The fact that the Polish Fulcrums have to go to Ukraine via the US at Ramstein underlines of how the US calls the shots in the NATO "alliance" and how little freedom of action European countries have within it.
Take back control but not that sort of control. That's the wrong sort and we don't want it.
Yes? I've never understood why people supposedly cannot take different views on different alliances/organisations. It's like when people say it makes no sense to support Sindy and want to be in the EU, when it is perfectly possible someone might be in favour of one union over the other. Or in the EU context, that you might want to take back control in one area but not another. There's nothing unusual or illogical about people taking different stances like that.
Yup. I will defend to great lengths the consistency in me wanting out of the EU we left but being a strong supporter of NATO. It’s to do with the need for consensus, and if I’m honest our relative influence. Same reason I can also defend having supported remaining in an old variant of the EU, when consensus was the rule.
There is no place for consensus in NATO and the UK has, at best, marginal influence. It's simply an organ for implementing US foreign policy. European countries tag along because they believe the loss in strategic independence is worth it because they don't have to pay for their own security.
Name a single thing NATO is doing or has ever done with which the then U.K. Government disagreed.
Edit - And yes, that’s also true of US policy in Europe. It’s fine because there’s no division.
It will be so funny if Melenchon scrapes into the runoff.
Still looks like a Macron v Le Pen runoff but Melenchon making a late rally with the left getting behind him.
However the polls show Macron would trounce Melenchon in any runoff, even more than he would beat Zemmour
Macron is home and dry
Ironically Le Pen now runs him closest in runoff polls
Yes, well, the field is just awful. Pecresse has triangulated herself into a corner, Melanchon is a trotskyist trouble-maker, Zemmour is a near-fascist poseur. there is a scattering of candidates with no hope whatsoever, and then there's Le Pen, who is familiar enough to appear almost mainstream. If I was French I'd vote Macron, simply to keep everyone else out.
It is a terrible field. On the other hand, given where Macron has placed himself, and the amount of the political mainstream that he therefore cuts off from light and water, where is the political position that a rival can occupy with a hope of being competitive against him?
I forgot to mention the Stalinist and the chap who thinks the Stalinist is a milk-sop .
I'd have thought a centre-right candidate would have had a good chance - take on Macron from the start as "the sensible alternative", get lots of business backing and anyone who's disgruntled, ignore the far right and in the end they vote for you as the anti-Macron, and the left doesn't rally behind him because you're not scary. But Pecresse felt she had to move right to overtake Le Pen, and if you're right wing then you may as well vote for the real thing.
Appears that Pecresse was never really ready for prime time. Somewhat like Baerbock in Germany, who at one point last year appeared well on her way to becoming next Chancellor. Until she laid an egg (more than one) on the campaign trail. And ended up eating Scholz's dust.
The fact that the Polish Fulcrums have to go to Ukraine via the US at Ramstein underlines of how the US calls the shots in the NATO "alliance" and how little freedom of action European countries have within it.
Take back control but not that sort of control. That's the wrong sort and we don't want it.
Yes? I've never understood why people supposedly cannot take different views on different alliances/organisations. It's like when people say it makes no sense to support Sindy and want to be in the EU, when it is perfectly possible someone might be in favour of one union over the other. Or in the EU context, that you might want to take back control in one area but not another. There's nothing unusual or illogical about people taking different stances like that.
Yup. I will defend to great lengths the consistency in me wanting out of the EU we left but being a strong supporter of NATO. It’s to do with the need for consensus, and if I’m honest our relative influence. Same reason I can also defend having supported remaining in an old variant of the EU, when consensus was the rule.
There is no place for consensus in NATO and the UK has, at best, marginal influence. It's simply an organ for implementing US foreign policy. European countries tag along because they believe the loss in strategic independence is worth it because they don't have to pay for their own security.
No it isn't. It is a vehicle for defending western European security.
