The point is surely, that climate policies and lockdown were sold to us as reductions to the risks in our lives.
In the event, all they did was shift the balance of the risk.
Nobody told us that giving up gas drilling might give a madman who controls a lot of gas supply the upper hand.
I think you have to join up about 50 dots, some of which are not only on different pages but completely different books, in order to link Greta Thornberg to the invasion of Ukraine.
This is a rabbit hole which only the Far Right could manage to find itself going down.
You really don't and I suspect you know that.
No you really do and I suspect you know that.
Look I know leftists are desperate for the 'green lobby created Putin' narrative not to get out, hence the IPCC's very convenient report today.
I would suggest to you that you are too late. Its already out there.
It is certainly out there that's for sure.
Doesn't mean anyone sensible believes it. And anyway, surely the correct response is to prioritise even more investment in renewables so we can move away from Russion gas.
Indeed. I don't quite follow how prioritising an alternative supply of energy (renewables), and campaigning to reduce the demand for, and use of, fossil fuels, somehow makes us more reliant on foreign gas. Surely the folk to blame are the ones who have said, progressively. Climate change doesn't exist/ isn't important/there's nowt we can do anyways. So keep flying, driving and denying subsidies for windmills. And planning permission. And don't you dare put taxes on any of it.
It doesn't.
What does is the madness about not drilling for our own gas in places like Lancashire or Cambo so we are compelled to rely upon imports instead.
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.
The cases might be equivalent if the "South Western section of the US" had been an independent country, recognised by the rump US, for the past thirty years.
Why 30 years. We just passed the 100th anniversary of the creation of Northern Ireland. Are you saying there is a statute of limitations on people's national aspirations?
Simply because that's the case with Ukraine, and @YBarddCwsc was setting up an 'equivalence'. His comparison, not mine, so I don't know why you're asking me about castles you're building on it.
Obviously, a precise equivalence is impossible, I said it was a thought experiment.
There is no reason to accept your rather arbitrary 30 years limit.
If a large part of the US wanted to secede (as might well be the case in 50 years due to changing demographics), most US Presidents would act as Putin is doing now.
Just as if a large part of China wanted to secede, we would see the same.
And when there was a threat that a large part of Canada would secede, rendering rump Canada split into two pieces and probably unviable, there were many people in Anglophone Canada who were very keen to redraw the boundaries of Quebec.
In fact, I think if Quebec had voted to seceded, then the bits that voted Non would have been taken by rump Canada to retain a land bridge to the Maritimes.
"If they wanted to secede" is not an equivalence. And the three decades isn't arbitrary - it's simply the time which Ukraine has been an independent country. There's nothing magical about the number; it's just pointing out that Russia has recognised Ukraine for a long time, and is now waging a war of aggression against it.
Again, the distinction is in law, between the domestic and the international. This isn't complicated.
I think if you want an absolutely precise equivalence, there are none. I have given you rough equivalences.
Truth to tell, because of the behaviour of both the Ukraine and Russia, the situation a few weeks ago was a fucking mess.
It is now a fucking, fucking, fucking mess, wholly due to Russia.
And I am mainly now concerned to prevent it become a fucking, fucking, fucking, fucking, fucking mess.
I'd much rather we tried to sort it , without any more deaths, than adopt the ridiculous Manichean posturing that you seem to love.
And that requires some understanding of the positions of both parties.
If we've descended to insults "ridiculous Manichean posturing", we'll just have to agree to disagree.
Tbh 'ridiculous Manichean posturing' barely raised a flicker on the PB Insultometer.
Europe has just two years to massively rearm to face Russia alone from 2024:
WSJ Politics @WSJPolitics CPAC organizers released results of a straw poll of attendees that showed Trump was the preferred 2024 GOP nominee among 59% of 2,574 voters. Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis finished second at 28% and former Secretary of State Mike Pompeo was third at 2%
Europe has just two years to massively rearm to face Russia alone from 2024:
WSJ Politics @WSJPolitics CPAC organizers released results of a straw poll of attendees that showed Trump was the preferred 2024 GOP nominee among 59% of 2,574 voters. Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis finished second at 28% and former Secretary of State Mike Pompeo was third at 2%
Trump is a traitor who has just been praising Putin. He will never win a US Presidential Election again.
Americans love to waive the stars and stripes, not the Триколор
Indeed, and agreed, he is a traitor.
I think he's probably a lay for the GOP nomination – his rivals will have an absolute field day quoting his pro-Putin, anti-American rants back at him.
You sure ?
It's not the GOP of Mitt Romney and John McCain any more. His base doesn't care.
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.
The cases might be equivalent if the "South Western section of the US" had been an independent country, recognised by the rump US, for the past thirty years.
Why 30 years. We just passed the 100th anniversary of the creation of Northern Ireland. Are you saying there is a statute of limitations on people's national aspirations?
Simply because that's the case with Ukraine, and @YBarddCwsc was setting up an 'equivalence'. His comparison, not mine, so I don't know why you're asking me about castles you're building on it.
Obviously, a precise equivalence is impossible, I said it was a thought experiment.
There is no reason to accept your rather arbitrary 30 years limit.
If a large part of the US wanted to secede (as might well be the case in 50 years due to changing demographics), most US Presidents would act as Putin is doing now.
Just as if a large part of China wanted to secede, we would see the same.
And when there was a threat that a large part of Canada would secede, rendering rump Canada split into two pieces and probably unviable, there were many people in Anglophone Canada who were very keen to redraw the boundaries of Quebec.
In fact, I think if Quebec had voted to seceded, then the bits that voted Non would have been taken by rump Canada to retain a land bridge to the Maritimes.
"If they wanted to secede" is not an equivalence. And the three decades isn't arbitrary - it's simply the time which Ukraine has been an independent country. There's nothing magical about the number; it's just pointing out that Russia has recognised Ukraine for a long time, and is now waging a war of aggression against it.
Again, the distinction is in law, between the domestic and the international. This isn't complicated.
I think if you want an absolutely precise equivalence, there are none. I have given you rough equivalences.
Truth to tell, because of the behaviour of both the Ukraine and Russia, the situation a few weeks ago was a fucking mess.
It is now a fucking, fucking, fucking mess, wholly due to Russia.
And I am mainly now concerned to prevent it become a fucking, fucking, fucking, fucking, fucking mess.
I'd much rather we tried to sort it , without any more deaths, than adopt the ridiculous Manichean posturing that you seem to love.
And that requires some understanding of the positions of both parties.
There is no understanding of the Russian position. It was simply Putin's delusions of grandeur and revanchism.
Ukraine is not a part of Russia seeking to secede, it is an independent, peaceful, sovereign nation that can determine its own future.
If only the same thoughts were given to Scotland, typical Tory with more faces than the town clock.
Scotland is part of the UK.
It is not an independent sovereign nation like Ukraine which has been invaded by another
@TOPPING is your entire argument basically “the west had it coming”? If so, christ.
No you dolt. It is that the West has behaved like this for decades and now someone else is doing it and we are so bewildered that we are relying on those go-to western liberal fallbacks of morality, decency, apple pie, values, usw to try to explain why it is "wrong".
