. And now Russia is doing the same.
Edit: and as for putting Russia back in its place I'm sure we will try to do that. What place is that though. You sound like an end of history guy. The world order is changing and you evidently can't accept that.
The difference is between what is a blatant war of aggression - recognised as a war crime in international law - against what (largely) weren't.
I'll grant you that Iraq 2003 was fought on what turned out to be a lie - which is why it's seen as a disastrous mistake by large sections of the electorates in the countries who fought it. But even that had some sort of threadbare UN cover at the time.
And it does not justify today's war crimes.
Is Iraq a democracy today? I think Iraq was a mistake, but 20 years later it's probably in a better place.
If Russia gets its way, Ukraine won't exist.
Of course.
But we were discussing the legality or otherwise of waging war.
Presumably the UN wouldn't pass a resolution authorising Western powers to liberate Ukraine.
But it would be entirely justified, even if the calculation is that we shouldn't do it.
Agreed, and that is where it gets messy. The ability of permanent members of the UN Security Council to wield a veto means they mark their own homework.
But I think there is absolutely no doubt that this is a war of aggression, and that Putin is a war criminal. I'm not sure Topping would deny that, either.
Christ. Some horrific footage coming out of Kharkiv now. Russia is going full Grozny. Missiles launched at residential districts, just to kill
NSFW
"Ukraine's interior ministry says dozens killed, hundreds injured civilians after massive GRAD shelling of Kharkiv *while negotiations are ongoing". If true, these are the worst faith "negotiations" recent history has seen."
I think what is coming out of this whole episode is that as the West has sowed, now is it reaping. For 30 years the West defined the world order. Someone out of line? Invade, depose, install a favourable regime. That was realpolitik. No one could or wanted to do anything about it.
I noticed @HYUFD getting a lot of stick on here last night when he was one of the few people who made sense. Yes indeed we are in a world of realpolitik when Russia as is can shout the odds and people have no choice but to listen. This is what the West has done since Desert Storm (and of course before).
So is Putin a madman? Was George W Bush? Was Obama? Perhaps. Each had a vision of a world order which had certain components and wherein actors behaved as they ought to have done and that vision was enforced by force if not voluntarily. And it's Putin's turn now.
What bullshit.
When did the West invade a peaceful democracy in the past 30 years?
EDIT: As it happens anyway we are not in a world where people have no choice but to listen to Russia. Quite the opposite, we are in a world where we can say that what Russia has done is utterly unacceptable and to retaliate and put Russia back in their place.
Democracy? Why is that a criterion and says who.
The West has invaded countries because it has disagreed with the way they have been run. For the past 30 years. And now Russia is doing the same.
Edit: and as for putting Russia back in its place I'm sure we will try to do that. What place is that though. You sound like an end of history guy. The world order is changing and you evidently can't accept that.
Says us. Unless you are saying that dictatorship is a good thing then the right of self determination as expressed through free and fair elections is something that we should be willing to fight for.
I am truly staggered that you could even ask the question as to why dictatorships are bad from your safe comfy chair in England whilst a Russian dictator is proving exactly what is wrong with it for all the world to see.
At least PJohnson had the decency to try and pretend he was on the side of Ukraine.
I am making no comment on the morality or desirability of Russia's actions which seem to me to be outrageous. I am however noting that from the invasion of Iraq onwards and for the subsequent 30 years the West has largely had the monopoly on interfering with nations by force and now Russia is doing the same.
You will see and read a lot about a "new world order" in the coming days and I am simply pointing out that western liberal democracies weren't "it" in terms of historical progression. Indeed I am noting that the West has behaved in analagous ways previously to the way in which Russia is behaving now.
And you and others whine about "values" and "morality" and "democracy" so you can feel much better about yourselves. Perhaps you have changed your facebook profile to include a Ukranian flag, bless your heart. You are meanwhile missing the point about the geo-political forces emerging today as we are seeing before our very eyes.
You're not entirely wrong. My Putin-supporting parent has a point when they say "well, what about Obama's drones"
The West, especially the USA, has acted with grisly impunity for three decades, as the dominant superpower. We cannot complain when other powers do it now. What's our argument if China decides to zap a Hong Kong dissident in Madrid with a smart bomb? How is that different to what Obama did to jihadists in MENA that he didn't like?