Even if Trump was elected POTUS again in 2024 and took the US out of NATO, NATO would still continue on that basis, especially given the more aggressive and expansionist Russian leadership
https://twitter.com/BBCWillVernon/status/1501288271434842113 "Here in Moscow, several large Russian supermarkets are limiting the number of basic goods people can buy at one time. In one shop I saw this notice stating: 'Only one 5kg bag of sugar per person'. The government says this is to limit black market dealing and inflation."
From autocratic middle income country to this in 2 weeks. Kind of impressive.
Yes, and imagine it in 4 weeks, 8, then 16. Total collapse and barter economy
Quite whether they blame Putin or the West is anyone's guess, I am not entirely sure we are winning the hearts and minds of Russia's civilian population which if we want to effect political change is a consideration.
From her career as a TOEFL teacher my wife is in contact with a lot of Russian former students now living both in and outside of Russia. None of them or their families believe in Putin’s propaganda. They all think the war is wrong and that any suffering they may experience will be Putin’s fault.
It will be so funny if Melenchon scrapes into the runoff.
Still looks like a Macron v Le Pen runoff but Melenchon making a late rally with the left getting behind him.
However the polls show Macron would trounce Melenchon in any runoff, even more than he would beat Zemmour
Polls are giving Macron war bounce, the actual vote may not, polling still a long way off, so what are you calling late rally? The election hasn’t really got going yet. This can get very tight for Macron regardless his opponent, because it won’t be a left or right opponent, it will be a strong nationalist, eurosceptic opponent in either Le Pen or Melenchon, armed with what they didn’t have last time, they know his true agenda, that means he won’t get a lot of abstensions in his favour this time, his agenda brought from left to right together with yellow shirts on. I wouldn’t rule out a Macron loss at this stage once it gets down to real issues and what voters on the ground want.
No chance the French will vote for any Putin apologist . The candidate that could have given him problems was Pécresse before her campaign hit the buffers .
I looked for Melenchon, Putin apologist stuff Nico, there’s not a lot of it about. You know he’s of the left, but do you know him as more Nationalist than Macron, not just as financially illiterate as Le Pen as promising early retirement without a clue how to pay for it, but also just as at home with Le Pens “close the door, let’s be at home” slogan. There’s a lot a life in this French election once it starts. My money is still on Macron to just hang on, but this is no slam dunk.
The fact that the Polish Fulcrums have to go to Ukraine via the US at Ramstein underlines of how the US calls the shots in the NATO "alliance" and how little freedom of action European countries have within it.
Take back control but not that sort of control. That's the wrong sort and we don't want it.
Yes? I've never understood why people supposedly cannot take different views on different alliances/organisations. It's like when people say it makes no sense to support Sindy and want to be in the EU, when it is perfectly possible someone might be in favour of one union over the other. Or in the EU context, that you might want to take back control in one area but not another. There's nothing unusual or illogical about people taking different stances like that.
Yup. I will defend to great lengths the consistency in me wanting out of the EU we left but being a strong supporter of NATO. It’s to do with the need for consensus, and if I’m honest our relative influence. Same reason I can also defend having supported remaining in an old variant of the EU, when consensus was the rule.
There is no place for consensus in NATO and the UK has, at best, marginal influence. It's simply an organ for implementing US foreign policy. European countries tag along because they believe the loss in strategic independence is worth it because they don't have to pay for their own security.
Name a single thing NATO is doing or has ever done with which the then U.K. Government disagreed.
Edit - And yes, that’s also true of US policy in Europe. It’s fine because there’s no division.
Formed the NATO AEW&C force in the 80s. The UK believed it was too expensive and refused to participate. The Nimrod AEW2 fiasco and E-3 purchase then ensued with the UK E-3s eventually put under the control of the NATO structure that the UK had initially opposed.
It's not an issue now of course because the tories currently have us on an AEW&C 'capability gap'.
Plot twist!! Washington indicates it wasn't pre-consulted on Poland's decision to transfer jets...
Victoria Nuland, State Department Undersecretary, just told Senate cmtte hearing: "To my knowledge, it wasn't pre-consulted with us that they planned to give these planes to us."