And as to your other point of course we should do something about it and we seem to be. As I also said earlier, it will be interesting to see how much pain the EU for example is willing to inflict on its citizens via refusing to buy Russian gas.
But we never behaved like this, despite your whataboutism which you seem ever keener on for some reason, we never invaded a peaceful democracy.
Peaceful democracy is as you accept entirely a @BartholomewRoberts construct in the context of who should invade whom. You believe it is a critical factor. Others don't. It is of course fantastic that you should think this but then I am speaking as citizen of a western liberal democracy. In the real world, however, and while acknowledging that it allows people to "take sides" more easily, it makes no difference whatsoever.
You don't believe in god but you are arguing like the most religiously fervent of believers. You must understand that not everyone and not everyone outside of western liberal democracies places such a value on "peaceful democracies". Then you will begin to understand the dynamics at play here.
What you are missing is this is indeed a conflict between two utterly exclusive ideologies.
One - the current order - believes that countries should not oppress and kill their citizens to maintain power, should not wage unprovoked war on other free countries and should support the right to self determination.
The other believes that they have the right to maintain power at all costs, to treat their citizens as serfs and to invade other countries just because they think they can get away with it.
We have to choose sides and there is no room for cultural or moral relativism because the systems are, as I say, mutually exclusive.
Of course we choose sides and you will be delighted to know that I choose the side of western liberal democracy. Not one of my posts has ever said otherwise or condoned the actions of Russia. I have, however, sought to put the actions of Russia into historical and yes geopolitical context.
Many on here are throwing their hands up and saying how awful which of course it is but I would have hoped for more incisive analysis from PB.
I don't think it is awful and I actually modified my last post before I sent it to remove accusations of you 'siding' with the dictators.
But I do think it is wrong. Both logically and morally. There is a fundamental difference between acts against dictatorships and acts against democratic states. If anything I would suggest you could accuse the West of being hypocrites because of who they don't attack - Saudi being a good example. And no I am not advocating that only saying it is a natural extension of the logic.
But that does not in any way give Russia an excuse to attack an independent democratic state who they recognised and helped to form 30 years ago. Comparisons with Iraq or Afghanistan are simply wrong.
You answer the question with your Saudi example. My point is that we, the West, have "run the world" according to our principles which thankfully have included democracy and other nice stuff. But it didn't have to. And now we are meeting a player whose principles don't include all that. And we are going to have to live with that and them. Yes of course we'll try to penalise them but as I keep saying, we also have to accept that there is very likely a new world order emerging and it isn't being written along the lines that we would want.
We're not going to have to "live with that and them", we will punish them and stand up for our own beliefs.
And the point is that Russia is so weak that they are long-term going to lose this. Heck, short-term they don't seem to be winning either.
People were saying when this began that China would be watching and if Russia could invade Ukraine without the West responding and get away with it, then Taiwan might be next. If anything, the Taiwanese leadership are probably rather relieved at how this is playing out.
If anything Russia's failing adventure is reinforcing the West's vision of the world.
It is intriguing. Will Russia emerge stronger or weakened and what defines each of those positions. If it is a strategic masterstroke or not my point has always been that the terms of geopolitical actions have been defined by the West for decades. And now Russia wants a go. We will see if it can elbow itself onto the world stage or whether, as you suggest, it will fail and emerge structurally weakened.
Well indeed but just to clarify I have long held the belief that Russia is structurally very weak.
If Russia loses this conflict, then that will be exposing to the world their weakness, it won't be this conflict that made them weak.
But indeed revealing to the world just how weak and enfeebled the Russian state is now is in itself a kind of weakening.
There was a great line in Chernobyl when the truth came out about the accident. One of the Soviets said that all the USSR had was the perception of its invincibility. Once that was gone they had nothing and Chernobyl destroyed just that. It is why they said that Chernobyl lead directly to the fall of the USSR.
We shall see how this particular episode plays out.
The point is surely, that climate policies and lockdown were sold to us as reductions to the risks in our lives.
In the event, all they did was shift the balance of the risk.
Nobody told us that giving up gas drilling might give a madman who controls a lot of gas supply the upper hand.
I think you have to join up about 50 dots, some of which are not only on different pages but completely different books, in order to link Greta Thornberg to the invasion of Ukraine.
This is a rabbit hole which only the Far Right could manage to find itself going down.
You really don't and I suspect you know that.
No you really do and I suspect you know that.
Look I know leftists are desperate for the 'green lobby created Putin' narrative not to get out, hence the IPCC's very convenient report today.
I would suggest to you that you are too late. Its already out there.
It is certainly out there that's for sure.
Doesn't mean anyone sensible believes it. And anyway, surely the correct response is to prioritise even more investment in renewables so we can move away from Russion gas.
Indeed. I don't quite follow how prioritising an alternative supply of energy (renewables), and campaigning to reduce the demand for, and use of, fossil fuels, somehow makes us more reliant on foreign gas.
Just to comment that although I agree that investment in renewables doesn't make us more reliant on foreign gas, when it comes to the North Sea nations - which to be fair does not include Germany as far as available hydrocarbon reserves is concerned - the fact that we have chosen to reduce exploration for and investment in new hydrocarbon reserves before the renewables are able to replace them is a massive blunder. One that I hope we will now have the sense to reverse.
Jesus. The images from Karkhiv, where Russia are extensively and enthusiastically breaking the Geneva convention via cluster munitions targeted at civilians are just horrific.
Not exactly what you imagine when somebody says they are liberating a country....
My feeling is that Putin is going to flatten Ukraine and he will "win" in the next few days, by sheer murderous power. There are scenes of Ukrainians looting shops, for food - and actually fighting over food. Also scenes of panic on trains as people try to flee the worst hit cities.
They have been brilliant in their disciplined resistance to date but no nation can coherently withstand carpet bombing by a vastly superior power with complete air control, the government will disperse, the Ukrainian troops will hide away - to fight another day
And that's when Putin's nightmare continues, and worsens. His barbarism ensures the Ukrainians will never endure Russian rule, or even puppet status. I foresee years of insurrection, probably ending in the Russians just giving up, as in Afghanistan. And it will all have been for nothing. Squalid
I hope you and I are wrong. But I fear this too.
This has been and still is a huge catastrophe -- a long-term disaster for Russia, Ukraine & the whole region.
My Russian friends almost all have family in the Ukraine as well. They can barely begin to talk about it without crying.
Like the US Civil War, the trauma will remain for centuries.
At least the US Civil War was a just war, and led - eventually - to a much better world. This war is one of the most pointlessly, self-harmingly stupid I have witnessed. Possibly the stupidest war of my life
It was 99% certain to go wrong, in multiple ways. Yet Putin did not realise?
It all adds to the impression that he has lost it, mentally.
I agree with all this. Donetsk and Luhansk are polluted, bleak, post-industrial wastelands.
Like Ebbw Vale.
We have basically got to the threat of thermonuclear war over whose flag flies over Tredegar.