However, we can also avoid whataboutery
Putin's invasion of Ukraine is on a different scale of barbarity (and pointlessness) and must be resisted and opposed
It will be impossible to verify, since it is not like the Russian's will clarify honestly, but the Ukrainian claim that more than 5000 Russian soldiers have been killed is pretty startling for developed nations and modern wars. It's presumably unlikely to be that high, propaganda plays a part after all, but even if it was only half that it would be very significant.
Christ. Some horrific footage coming out of Kharkiv now. Russia is going full Grozny. Missiles launched at residential districts, just to kill
NSFW
"Ukraine's interior ministry says dozens killed, hundreds injured civilians after massive GRAD shelling of Kharkiv *while negotiations are ongoing". If true, these are the worst faith "negotiations" recent history has seen."
I think what is coming out of this whole episode is that as the West has sowed, now is it reaping. For 30 years the West defined the world order. Someone out of line? Invade, depose, install a favourable regime. That was realpolitik. No one could or wanted to do anything about it.
I noticed @HYUFD getting a lot of stick on here last night when he was one of the few people who made sense. Yes indeed we are in a world of realpolitik when Russia as is can shout the odds and people have no choice but to listen. This is what the West has done since Desert Storm (and of course before).
So is Putin a madman? Was George W Bush? Was Obama? Perhaps. Each had a vision of a world order which had certain components and wherein actors behaved as they ought to have done and that vision was enforced by force if not voluntarily. And it's Putin's turn now.
What bullshit.
When did the West invade a peaceful democracy in the past 30 years?
EDIT: As it happens anyway we are not in a world where people have no choice but to listen to Russia. Quite the opposite, we are in a world where we can say that what Russia has done is utterly unacceptable and to retaliate and put Russia back in their place.
Democracy? Why is that a criterion and says who.
The West has invaded countries because it has disagreed with the way they have been run. For the past 30 years. And now Russia is doing the same.
Edit: and as for putting Russia back in its place I'm sure we will try to do that. What place is that though. You sound like an end of history guy. The world order is changing and you evidently can't accept that.
The difference is between what is a blatant war of aggression - recognised as a war crime in international law - against what (largely) weren't.
I'll grant you that Iraq 2003 was fought on what turned out to be a lie - which is why it's seen as a disastrous mistake by large sections of the electorates in the countries who fought it. But even that had some sort of threadbare UN cover at the time.
And it does not justify today's war crimes.
Is Iraq a democracy today? I think Iraq was a mistake, but 20 years later it's probably in a better place.
If Russia gets its way, Ukraine won't exist.
Of course.
But we were discussing the legality or otherwise of waging war.
Presumably the UN wouldn't pass a resolution authorising Western powers to liberate Ukraine.
But it would be entirely justified, even if the calculation is that we shouldn't do it.
Agreed, and that is where it gets messy. The ability of permanent members of the UN Security Council to wield a veto means they mark their own homework.
But I think there is absolutely no doubt that this is a war of aggression, and that Putin is a war criminal. I'm not sure Topping would deny that, either.
You agree that "Presumably the UN wouldn't pass a resolution authorising Western powers to liberate Ukraine".
ROFLMAO. You're damn straight they wouldn't. Be assured that no Western power is going to "liberate Ukraine".
And as for Putin being a war criminal in an earlier post I posited whether George W Bush, Obama (and of course our Tone) were madmen. You could ask whether they were war criminals also and you begin to see the absurdity of the terms of reference that many on here are trying to frame the Ukrainian crisis.
Russian nuclear alert Truss's fault says Kremlin: MOSCOW. Feb 28 (Interfax) - Russian President Vladimir Putin decided to put the deterrence forces on high alert, in particular, after the statements made by the British foreign secretary, Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov says https://twitter.com/DominicWaghorn/status/1498260827807404033
Next: TASS reveals Putin has ordered a nuclear strike on the entire continent of Europe after being called a "pussy" by an anonymous dildo knapper in a political betting website run by a balding Lib Dem from Bedford
Russian nuclear alert Truss's fault says Kremlin: MOSCOW. Feb 28 (Interfax) - Russian President Vladimir Putin decided to put the deterrence forces on high alert, in particular, after the statements made by the British foreign secretary, Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov says https://twitter.com/DominicWaghorn/status/1498260827807404033
Next: TASS reveals Putin has ordered a nuclear strike on the entire continent of Europe after being called a "pussy" by an anonymous dildo knapper in a political betting website run by a balding Lib Dem from Bedford
Christ. Some horrific footage coming out of Kharkiv now. Russia is going full Grozny. Missiles launched at residential districts, just to kill
NSFW
"Ukraine's interior ministry says dozens killed, hundreds injured civilians after massive GRAD shelling of Kharkiv *while negotiations are ongoing". If true, these are the worst faith "negotiations" recent history has seen."