Sky News is suggesting that the US is going cool on the whole idea of providing or in this case just enabling air reinforcements to Ukraine. Logistical difficulties of providing Poland with replacements promised to Taiwan. Worried that it would be seen as escalation. A no fly zone by the back door. etc etc
FFS
I disagree. This has to be done very delicately. We do edge close to outright confrontation, which means outright war
Clearly the US has been intimidated by Putin's threats of escalation, such that it's prepared to allow what remains of the Ukrainian air force to wither on the vine rather than enable the supply of even just 20 replacement fighter jets. Putin will only be emboldened to go further. Threats work.
"Clearly the US has been intimidated by Putin's threats of escalation"
Perhaps clear to you, but sounds like horseshit to me.
And perhaps you think that possible nuke blackmail by Putin was NOT thought of previously by White House, Pentagon and Foggy Bottom?
I'll leave you to mess around with horseshit and just address your points.
Whether the US has been intimidated by Putin's recent threats or had been intimidated from a point well in advance of the invasion kicking off isn't really the point. It's clearly a weak response regardless. The danger is more that Putin himself will conclude that the equivocation is in response to his threats and that they are working.
What worries me too is that it blurs what seemed previously to be a well defined red line. Supply of logistics to Ukraine would go ahead, the red line being to go beyond that and involve armed personnel from NATO countries directly. Now it becomes apparent that the supply of logistics too can be compromised, so the red line, wherever it is, is located elsewhere.
Let's just hope that Putin knows where the NATO red line is. At the moment, it's not all that clear to me where it is, and whether it's fixed or not. And if Putin miscalculates, and having been emboldened oversteps it, that's when things get really frightening.
Has someone actually said the US isn’t going the jet thing? Because last I saw there was a fair bit of support for it over there and I haven’t seen anyone say no.
It's gonna happen. That's my fearless prediction.
Here is Politico's take, updated couple hours ago:
I thought fracking in the UK had been ruled out on geological grounds?
What time does the PB Geology team clock-on, it'd be good to have an informed view on this.
It's not ruled out... however, it's not clear how economic it is.
Let's just say that you can extract natural gas for around $12/mmbtu from Lancashire.
That'd be great now, because the landed cost of LNG in the UK is going to be north of $30/mmbtu. But what if the price of gas comes down to $8?
Right now, the UK fracking industry need two things:
(1) regulatory support (i.e. lifting the ban on fracking) (2) tax incentives to encourage UK power generators to enter into long term supply contracts
The second is essential: because if you are selling that gas on the spot market, then the price risk is too much for an energy company to bear. (Don't forget that the oil & gas company is taking geological, engineering and political risk!)
I would ask a different question. If we end up guaranteeing a price for nuclear and for fracking for (legitimate) reasons of any energy security, is anyone on the business side taking risk anymore? If not, then it feels like a case where a Government concession or licensed monopoly is the answer, with the return based on the bidding process to run it.
I'm going to pass over nuclear (where the subsidies involved are astronomical).
Around the world, there are lots and lots of LNG projects. Those projects get funded because the operator (Total, Shell, Exxon, etc.) secures long-term supply contracts to utilities. So, Papua New Guinea LNG - an Exxon project - was cornerstoned by two massive supply contracts, one with Tepco in Japan and one with Kepco in Korea.
In the UK, our generators have shied away from long-term energy supply contracts (except for some Norwegian gas).
Why?
Because over the last decade (until mid 2021), generators that bought on long-term contracts ended up paying more for gas than those who bought it on the spot market. (Indeed, Calon Energy went bust in the UK because they committed to long-term gas supply contracts that meant that they were unable to generate electricity profitably, as they were paying more for their gas than competitors who bought spot.)
We need to change that mentality. So, I wouldn't guarantee a price for UK produced natural gas, but why not instead offer tax advantages to firms that enter into long-term politically secure natural gas contracts?
The fact that the Polish Fulcrums have to go to Ukraine via the US at Ramstein underlines of how the US calls the shots in the NATO "alliance" and how little freedom of action European countries have within it.