Europe has just two years to massively rearm to face Russia alone from 2024:
WSJ Politics @WSJPolitics CPAC organizers released results of a straw poll of attendees that showed Trump was the preferred 2024 GOP nominee among 59% of 2,574 voters. Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis finished second at 28% and former Secretary of State Mike Pompeo was third at 2%
Trump is a traitor who has just been praising Putin. He will never win a US Presidential Election again.
Americans love to waive the stars and stripes, not the Триколор
Indeed, and agreed, he is a traitor.
I think he's probably a lay for the GOP nomination – his rivals will have an absolute field day quoting his pro-Putin, anti-American rants back at him.
You sure ?
It's not the GOP of Mitt Romney and John McCain any more. His base doesn't care.
In the same way Bozo scared away many of the saner PB Tories to the extent that they have left the Tory party, that issue is even more pronounced with the Republican party. In many states the remaining members make Tea Party members (heck many QAnon members) look rational and sane
Europe has just two years to massively rearm to face Russia alone from 2024:
WSJ Politics @WSJPolitics CPAC organizers released results of a straw poll of attendees that showed Trump was the preferred 2024 GOP nominee among 59% of 2,574 voters. Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis finished second at 28% and former Secretary of State Mike Pompeo was third at 2%
Trump is a traitor who has just been praising Putin. He will never win a US Presidential Election again.
Americans love to waive the stars and stripes, not the Триколор
Indeed, and agreed, he is a traitor.
I think he's probably a lay for the GOP nomination – his rivals will have an absolute field day quoting his pro-Putin, anti-American rants back at him.
You sure ?
It's not the GOP of Mitt Romney and John McCain any more. His base doesn't care.
Hmm. How big is that base?
Polls say 85% of Americans are appalled by Putin's invasion. The other 15% are probably too zonked on Fentanyl to care
That's not a great base for a Putin-lovin' Epstein-huggin' weirdo with orange hair to win the nomination, when the Republicans surely know they have a much better chance of actually seizing the White House with a more sensible candidate
Europe has just two years to massively rearm to face Russia alone from 2024:
WSJ Politics @WSJPolitics CPAC organizers released results of a straw poll of attendees that showed Trump was the preferred 2024 GOP nominee among 59% of 2,574 voters. Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis finished second at 28% and former Secretary of State Mike Pompeo was third at 2%
Trump is a traitor who has just been praising Putin. He will never win a US Presidential Election again.
Americans love to waive the stars and stripes, not the Триколор
That's a remarkably complacent view imho. All signs are that the GOP will back any enemy of Biden, anywhere, at any time.
Why is it "complacent"? People are allowed to make bold predictions on PB. If you disagree, say why you disagree.
I said upthread I was worried that the GOP is going full on Putinite. Mr Roberts merely replied to effect of, that isn't an issue as they won't win anyways. He didn't even disagree with my initial premise. Merely that flag waving Americans wouldn't vote for it. I later posted why I thought there is a very good chance they will win.
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.
The cases might be equivalent if the "South Western section of the US" had been an independent country, recognised by the rump US, for the past thirty years.
Why 30 years. We just passed the 100th anniversary of the creation of Northern Ireland. Are you saying there is a statute of limitations on people's national aspirations?
Simply because that's the case with Ukraine, and @YBarddCwsc was setting up an 'equivalence'. His comparison, not mine, so I don't know why you're asking me about castles you're building on it.
Obviously, a precise equivalence is impossible, I said it was a thought experiment.
There is no reason to accept your rather arbitrary 30 years limit.
If a large part of the US wanted to secede (as might well be the case in 50 years due to changing demographics), most US Presidents would act as Putin is doing now.
Just as if a large part of China wanted to secede, we would see the same.
And when there was a threat that a large part of Canada would secede, rendering rump Canada split into two pieces and probably unviable, there were many people in Anglophone Canada who were very keen to redraw the boundaries of Quebec.
In fact, I think if Quebec had voted to seceded, then the bits that voted Non would have been taken by rump Canada to retain a land bridge to the Maritimes.
"If they wanted to secede" is not an equivalence. And the three decades isn't arbitrary - it's simply the time which Ukraine has been an independent country. There's nothing magical about the number; it's just pointing out that Russia has recognised Ukraine for a long time, and is now waging a war of aggression against it.
Again, the distinction is in law, between the domestic and the international. This isn't complicated.
I think if you want an absolutely precise equivalence, there are none. I have given you rough equivalences.
Truth to tell, because of the behaviour of both the Ukraine and Russia, the situation a few weeks ago was a fucking mess.
It is now a fucking, fucking, fucking mess, wholly due to Russia.
And I am mainly now concerned to prevent it become a fucking, fucking, fucking, fucking, fucking mess.
I'd much rather we tried to sort it , without any more deaths, than adopt the ridiculous Manichean posturing that you seem to love.
And that requires some understanding of the positions of both parties.
There is no understanding of the Russian position. It was simply Putin's delusions of grandeur and revanchism.
Ukraine is not a part of Russia seeking to secede, it is an independent, peaceful, sovereign nation that can determine its own future.
If only the same thoughts were given to Scotland, typical Tory with more faces than the town clock.
Scotland is part of the UK.
It is not an independent sovereign nation like Ukraine which has been invaded by another
Tory Dumbo 2 turns up
Nothing can outdo the biggest Nat Dumbo on here. Peace and love.
Europe has just two years to massively rearm to face Russia alone from 2024:
WSJ Politics @WSJPolitics CPAC organizers released results of a straw poll of attendees that showed Trump was the preferred 2024 GOP nominee among 59% of 2,574 voters. Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis finished second at 28% and former Secretary of State Mike Pompeo was third at 2%
Trump is a traitor who has just been praising Putin. He will never win a US Presidential Election again.
Americans love to waive the stars and stripes, not the Триколор
Indeed, and agreed, he is a traitor.
I think he's probably a lay for the GOP nomination – his rivals will have an absolute field day quoting his pro-Putin, anti-American rants back at him.
You sure ?
It's not the GOP of Mitt Romney and John McCain any more. His base doesn't care.
If Trump doesn't win it will be because he's been outflanked from the extreme. Not by a moderate. Not a chance.
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.
The cases might be equivalent if the "South Western section of the US" had been an independent country, recognised by the rump US, for the past thirty years.
Why 30 years. We just passed the 100th anniversary of the creation of Northern Ireland. Are you saying there is a statute of limitations on people's national aspirations?
Simply because that's the case with Ukraine, and @YBarddCwsc was setting up an 'equivalence'. His comparison, not mine, so I don't know why you're asking me about castles you're building on it.
Obviously, a precise equivalence is impossible, I said it was a thought experiment.
There is no reason to accept your rather arbitrary 30 years limit.
If a large part of the US wanted to secede (as might well be the case in 50 years due to changing demographics), most US Presidents would act as Putin is doing now.
Just as if a large part of China wanted to secede, we would see the same.
And when there was a threat that a large part of Canada would secede, rendering rump Canada split into two pieces and probably unviable, there were many people in Anglophone Canada who were very keen to redraw the boundaries of Quebec.