Jesus. Fuck him. Anything in reserve short of WWIII, we must do now.
Yes - I can’t see how Ukraine can have peace talks when this happens. Seriously - fuck Putin. I hope we inflict as much pain as we possibly can on him (or that when he inevitably gets assassinated, it’s a long and painful death)
Russian nuclear alert Truss's fault says Kremlin: MOSCOW. Feb 28 (Interfax) - Russian President Vladimir Putin decided to put the deterrence forces on high alert, in particular, after the statements made by the British foreign secretary, Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov says https://twitter.com/DominicWaghorn/status/1498260827807404033
Next: TASS reveals Putin has ordered a nuclear strike on the entire continent of Europe after being called a "pussy" by an anonymous dildo knapper in a political betting website run by a balding Lib Dem from Bedford
I think it is what we all expected in fairness.
I heard spetsnaz were coming for the mod who banned the Putinite troll.
Russian nuclear alert Truss's fault says Kremlin: MOSCOW. Feb 28 (Interfax) - Russian President Vladimir Putin decided to put the deterrence forces on high alert, in particular, after the statements made by the British foreign secretary, Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov says https://twitter.com/DominicWaghorn/status/1498260827807404033
Of al the shitty excuses that have been trotted out by all sides so far, "Liz Truss made me do it" is the poorest by a long shot.
Entirely in keeping with the Putin machine's 'words hurt more than bombs' stance on moral outrage.
It will be impossible to verify, since it is not like the Russian's will clarify honestly, but the Ukrainian claim that more than 5000 Russian soldiers have been killed is pretty startling for developed nations and modern wars. It's presumably unlikely to be that high, propaganda plays a part after all, but even if it was only half that it would be very significant.
That's killed, injured and captured.
That's what happens when you send conscript armies to places other than home....
Russian nuclear alert Truss's fault says Kremlin: MOSCOW. Feb 28 (Interfax) - Russian President Vladimir Putin decided to put the deterrence forces on high alert, in particular, after the statements made by the British foreign secretary, Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov says https://twitter.com/DominicWaghorn/status/1498260827807404033
Stupid British media at it again, trying to find dividing lines over asylum policy, UK/EU relations and party funding.
There’s a bloody war on, please can they leave their pet obsessions aside for a few days, and let the politicians concentrate on what’s actually important at the moment?
Quite right, let HMG get on with concentrating on the important stuff.
Naked self-promotion on the back of this is very yucky indeed. Stop it Liz.
Are you sure this was a recent pic?
It is an old pic, where old in the context of Ukraine means it was taken more than a week ago.
(Snip)
In which case, Kinbalu should perhaps apologise...
and to trigger some more people
His "Groupe de ravitaillement en vol 2/91 Bretagne" patch is very much on the piss. That's the real crime here.
I’m just surprised they could find one with short enough legs.
Churchill was a bit shorter, don't forget. Heightism is one of those last acceptable prejuduces.
Sad to say that short people do get picked on a lot. They are frequently overlooked.
Being shorter than Macron, I can confirm it is easy to be undermined.
Stupid British media at it again, trying to find dividing lines over asylum policy, UK/EU relations and party funding.
There’s a bloody war on, please can they leave their pet obsessions aside for a few days, and let the politicians concentrate on what’s actually important at the moment?
Quite right, let HMG get on with concentrating on the important stuff.
Christ, it really is government by dressing up box for these people.
Perhaps Liz and Boris are actually running sorties over Ukraine each night.
Russian nuclear alert Truss's fault says Kremlin: MOSCOW. Feb 28 (Interfax) - Russian President Vladimir Putin decided to put the deterrence forces on high alert, in particular, after the statements made by the British foreign secretary, Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov says https://twitter.com/DominicWaghorn/status/1498260827807404033
Next: TASS reveals Putin has ordered a nuclear strike on the entire continent of Europe after being called a "pussy" by an anonymous dildo knapper in a political betting website run by a balding Lib Dem from Bedford
Comments
The Afghanistan war of 2001 was arguably self defence post 9/11, at least in terms of getting Bin Laden (albeit it was Obama who ultimately got him), so therefore justified under the UN Charter.