Take back control but not that sort of control. That's the wrong sort and we don't want it.
Yes? I've never understood why people supposedly cannot take different views on different alliances/organisations. It's like when people say it makes no sense to support Sindy and want to be in the EU, when it is perfectly possible someone might be in favour of one union over the other. Or in the EU context, that you might want to take back control in one area but not another. There's nothing unusual or illogical about people taking different stances like that.
Yup. I will defend to great lengths the consistency in me wanting out of the EU we left but being a strong supporter of NATO. It’s to do with the need for consensus, and if I’m honest our relative influence. Same reason I can also defend having supported remaining in an old variant of the EU, when consensus was the rule.
There is no place for consensus in NATO and the UK has, at best, marginal influence. It's simply an organ for implementing US foreign policy. European countries tag along because they believe the loss in strategic independence is worth it because they don't have to pay for their own security.
That is utter horseshit
If the USA proposed a pretty radical NATO policy, the one country that might check it, or even stop it, is the UK. Without the UK's support the USA is often more cautious, within and without NATO
We have seen this several times, from Iraq to Syria, if the USA can get at least the UK on board, that's usually enough; If even the UK demurs, that causes Americans to hesitate
Of course we are just an influence, not the leader, bit we ARE influential. This is geopolitics
Interesting. If things ever do get down to negotiations divisions in Ukraine could be awkward
BBC: Ukraine's ruling Servant of the People party is proposing new security guarantees to protect its sovereignty.
"Nato is not ready to accept Ukraine for at least the next 15 years, and it has made this clear," a statement reads.
The party calls therefore for "a concrete agreement that can guarantee Ukraine's full security until Nato is ready to accept us".
The US and Turkey, as well as Ukraine's neighbours, are named as possible "guarantor states" that could take specific political, economic and military steps to protect Ukraine.
But the party says Russia too would need to sign on to the guarantees and "legally state that it recognises Ukrainian statehood".
"We will not even theoretically consider the possibility of reviewing or abandoning any pieces of our territory. It is unacceptable. Our Ukraine [includes] Donetsk, Luhansk and Crimea."
Not sure that pseudo-NATO in place of actual NATO (which they can see they won't get) works for Russia whilst not getting to keep its previous landgrabs.
I thought fracking in the UK had been ruled out on geological grounds?
What time does the PB Geology team clock-on, it'd be good to have an informed view on this.
Reality is bitting as we need to transition to net zero, but ensure we are self reliant during the transition including new oil and gas production
For those who object they need to explain and justify impoverishing our citizens when a compromise is available and when others will continue and send their product to us anyway
This is another consequence of this war
And, moreover, when we now learn that the absurd UK anti-fracking campaign was funded by Russia
Russia has funded anti-fracking groups across Europe, and has successfully got it banned in most of the continent.
It's one of those minor covert acts that I have always regarded as incredibly malicious.
I had no idea about this.
Should have been reading the Guardian on 19th June 2014:
"Russia 'secretly working with environmentalists to oppose fracking' Nato chief, Anders Fogh Rasmussen, says Moscow mounting disinformation campaign to maintain reliance on Russian gas"
The fact that the Polish Fulcrums have to go to Ukraine via the US at Ramstein underlines of how the US calls the shots in the NATO "alliance" and how little freedom of action European countries have within it.
Take back control but not that sort of control. That's the wrong sort and we don't want it.
Yes? I've never understood why people supposedly cannot take different views on different alliances/organisations. It's like when people say it makes no sense to support Sindy and want to be in the EU, when it is perfectly possible someone might be in favour of one union over the other. Or in the EU context, that you might want to take back control in one area but not another. There's nothing unusual or illogical about people taking different stances like that.
Yup. I will defend to great lengths the consistency in me wanting out of the EU we left but being a strong supporter of NATO. It’s to do with the need for consensus, and if I’m honest our relative influence. Same reason I can also defend having supported remaining in an old variant of the EU, when consensus was the rule.