In fact, I think if Quebec had voted to seceded, then the bits that voted Non would have been taken by rump Canada to retain a land bridge to the Maritimes.
"If they wanted to secede" is not an equivalence. And the three decades isn't arbitrary - it's simply the time which Ukraine has been an independent country. There's nothing magical about the number; it's just pointing out that Russia has recognised Ukraine for a long time, and is now waging a war of aggression against it.
Again, the distinction is in law, between the domestic and the international. This isn't complicated.
I think if you want an absolutely precise equivalence, there are none. I have given you rough equivalences.
Truth to tell, because of the behaviour of both the Ukraine and Russia, the situation a few weeks ago was a fucking mess.
It is now a fucking, fucking, fucking mess, wholly due to Russia.
And I am mainly now concerned to prevent it become a fucking, fucking, fucking, fucking, fucking mess.
I'd much rather we tried to sort it , without any more deaths, than adopt the ridiculous Manichean posturing that you seem to love.
And that requires some understanding of the positions of both parties.
There is no understanding of the Russian position. It was simply Putin's delusions of grandeur and revanchism.
Ukraine is not a part of Russia seeking to secede, it is an independent, peaceful, sovereign nation that can determine its own future.
If only the same thoughts were given to Scotland, typical Tory with more faces than the town clock.
Scotland is part of the UK.
It is not an independent sovereign nation like Ukraine which has been invaded by another
Tory Dumbo 2 turns up
Ukraine had a referendum in 1991 where they voted to leave Russia Scotland had a referendum in 2014 where they voted to remain part of the UK..
Heck the fact the SNP has total control over Scottish politics comes down to the fact that the SNP have managed to consolidate almost all of the 45% of voters who voted for independence into a single voting block.
@TOPPING is your entire argument basically “the west had it coming”? If so, christ.
No you dolt. It is that the West has behaved like this for decades and now someone else is doing it and we are so bewildered that we are relying on those go-to western liberal fallbacks of morality, decency, apple pie, values, usw to try to explain why it is "wrong".
And as to your other point of course we should do something about it and we seem to be. As I also said earlier, it will be interesting to see how much pain the EU for example is willing to inflict on its citizens via refusing to buy Russian gas.
But we never behaved like this, despite your whataboutism which you seem ever keener on for some reason, we never invaded a peaceful democracy.
Peaceful democracy is as you accept entirely a @BartholomewRoberts construct in the context of who should invade whom. You believe it is a critical factor. Others don't. It is of course fantastic that you should think this but then I am speaking as citizen of a western liberal democracy. In the real world, however, and while acknowledging that it allows people to "take sides" more easily, it makes no difference whatsoever.
You don't believe in god but you are arguing like the most religiously fervent of believers. You must understand that not everyone and not everyone outside of western liberal democracies places such a value on "peaceful democracies". Then you will begin to understand the dynamics at play here.
What you are missing is this is indeed a conflict between two utterly exclusive ideologies.
One - the current order - believes that countries should not oppress and kill their citizens to maintain power, should not wage unprovoked war on other free countries and should support the right to self determination.
The other believes that they have the right to maintain power at all costs, to treat their citizens as serfs and to invade other countries just because they think they can get away with it.
We have to choose sides and there is no room for cultural or moral relativism because the systems are, as I say, mutually exclusive.
Of course we choose sides and you will be delighted to know that I choose the side of western liberal democracy. Not one of my posts has ever said otherwise or condoned the actions of Russia. I have, however, sought to put the actions of Russia into historical and yes geopolitical context.
Many on here are throwing their hands up and saying how awful which of course it is but I would have hoped for more incisive analysis from PB.
I don't think it is awful and I actually modified my last post before I sent it to remove accusations of you 'siding' with the dictators.
But I do think it is wrong. Both logically and morally. There is a fundamental difference between acts against dictatorships and acts against democratic states. If anything I would suggest you could accuse the West of being hypocrites because of who they don't attack - Saudi being a good example. And no I am not advocating that only saying it is a natural extension of the logic.
But that does not in any way give Russia an excuse to attack an independent democratic state who they recognised and helped to form 30 years ago. Comparisons with Iraq or Afghanistan are simply wrong.
You answer the question with your Saudi example. My point is that we, the West, have "run the world" according to our principles which thankfully have included democracy and other nice stuff. But it didn't have to. And now we are meeting a player whose principles don't include all that. And we are going to have to live with that and them. Yes of course we'll try to penalise them but as I keep saying, we also have to accept that there is very likely a new world order emerging and it isn't being written along the lines that we would want.
And as I say in the end it will have to be written along the lines we say because of basic human nature. As long as there are democracies in the world and they can be seen to be thriving other nations will always want to emulate them. Countries do not voluntarily go from being democracies to dictatorships. They do it through force of arms. Which is why in the long run they are unstable and unsustainable, only maintained through fear and violence. Your new world order is stillborn.
Mr. Tyndall, nice idea but I'll believe we have a more sensible approach to energy when I see it.
Starmer down to 6.6 for next PM, Sunak out to 4.
Content to have backed and laid them at longer and shorter odds respectively. Excellent trading bet by Mr. Roberts, I believe, on Sunak at 251 some time ago.
Europe has just two years to massively rearm to face Russia alone from 2024:
WSJ Politics @WSJPolitics CPAC organizers released results of a straw poll of attendees that showed Trump was the preferred 2024 GOP nominee among 59% of 2,574 voters. Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis finished second at 28% and former Secretary of State Mike Pompeo was third at 2%
The point is surely, that climate policies and lockdown were sold to us as reductions to the risks in our lives.
In the event, all they did was shift the balance of the risk.
Nobody told us that giving up gas drilling might give a madman who controls a lot of gas supply the upper hand.
I think you have to join up about 50 dots, some of which are not only on different pages but completely different books, in order to link Greta Thornberg to the invasion of Ukraine.
This is a rabbit hole which only the Far Right could manage to find itself going down.
I don't blame an autistic girl from Sweden raising an important point about a serious threat to the world for the invasion of Ukraine. Individual campaigners are quite at liberty to campaign on whatever worries them. I do, however, think we have given one quite effective campaigner slightly too much attention and one major threat to our east rather too little. Privately, of course, it turns out that the west had been worried by Putin, and western intelligence on the threat has been pretty good. The state hasn't completely taken its eye off the ball. We had a good few months' notice of the invasion. As a wider demos, however, we've got our balance of risks slightly wrong. But democracy, wonderful though it is, is a slow old beast. It takes us years to focus on new things. It's a feature, not a bug. We get there in the end.
@TOPPING is your entire argument basically “the west had it coming”? If so, christ.
No you dolt. It is that the West has behaved like this for decades and now someone else is doing it and we are so bewildered that we are relying on those go-to western liberal fallbacks of morality, decency, apple pie, values, usw to try to explain why it is "wrong".
And as to your other point of course we should do something about it and we seem to be. As I also said earlier, it will be interesting to see how much pain the EU for example is willing to inflict on its citizens via refusing to buy Russian gas.
But we never behaved like this, despite your whataboutism which you seem ever keener on for some reason, we never invaded a peaceful democracy.