Most people I know have aged rather more than one might hope in the last five years! I note Liz Truss has two daughters - I have three, and I look a lot older than I did half a decade ago. (My girls see photos of me from before they were born and are puzzled at why my hair is black).
I'd say Liz Truss is in pretty good nick. Though having a good photographer presumably helps!
After all we are all Ukies now.
I think that is a 50/50 at the moment. It depends how bad this gets....
I did everything for the coherence of the West.
Seven years later the Berlin Wall came tumbling down.
Its only you that seems to be triggered by the Foreign Secretary of the UK expressing support for our Ukrainian friends and allies via a photograph.
I wonder why? 🤔
- Obama tried for limited, achievable goals - apart from carrying on the Afghan comedy.
- Putin has launched a war that he has fucked up. He has united the disunited against him. In a few days he has guaranteed that is gaol of a Ukraine (and Eastern Europe) that is subservient to Russia won't happen. He has achieved the opposite of a long series of gaols. Among other things, to turn Nord Stream 2 on will now require both the Americans and the Germans to agree. Not just the Germans. So it is quite likely that that is dead for ever now.....
When did the West invade a peaceful democracy in the past 30 years?
EDIT: As it happens anyway we are not in a world where people have no choice but to listen to Russia. Quite the opposite, we are in a world where we can say that what Russia has done is utterly unacceptable and to retaliate and put Russia back in their place.
On reflection I am still reading it that way.
The logistics for that made a deep impression on them IIRC. Also naval aviation vs missiles.
Yes a lot of civilian footage now confirming this - Russia did just carpet bomb a district in Kharkiv. I am shaking
https://twitter.com/juliaskripkaser/status/1498254899792027653
The West has invaded countries because it has disagreed with the way they have been run. For the past 30 years. And now Russia is doing the same.
Edit: and as for putting Russia back in its place I'm sure we will try to do that. What place is that though. You sound like an end of history guy. The world order is changing and you evidently can't accept that.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hugo_Stinnes
Sad you think it is.
Do you have a daughter? If so, how would you feel if she was treated in that manner?
Invading a peaceful democracy and invading a dictatorship are two completely different things.
What place is Russia's? Its a relatively minor country living off past glories, with an economy that is worse than Italy's and negligible power in the world. It is a bit player at best going forwards.
The world is indeed changing, but it is Putin that objects to that not me. Our long-term threat in the East is and remains China and not Russia.
I'll grant you that Iraq 2003 was fought on what turned out to be a lie - which is why it's seen as a disastrous mistake by large sections of the electorates in the countries who fought it.
But even that had some sort of threadbare UN cover at the time.
And it does not justify today's war crimes.
MOSCOW. Feb 28 (Interfax) - Russian President Vladimir Putin decided to put the deterrence forces on high alert, in particular, after the statements made by the British foreign secretary, Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov says
https://twitter.com/DominicWaghorn/status/1498260827807404033
"@SkyNews
BREAKING NEWS: The website of Russia's state news agency TASS is believed to have been hacked and is now displaying anti-war messages, according to Reuters."
https://twitter.com/SkyNews/status/1498261141100843008
If Russia gets its way, Ukraine won't exist.
A war of aggression is a war of aggression.
Of course it's far more likely that the circumstances (eg a UN resolution authorising force) to justify a war are going to exist in the case of a dictatorship. But the mere fact of a dictatorship in no way justifies an invasion.
Not sure anyone will be listening when Putin is threatening a nuclear war
I am truly staggered that you could even ask the question as to why dictatorships are bad from your safe comfy chair in England whilst a Russian dictator is proving exactly what is wrong with it for all the world to see.
At least PJohnson had the decency to try and pretend he was on the side of Ukraine.
But we were discussing the legality or otherwise of waging war.
Yay! Go us
Next: TASS reveals Putin has ordered a nuclear strike on the entire continent of Europe after being called a "pussy" by an anonymous dildo knapper in a political betting website run by a balding Lib Dem from Bedford
Zelenskyy is not Saddam. Ukraine is not Iraq. Russia is not the USA or even the UK.