There is no place for consensus in NATO and the UK has, at best, marginal influence. It's simply an organ for implementing US foreign policy. European countries tag along because they believe the loss in strategic independence is worth it because they don't have to pay for their own security.
Name a single thing NATO is doing or has ever done with which the then U.K. Government disagreed.
Edit - And yes, that’s also true of US policy in Europe. It’s fine because there’s no division.
Formed the NATO AEW&C force in the 80s. The UK believed it was too expensive and refused to participate. The Nimrod AEW2 fiasco and E-3 purchase then ensued with the UK E-3s eventually put under the control of the NATO structure that the UK had initially opposed.
It's not an issue now of course because the tories currently have us on an AEW&C 'capability gap'.
“The UK believed it was too expensive and refused to participate”.
Erm…. that sort of makes my point. We made a proper hash of the Nimrod AEW rubbish, but it was our right to do so. We weren’t forced to do or support something we didn’t like.
I thought fracking in the UK had been ruled out on geological grounds?
What time does the PB Geology team clock-on, it'd be good to have an informed view on this.
It's not ruled out... however, it's not clear how economic it is.
Let's just say that you can extract natural gas for around $12/mmbtu from Lancashire.
That'd be great now, because the landed cost of LNG in the UK is going to be north of $30/mmbtu. But what if the price of gas comes down to $8?
Right now, the UK fracking industry need two things:
(1) regulatory support (i.e. lifting the ban on fracking) (2) tax incentives to encourage UK power generators to enter into long term supply contracts
The second is essential: because if you are selling that gas on the spot market, then the price risk is too much for an energy company to bear. (Don't forget that the oil & gas company is taking geological, engineering and political risk!)
I would ask a different question. If we end up guaranteeing a price for nuclear and for fracking for (legitimate) reasons of any energy security, is anyone on the business side taking risk anymore? If not, then it feels like a case where a Government concession or licensed monopoly is the answer, with the return based on the bidding process to run it.
I'm going to pass over nuclear (where the subsidies involved are astronomical).
Around the world, there are lots and lots of LNG projects. Those projects get funded because the operator (Total, Shell, Exxon, etc.) secures long-term supply contracts to utilities. So, Papua New Guinea LNG - an Exxon project - was cornerstoned by two massive supply contracts, one with Tepco in Japan and one with Kepco in Korea.
In the UK, our generators have shied away from long-term energy supply contracts (except for some Norwegian gas).
Why?
Because over the last decade (until mid 2021), generators that bought on long-term contracts ended up paying more for gas than those who bought it on the spot market. (Indeed, Calon Energy went bust in the UK because they committed to long-term gas supply contracts that meant that they were unable to generate electricity profitably, as they were paying more for their gas than competitors who bought spot.)
We need to change that mentality. So, I wouldn't guarantee a price for UK produced natural gas, but why not instead offer tax advantages to firms that enter into long-term politically secure natural gas contracts?
Ok, but then the tax payer is buying out some of their risk. I don’t object, in principle, to using regulation and tax to reshape and improve a market, but my instinct is to say that once Government decides to determine the balance of risk, you might as say you’ll nationalise (though, as I wrote above, I think you achieve that via GoCos or licensing because the knowledge is in industry). It’s clear you know more about it, and I accept I might be wrong, but I don’t like complex rules aimed at shifting markets. I tend to think you either have a proper market or you don’t.
Pentagon nixes Polish plan to give MiG’s to Ukraine via Ramstein:
“departing from a U.S./NATO base in Germany to fly into airspace that is contested with Russia over Ukraine raises serious concerns for the entire NATO alliance…simply not clear there is substantive rationale.”
The fact that the Polish Fulcrums have to go to Ukraine via the US at Ramstein underlines of how the US calls the shots in the NATO "alliance" and how little freedom of action European countries have within it.
Take back control but not that sort of control. That's the wrong sort and we don't want it.
Yes? I've never understood why people supposedly cannot take different views on different alliances/organisations. It's like when people say it makes no sense to support Sindy and want to be in the EU, when it is perfectly possible someone might be in favour of one union over the other. Or in the EU context, that you might want to take back control in one area but not another. There's nothing unusual or illogical about people taking different stances like that.