Peaceful democracy is as you accept entirely a @BartholomewRoberts construct in the context of who should invade whom. You believe it is a critical factor. Others don't. It is of course fantastic that you should think this but then I am speaking as citizen of a western liberal democracy. In the real world, however, and while acknowledging that it allows people to "take sides" more easily, it makes no difference whatsoever.
You don't believe in god but you are arguing like the most religiously fervent of believers. You must understand that not everyone and not everyone outside of western liberal democracies places such a value on "peaceful democracies". Then you will begin to understand the dynamics at play here.
What you are missing is this is indeed a conflict between two utterly exclusive ideologies.
One - the current order - believes that countries should not oppress and kill their citizens to maintain power, should not wage unprovoked war on other free countries and should support the right to self determination.
The other believes that they have the right to maintain power at all costs, to treat their citizens as serfs and to invade other countries just because they think they can get away with it.
We have to choose sides and there is no room for cultural or moral relativism because the systems are, as I say, mutually exclusive.
Of course we choose sides and you will be delighted to know that I choose the side of western liberal democracy. Not one of my posts has ever said otherwise or condoned the actions of Russia. I have, however, sought to put the actions of Russia into historical and yes geopolitical context.
Many on here are throwing their hands up and saying how awful which of course it is but I would have hoped for more incisive analysis from PB.
I don't think it is awful and I actually modified my last post before I sent it to remove accusations of you 'siding' with the dictators.
But I do think it is wrong. Both logically and morally. There is a fundamental difference between acts against dictatorships and acts against democratic states. If anything I would suggest you could accuse the West of being hypocrites because of who they don't attack - Saudi being a good example. And no I am not advocating that only saying it is a natural extension of the logic.
But that does not in any way give Russia an excuse to attack an independent democratic state who they recognised and helped to form 30 years ago. Comparisons with Iraq or Afghanistan are simply wrong.
You answer the question with your Saudi example. My point is that we, the West, have "run the world" according to our principles which thankfully have included democracy and other nice stuff. But it didn't have to. And now we are meeting a player whose principles don't include all that. And we are going to have to live with that and them. Yes of course we'll try to penalise them but as I keep saying, we also have to accept that there is very likely a new world order emerging and it isn't being written along the lines that we would want.
We're not going to have to "live with that and them", we will punish them and stand up for our own beliefs.
And the point is that Russia is so weak that they are long-term going to lose this. Heck, short-term they don't seem to be winning either.
People were saying when this began that China would be watching and if Russia could invade Ukraine without the West responding and get away with it, then Taiwan might be next. If anything, the Taiwanese leadership are probably rather relieved at how this is playing out.
If anything Russia's failing adventure is reinforcing the West's vision of the world.
It is intriguing. Will Russia emerge stronger or weakened and what defines each of those positions. If it is a strategic masterstroke or not my point has always been that the terms of geopolitical actions have been defined by the West for decades. And now Russia wants a go. We will see if it can elbow itself onto the world stage or whether, as you suggest, it will fail and emerge structurally weakened.
Putin is not acting this way because he has seen the West act badly. He’s acting this way because he’s a racist dictator brought up in a totalitarian state. The governments/rulers of Russia, and the USSR before and back to Russia before that, has long acted imperialistically, more or less for centuries.
The West has acted badly at times. Russia is acting badly now. But that doesn’t show causation. The flaw in your argument is the sentence, “And now Russia wants a go.” You imply that Russia has only now started copying the bad behaviour it has witnessed, whereas Russian imperialism has been going on for decades or indeed centuries. The annexation of Crimea, the invasion of Georgia, troops to Transnistria, the invasion of Afghanistan, actions in Hungary and Czechoslovakia, wars against Finland, the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact… Russia has long “want[ed] a go” and indeed had a go.
The point is surely, that climate policies and lockdown were sold to us as reductions to the risks in our lives.
In the event, all they did was shift the balance of the risk.
Nobody told us that giving up gas drilling might give a madman who controls a lot of gas supply the upper hand.
I think you have to join up about 50 dots, some of which are not only on different pages but completely different books, in order to link Greta Thornberg to the invasion of Ukraine.
This is a rabbit hole which only the Far Right could manage to find itself going down.
You really don't and I suspect you know that.
No you really do and I suspect you know that.
Look I know leftists are desperate for the 'green lobby created Putin' narrative not to get out, hence the IPCC's very convenient report today.
I would suggest to you that you are too late. Its already out there.
It is certainly out there that's for sure.
Doesn't mean anyone sensible believes it. And anyway, surely the correct response is to prioritise even more investment in renewables so we can move away from Russion gas.
Indeed. I don't quite follow how prioritising an alternative supply of energy (renewables), and campaigning to reduce the demand for, and use of, fossil fuels, somehow makes us more reliant on foreign gas. Surely the folk to blame are the ones who have said, progressively. Climate change doesn't exist/ isn't important/there's nowt we can do anyways. So keep flying, driving and denying subsidies for windmills. And planning permission. And don't you dare put taxes on any of it.
It doesn't.
What does is the madness about not drilling for our own gas in places like Lancashire or Cambo so we are compelled to rely upon imports instead.
That's an entirely different argument. If we want to not rely on foreign energy it needs to be multi-pronged. That means both increased domestic supply, and lower domestic demand. It needs more nuclear, renewables, and drilling. Less flying, driving and thermostats turned down. Folk need to be wearing jumpers in the living room. All of this and more. And we'd still need to import far into the future. None of which makes it Greta's fault in the slightest. Which I realise isn't what you were arguing. But was where I started.
Europe has just two years to massively rearm to face Russia alone from 2024:
WSJ Politics @WSJPolitics CPAC organizers released results of a straw poll of attendees that showed Trump was the preferred 2024 GOP nominee among 59% of 2,574 voters. Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis finished second at 28% and former Secretary of State Mike Pompeo was third at 2%
Trump is a traitor who has just been praising Putin. He will never win a US Presidential Election again.
Americans love to waive the stars and stripes, not the Триколор
Indeed, and agreed, he is a traitor.
I think he's probably a lay for the GOP nomination – his rivals will have an absolute field day quoting his pro-Putin, anti-American rants back at him.
You sure ?
It's not the GOP of Mitt Romney and John McCain any more. His base doesn't care.
If Trump doesn't win it will be because he's been outflanked from the extreme. Not by a moderate. Not a chance.
No guarantee of that at all.
The one way someone moderate* wins is to outflank him by portraying him as a loser and that they are someone who can beat the Democrats.
If there's one thing GOP voters love, it's beating Democrats, and that's not changed.
* Moderate by US standards. There is nobody moderate by UK standards.
Re the long table thing, I had thought about immuno-suppression being an issue but that doesn’t explain away the fact that he was pictured in close proximity to Lukaschenko shortly after he gave Macron the long table treatment.
I don’t believe it’s fear of covid because he would have his advisers all tested before they came anywhere near him.
I am leaning towards paranoia/security being the reason. After all, Hitler was almost killed with a briefcase under a table. Second best guess, he actually thinks it makes him look strong rather than very silly.