But it would be entirely justified, even if the calculation is that we shouldn't do it.
it would help if they identified the precise bit of arse-gravy from her mouth that triggered them, so we'll know next time
"Anonymous
@LatestAnonPress
#TangoDown: Ministry of Communications and Informatization of the Republic of Belarus.
http://mpt.gov.by
#TangoDown: State Authority for Military Industry of the Republic of Belarus
http://vpk.gov.by
#TangoDown: Belarus Military
http://mil.by"
https://twitter.com/LatestAnonPress/status/1498251595448037376
https://twitter.com/krolioness/status/1498264482237362180?s=20&t=2kR0pI2jbJRlro-fkWgWeg
It is a ridiculous and morally despicable position.
He has some sort of point about the legality or otherwise of invading other countries, but he's making an extremely poor case for it.
Not that I think it's in reality anything even remotely approaching a main reason, ofcourse. Lavrov seems to have a particularly gleeful hatred of Truss, so he would probably wants to see her squirm a bit.
The "grilling" of Ben Wallace on there was another example of high quality journalism....he was asked 2-3 times if the UK had sent arms to Ukraine during the conflict, to which they were told, yes, but I can't tell you what or how for obvious reason...well why not, he was asked....then asked why haven't we been arming the Ukrainian to the teeth since 2014...erhh 1) because Russia would argue that was a NATO aggression and 2) Previous Ukrainian leader was bent as a nine bob note (and there is widespread corruption there) and we only have to look at history to see how this has gone backfired on numerous occasions for the West when they have decided to iffy arm regimes against enemies.
Realpolitik means that the current Russian government should pay a high price for launching an unprovoked attack on Ukraine. For once, doing what is right matches doing what is expedient.
Edit. Beaten to it.
You will see and read a lot about a "new world order" in the coming days and I am simply pointing out that western liberal democracies weren't "it" in terms of historical progression. Indeed I am noting that the West has behaved in analagous ways previously to the way in which Russia is behaving now.
And you and others whine about "values" and "morality" and "democracy" so you can feel much better about yourselves. Perhaps you have changed your facebook profile to include a Ukranian flag, bless your heart. You are meanwhile missing the point about the geo-political forces emerging today as we are seeing before our very eyes.
NSFW
"Ukraine's interior ministry says dozens killed, hundreds injured civilians after massive GRAD shelling of Kharkiv *while negotiations are ongoing". If true, these are the worst faith "negotiations" recent history has seen."
https://twitter.com/christogrozev/status/1498262958287302658?s=20&t=2kR0pI2jbJRlro-fkWgWeg
The big version could get us to Alpa Centauri, by using all the nukes ever made.... talk about swords to ploughshares.....
Suppose the South-Western section of the US wanted to secede. The land was after all captured from Mexico comparatively recently in a bloody war. Chicano people are a majority in parts of it & there are certainly political movements that don't want a border separating people in Mexico & the US who share much common heritage & history.
What do you think the response of the US President would be?
And in fact, Trump's comments are very revealing in this regard. He obviously sees the analogy between Russia/Ukraine and US/Mexico.
I think Trump -- and actually many US presidents -- would act just as Putin is acting. They would prevent the secession (as they see it).
Of course this is a thought experiment. But, I think the forces that motivate Putin are not that far from the surface in many Western democracies.
The ability of permanent members of the UN Security Council to wield a veto means they mark their own homework.
But I think there is absolutely no doubt that this is a war of aggression, and that Putin is a war criminal. I'm not sure Topping would deny that, either.
The West, especially the USA, has acted with grisly impunity for three decades, as the dominant superpower. We cannot complain when other powers do it now. What's our argument if China decides to zap a Hong Kong dissident in Madrid with a smart bomb? How is that different to what Obama did to jihadists in MENA that he didn't like?
However, we can also avoid whataboutery
Putin's invasion of Ukraine is on a different scale of barbarity (and pointlessness) and must be resisted and opposed
ROFLMAO. You're damn straight they wouldn't. Be assured that no Western power is going to "liberate Ukraine".
And as for Putin being a war criminal in an earlier post I posited whether George W Bush, Obama (and of course our Tone) were madmen. You could ask whether they were war criminals also and you begin to see the absurdity of the terms of reference that many on here are trying to frame the Ukrainian crisis.
That's what happens when you send conscript armies to places other than home....