I am leaning towards paranoia/security being the reason. After all, Hitler was almost killed with a briefcase under a table. Second best guess, he actually thinks it makes him look strong rather than very silly.
The point is surely, that climate policies and lockdown were sold to us as reductions to the risks in our lives.
In the event, all they did was shift the balance of the risk.
Nobody told us that giving up gas drilling might give a madman who controls a lot of gas supply the upper hand.
I think you have to join up about 50 dots, some of which are not only on different pages but completely different books, in order to link Greta Thornberg to the invasion of Ukraine.
This is a rabbit hole which only the Far Right could manage to find itself going down.
You really don't and I suspect you know that.
No you really do and I suspect you know that.
Look I know leftists are desperate for the 'green lobby created Putin' narrative not to get out, hence the IPCC's very convenient report today.
I would suggest to you that you are too late. Its already out there.
It is certainly out there that's for sure.
Doesn't mean anyone sensible believes it. And anyway, surely the correct response is to prioritise even more investment in renewables so we can move away from Russion gas.
Indeed. I don't quite follow how prioritising an alternative supply of energy (renewables), and campaigning to reduce the demand for, and use of, fossil fuels, somehow makes us more reliant on foreign gas. Surely the folk to blame are the ones who have said, progressively. Climate change doesn't exist/ isn't important/there's nowt we can do anyways. So keep flying, driving and denying subsidies for windmills. And planning permission. And don't you dare put taxes on any of it.
It doesn't.
What does is the madness about not drilling for our own gas in places like Lancashire or Cambo so we are compelled to rely upon imports instead.
That's an entirely different argument. If we want to not rely on foreign energy it needs to be multi-pronged. That means both increased domestic supply, and lower domestic demand. It needs more nuclear, renewables, and drilling. Less flying, driving and thermostats turned down. Folk need to be wearing jumpers in the living room. All of this and more. And we'd still need to import far into the future. None of which makes it Greta's fault in the slightest. Which I realise isn't what you were arguing. But was where I started.
I agree with you entirely but Russia's Useful Green Idiots have been opposing the bit in bold.
@Richard_Tyndall is 100% right we need hydrocarbons to get us through the transition to clean energy and we should be developing our own instead of importing it from Putin and Sheiks.
The loony elements of the Green movement oppose any and all exploration and extraction of domestic hydrocarbons. That does play into the hands of the likes of Putin who simply ignore those loons and do as they please.
Europe has just two years to massively rearm to face Russia alone from 2024:
WSJ Politics @WSJPolitics CPAC organizers released results of a straw poll of attendees that showed Trump was the preferred 2024 GOP nominee among 59% of 2,574 voters. Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis finished second at 28% and former Secretary of State Mike Pompeo was third at 2%
Trump is a traitor who has just been praising Putin. He will never win a US Presidential Election again.
Americans love to waive the stars and stripes, not the Триколор
Indeed, and agreed, he is a traitor.
I think he's probably a lay for the GOP nomination – his rivals will have an absolute field day quoting his pro-Putin, anti-American rants back at him.
You sure ?
It's not the GOP of Mitt Romney and John McCain any more. His base doesn't care.
Hmm. How big is that base?
Polls say 85% of Americans are appalled by Putin's invasion. The other 15% are probably too zonked on Fentanyl to care
That's not a great base for a Putin-lovin' Epstein-huggin' weirdo with orange hair to win the nomination, when the Republicans surely know they have a much better chance of actually seizing the White House with a more sensible candidate
Almost every American knows enough of their own history to know whose side they should be on.
There's a rumour down that thread which says Putin is having chemo-therapy, is immuno-compromised, hence the absolute paranoia about Covid infection. And in one of the close-up photos of his weird, puffy face, he does look decidedly ill
I have a friend doing chemo and with compromised immunity and she acts in a similar paranoid way. You can't share a room with her, even to chat at a distance.
Chemo is lots of different things, but ... lots of regimens involve dexamethasone (I was given it as an anti emetic) which gives you exactly that puffy moon face. It also induces a really horrible jittery unwanted high which I can easily imagine turning paranoid
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.
The cases might be equivalent if the "South Western section of the US" had been an independent country, recognised by the rump US, for the past thirty years.
Why 30 years. We just passed the 100th anniversary of the creation of Northern Ireland. Are you saying there is a statute of limitations on people's national aspirations?
Simply because that's the case with Ukraine, and @YBarddCwsc was setting up an 'equivalence'. His comparison, not mine, so I don't know why you're asking me about castles you're building on it.
Obviously, a precise equivalence is impossible, I said it was a thought experiment.
There is no reason to accept your rather arbitrary 30 years limit.
If a large part of the US wanted to secede (as might well be the case in 50 years due to changing demographics), most US Presidents would act as Putin is doing now.
Just as if a large part of China wanted to secede, we would see the same.
And when there was a threat that a large part of Canada would secede, rendering rump Canada split into two pieces and probably unviable, there were many people in Anglophone Canada who were very keen to redraw the boundaries of Quebec.
In fact, I think if Quebec had voted to seceded, then the bits that voted Non would have been taken by rump Canada to retain a land bridge to the Maritimes.
"If they wanted to secede" is not an equivalence. And the three decades isn't arbitrary - it's simply the time which Ukraine has been an independent country. There's nothing magical about the number; it's just pointing out that Russia has recognised Ukraine for a long time, and is now waging a war of aggression against it.
Again, the distinction is in law, between the domestic and the international. This isn't complicated.
I think if you want an absolutely precise equivalence, there are none. I have given you rough equivalences.
Truth to tell, because of the behaviour of both the Ukraine and Russia, the situation a few weeks ago was a fucking mess.
It is now a fucking, fucking, fucking mess, wholly due to Russia.
And I am mainly now concerned to prevent it become a fucking, fucking, fucking, fucking, fucking mess.
I'd much rather we tried to sort it , without any more deaths, than adopt the ridiculous Manichean posturing that you seem to love.
And that requires some understanding of the positions of both parties.
If we've descended to insults "ridiculous Manichean posturing", we'll just have to agree to disagree.
Tbh 'ridiculous Manichean posturing' barely raised a flicker on the PB Insultometer.
Oh, that doesn't bother me. I'm happy to trade insults with anyone from time to time. Just not much point arguing with someone on that basis.
Entirely by accident I discovered a Kharkiv born Ukrainian photographer a couple of months ago, Boris Mikhailov. A lot of his pictures of Kharkiv and its people reminded me of my beloved Glasgow, a slight note of Raymond Depardon and his seminal photos of Glasgow from 1980. Worth a look if that sort of thing interests you, quite an insight into the post Soviet world in the region in any case.
This could be from down The Barras at any time in the last 50 years.
The point is surely, that climate policies and lockdown were sold to us as reductions to the risks in our lives.
In the event, all they did was shift the balance of the risk.
Nobody told us that giving up gas drilling might give a madman who controls a lot of gas supply the upper hand.
I think you have to join up about 50 dots, some of which are not only on different pages but completely different books, in order to link Greta Thornberg to the invasion of Ukraine.
This is a rabbit hole which only the Far Right could manage to find itself going down.
You really don't and I suspect you know that.
No you really do and I suspect you know that.
Look I know leftists are desperate for the 'green lobby created Putin' narrative not to get out, hence the IPCC's very convenient report today.
I would suggest to you that you are too late. Its already out there.
It is certainly out there that's for sure.
Doesn't mean anyone sensible believes it. And anyway, surely the correct response is to prioritise even more investment in renewables so we can move away from Russion gas.
Indeed. I don't quite follow how prioritising an alternative supply of energy (renewables), and campaigning to reduce the demand for, and use of, fossil fuels, somehow makes us more reliant on foreign gas. Surely the folk to blame are the ones who have said, progressively. Climate change doesn't exist/ isn't important/there's nowt we can do anyways. So keep flying, driving and denying subsidies for windmills. And planning permission. And don't you dare put taxes on any of it.
It doesn't.
What does is the madness about not drilling for our own gas in places like Lancashire or Cambo so we are compelled to rely upon imports instead.
That's an entirely different argument. If we want to not rely on foreign energy it needs to be multi-pronged. That means both increased domestic supply, and lower domestic demand. It needs more nuclear, renewables, and drilling. Less flying, driving and thermostats turned down. Folk need to be wearing jumpers in the living room. All of this and more. And we'd still need to import far into the future. None of which makes it Greta's fault in the slightest. Which I realise isn't what you were arguing. But was where I started.
I agree with you entirely but Russia's Useful Green Idiots have been opposing the bit in bold.
@Richard_Tyndall is 100% right we need hydrocarbons to get us through the transition to clean energy and we should be developing our own instead of importing it from Putin and Sheiks.
The loony elements of the Green movement oppose any and all exploration and extraction of domestic hydrocarbons. That does play into the hands of the likes of Putin who simply ignore those loons and do as they please.
We have more than enough hydrocarbons *if* we had gotten serious about the transition and gotten on with it! It’s the loony elements of the conservative movement who keep slowing things down.
Lies, damned lies, and some countries COVID stats:
The Russian numbers offer an example of abnormal neatness. In August 2021 daily death tallies went no lower than 746 and no higher than 799. Russia’s invariant numbers continued into the first week of September, ranging from 792 to 799. A back-of-the-envelope calculation shows that such a low-variation week would occur by chance once every 2,747 years.
There's a rumour down that thread which says Putin is having chemo-therapy, is immuno-compromised, hence the absolute paranoia about Covid infection. And in one of the close-up photos of his weird, puffy face, he does look decidedly ill
I have a friend doing chemo and with compromised immunity and she acts in a similar paranoid way. You can't share a room with her, even to chat at a distance.
Chemo is lots of different things, but ... lots of regimens involve dexamethasone (I was given it as an anti emetic) which gives you exactly that puffy moon face. It also induces a really horrible jittery unwanted high which I can easily imagine turning paranoid
Yes, seeing the videos of Putin on TV last night definitely reminded me of the dexa moon face that a close relative had during late stage cancer 'treatment'.
Then again, perhaps he's just on an athletic programme.
Europe has just two years to massively rearm to face Russia alone from 2024:
WSJ Politics @WSJPolitics CPAC organizers released results of a straw poll of attendees that showed Trump was the preferred 2024 GOP nominee among 59% of 2,574 voters. Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis finished second at 28% and former Secretary of State Mike Pompeo was third at 2%
Trump is a traitor who has just been praising Putin. He will never win a US Presidential Election again.
Americans love to waive the stars and stripes, not the Триколор
Indeed, and agreed, he is a traitor.
I think he's probably a lay for the GOP nomination – his rivals will have an absolute field day quoting his pro-Putin, anti-American rants back at him.
You sure ?
It's not the GOP of Mitt Romney and John McCain any more. His base doesn't care.
At last polling Putin was more popular than Joe Biden amongst GOP voters.
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.
The cases might be equivalent if the "South Western section of the US" had been an independent country, recognised by the rump US, for the past thirty years.
Why 30 years. We just passed the 100th anniversary of the creation of Northern Ireland. Are you saying there is a statute of limitations on people's national aspirations?
Simply because that's the case with Ukraine, and @YBarddCwsc was setting up an 'equivalence'. His comparison, not mine, so I don't know why you're asking me about castles you're building on it.
Obviously, a precise equivalence is impossible, I said it was a thought experiment.
There is no reason to accept your rather arbitrary 30 years limit.
If a large part of the US wanted to secede (as might well be the case in 50 years due to changing demographics), most US Presidents would act as Putin is doing now.
Just as if a large part of China wanted to secede, we would see the same.
And when there was a threat that a large part of Canada would secede, rendering rump Canada split into two pieces and probably unviable, there were many people in Anglophone Canada who were very keen to redraw the boundaries of Quebec.
In fact, I think if Quebec had voted to seceded, then the bits that voted Non would have been taken by rump Canada to retain a land bridge to the Maritimes.
"If they wanted to secede" is not an equivalence. And the three decades isn't arbitrary - it's simply the time which Ukraine has been an independent country. There's nothing magical about the number; it's just pointing out that Russia has recognised Ukraine for a long time, and is now waging a war of aggression against it.
Again, the distinction is in law, between the domestic and the international. This isn't complicated.
I think if you want an absolutely precise equivalence, there are none. I have given you rough equivalences.
Truth to tell, because of the behaviour of both the Ukraine and Russia, the situation a few weeks ago was a fucking mess.
It is now a fucking, fucking, fucking mess, wholly due to Russia.
And I am mainly now concerned to prevent it become a fucking, fucking, fucking, fucking, fucking mess.
I'd much rather we tried to sort it , without any more deaths, than adopt the ridiculous Manichean posturing that you seem to love.
And that requires some understanding of the positions of both parties.
There is no understanding of the Russian position. It was simply Putin's delusions of grandeur and revanchism.
Ukraine is not a part of Russia seeking to secede, it is an independent, peaceful, sovereign nation that can determine its own future.
If only the same thoughts were given to Scotland, typical Tory with more faces than the town clock.
A position that Mr Roberts, to be fair, has often said he agrees with, you flatulent bore.
All the Little Englander Tory boys are out in force, your tank top too tight jessie boy.
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.
The cases might be equivalent if the "South Western section of the US" had been an independent country, recognised by the rump US, for the past thirty years.
Why 30 years. We just passed the 100th anniversary of the creation of Northern Ireland. Are you saying there is a statute of limitations on people's national aspirations?
Simply because that's the case with Ukraine, and @YBarddCwsc was setting up an 'equivalence'. His comparison, not mine, so I don't know why you're asking me about castles you're building on it.
Obviously, a precise equivalence is impossible, I said it was a thought experiment.
There is no reason to accept your rather arbitrary 30 years limit.
If a large part of the US wanted to secede (as might well be the case in 50 years due to changing demographics), most US Presidents would act as Putin is doing now.
Just as if a large part of China wanted to secede, we would see the same.
And when there was a threat that a large part of Canada would secede, rendering rump Canada split into two pieces and probably unviable, there were many people in Anglophone Canada who were very keen to redraw the boundaries of Quebec.
In fact, I think if Quebec had voted to seceded, then the bits that voted Non would have been taken by rump Canada to retain a land bridge to the Maritimes.
"If they wanted to secede" is not an equivalence. And the three decades isn't arbitrary - it's simply the time which Ukraine has been an independent country. There's nothing magical about the number; it's just pointing out that Russia has recognised Ukraine for a long time, and is now waging a war of aggression against it.
Again, the distinction is in law, between the domestic and the international. This isn't complicated.
I think if you want an absolutely precise equivalence, there are none. I have given you rough equivalences.
Truth to tell, because of the behaviour of both the Ukraine and Russia, the situation a few weeks ago was a fucking mess.
It is now a fucking, fucking, fucking mess, wholly due to Russia.
And I am mainly now concerned to prevent it become a fucking, fucking, fucking, fucking, fucking mess.
I'd much rather we tried to sort it , without any more deaths, than adopt the ridiculous Manichean posturing that you seem to love.
And that requires some understanding of the positions of both parties.
There is no understanding of the Russian position. It was simply Putin's delusions of grandeur and revanchism.
Ukraine is not a part of Russia seeking to secede, it is an independent, peaceful, sovereign nation that can determine its own future.
If only the same thoughts were given to Scotland, typical Tory with more faces than the town clock.
Scotland is part of the UK.
It is not an independent sovereign nation like Ukraine which has been invaded by another
Tory Dumbo 2 turns up
Nothing can outdo the biggest Nat Dumbo on here. Peace and love.
Lol, savaged by an ant, bet it took you hours to think that zinger up Einstein. How we laughed.
@TOPPING is your entire argument basically “the west had it coming”? If so, christ.
No you dolt. It is that the West has behaved like this for decades...
Which independent countries did we annexe ?
We annexed whichever the hell countries we wanted to.
Name one.
Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Grenada, the Levant, just about all of sub-saharan Africa, plenty of the Magreb also, Palestine, etc
I don't recall us annexing Iraq, or any of the others.
Which of those nations were annexed in the past 30 years? Who by and when?
Didn't we invade Iraq and depose the leader there? Same for Afgan? Did I miss something or is this going to be one of those he did not send the letter things.
We invaded, we didn't annexe.
Do you know what the difference is?
Indistinguishable to the many thousands of dead Iraqis?
Indeed, but not to someone who was making a political argument reliant on annexation. If that wasnt the point why bring up annexation at all?
Comments
What does is the madness about not drilling for our own gas in places like Lancashire or Cambo so we are compelled to rely upon imports instead.
It's not the GOP of Mitt Romney and John McCain any more. His base doesn't care.
We shall see how this particular episode plays out.
Good chatting all. Lunch beckons.
Like Ebbw Vale.
We have basically got to the threat of thermonuclear war over whose flag flies over Tredegar.
Polls say 85% of Americans are appalled by Putin's invasion. The other 15% are probably too zonked on Fentanyl to care
That's not a great base for a Putin-lovin' Epstein-huggin' weirdo with orange hair to win the nomination, when the Republicans surely know they have a much better chance of actually seizing the White House with a more sensible candidate
I later posted why I thought there is a very good chance they will win.
Not by a moderate. Not a chance.
Scotland had a referendum in 2014 where they voted to remain part of the UK..
Heck the fact the SNP has total control over Scottish politics comes down to the fact that the SNP have managed to consolidate almost all of the 45% of voters who voted for independence into a single voting block.
Starmer down to 6.6 for next PM, Sunak out to 4.
Content to have backed and laid them at longer and shorter odds respectively. Excellent trading bet by Mr. Roberts, I believe, on Sunak at 251 some time ago.
I do, however, think we have given one quite effective campaigner slightly too much attention and one major threat to our east rather too little.
Privately, of course, it turns out that the west had been worried by Putin, and western intelligence on the threat has been pretty good. The state hasn't completely taken its eye off the ball. We had a good few months' notice of the invasion.
As a wider demos, however, we've got our balance of risks slightly wrong.
But democracy, wonderful though it is, is a slow old beast. It takes us years to focus on new things. It's a feature, not a bug. We get there in the end.
He need s new photo-op, STAT!
Just out - Boris Johnson is going to Poland and Estonia tomorrow. Showing solidarity with Nato member states.
https://twitter.com/benrileysmith/status/1498289143138426880
Is he bringing any refugees back on the plane?
They write: “We need to act now and we need to act decisively”
Govt understood to be working on "bespoke" humanitarian package
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/world-europe-60542877
The West has acted badly at times. Russia is acting badly now. But that doesn’t show causation. The flaw in your argument is the sentence, “And now Russia wants a go.” You imply that Russia has only now started copying the bad behaviour it has witnessed, whereas Russian imperialism has been going on for decades or indeed centuries. The annexation of Crimea, the invasion of Georgia, troops to Transnistria, the invasion of Afghanistan, actions in Hungary and Czechoslovakia, wars against Finland, the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact… Russia has long “want[ed] a go” and indeed had a go.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UE2wKSFu_JY
If we want to not rely on foreign energy it needs to be multi-pronged.
That means both increased domestic supply, and lower domestic demand.
It needs more nuclear, renewables, and drilling.
Less flying, driving and thermostats turned down. Folk need to be wearing jumpers in the living room.
All of this and more. And we'd still need to import far into the future.
None of which makes it Greta's fault in the slightest. Which I realise isn't what you were arguing. But was where I started.
The one way someone moderate* wins is to outflank him by portraying him as a loser and that they are someone who can beat the Democrats.
If there's one thing GOP voters love, it's beating Democrats, and that's not changed.
* Moderate by US standards. There is nobody moderate by UK standards.
I don’t believe it’s fear of covid because he would have his advisers all tested before they came anywhere near him.
I am leaning towards paranoia/security being the reason. After all, Hitler was almost killed with a briefcase under a table. Second best guess, he actually thinks it makes him look strong rather than very silly.
https://twitter.com/shadsy/status/1498288936191471624
@Richard_Tyndall is 100% right we need hydrocarbons to get us through the transition to clean energy and we should be developing our own instead of importing it from Putin and Sheiks.
The loony elements of the Green movement oppose any and all exploration and extraction of domestic hydrocarbons. That does play into the hands of the likes of Putin who simply ignore those loons and do as they please.
Just not much point arguing with someone on that basis.
This could be from down The Barras at any time in the last 50 years.
The Russian numbers offer an example of abnormal neatness. In August 2021 daily death tallies went no lower than 746 and no higher than 799. Russia’s invariant numbers continued into the first week of September, ranging from 792 to 799. A back-of-the-envelope calculation shows that such a low-variation week would occur by chance once every 2,747 years.
https://www.economist.com/graphic-detail/2022/02/25/are-some-countries-faking-their-covid-19-death-counts
NEW THREAD
Then again, perhaps he's just on an athletic programme.
Will be interesting to see if that changes.