Yup. I will defend to great lengths the consistency in me wanting out of the EU we left but being a strong supporter of NATO. It’s to do with the need for consensus, and if I’m honest our relative influence. Same reason I can also defend having supported remaining in an old variant of the EU, when consensus was the rule.
There is no place for consensus in NATO and the UK has, at best, marginal influence. It's simply an organ for implementing US foreign policy. European countries tag along because they believe the loss in strategic independence is worth it because they don't have to pay for their own security.
Name a single thing NATO is doing or has ever done with which the then U.K. Government disagreed.
Edit - And yes, that’s also true of US policy in Europe. It’s fine because there’s no division.
Formed the NATO AEW&C force in the 80s. The UK believed it was too expensive and refused to participate. The Nimrod AEW2 fiasco and E-3 purchase then ensued with the UK E-3s eventually put under the control of the NATO structure that the UK had initially opposed.
It's not an issue now of course because the tories currently have us on an AEW&C 'capability gap'.
“The UK believed it was too expensive and refused to participate”.
Erm…. that sort of makes my point. We made a proper hash of the Nimrod AEW rubbish, but it was our right to do so. We weren’t forced to do or support something we didn’t like.
They were in the end... Specifically the UK didn't want it to go ahead at all because they, rightly as it turned out, believed it would place the E-3 in a position of absolute market dominance. Of course, it was all irrelevant in the end as AEW2 didn't work.
Russia has suspended the sale of foreign currencies until September 9, the central bank said Wednesday. Between March 9 and September 9 "the banks will not be able to sell foreign currencies to citizens." (AFP) All ruble convertibility is over. Putin has destroyed the ruble.
The fact that the Polish Fulcrums have to go to Ukraine via the US at Ramstein underlines of how the US calls the shots in the NATO "alliance" and how little freedom of action European countries have within it.
Take back control but not that sort of control. That's the wrong sort and we don't want it.
Yes? I've never understood why people supposedly cannot take different views on different alliances/organisations. It's like when people say it makes no sense to support Sindy and want to be in the EU, when it is perfectly possible someone might be in favour of one union over the other. Or in the EU context, that you might want to take back control in one area but not another. There's nothing unusual or illogical about people taking different stances like that.
Yup. I will defend to great lengths the consistency in me wanting out of the EU we left but being a strong supporter of NATO. It’s to do with the need for consensus, and if I’m honest our relative influence. Same reason I can also defend having supported remaining in an old variant of the EU, when consensus was the rule.
There is no place for consensus in NATO and the UK has, at best, marginal influence. It's simply an organ for implementing US foreign policy. European countries tag along because they believe the loss in strategic independence is worth it because they don't have to pay for their own security.
Name a single thing NATO is doing or has ever done with which the then U.K. Government disagreed.
Edit - And yes, that’s also true of US policy in Europe. It’s fine because there’s no division.
Formed the NATO AEW&C force in the 80s. The UK believed it was too expensive and refused to participate. The Nimrod AEW2 fiasco and E-3 purchase then ensued with the UK E-3s eventually put under the control of the NATO structure that the UK had initially opposed.
It's not an issue now of course because the tories currently have us on an AEW&C 'capability gap'.
“The UK believed it was too expensive and refused to participate”.
Erm…. that sort of makes my point. We made a proper hash of the Nimrod AEW rubbish, but it was our right to do so. We weren’t forced to do or support something we didn’t like.
They were in the end... Specifically the UK didn't want it to go ahead at all because they, rightly as it turned out, believed it would place the E-3 in a position of absolute market dominance. Of course, it was all irrelevant in the end as AEW2 didn't work.
As an aside, trust us to to still be pushing the Comet airframe 20 years after we lost the market…
Plot twist!! Washington indicates it wasn't pre-consulted on Poland's decision to transfer jets...
Victoria Nuland, State Department Undersecretary, just told Senate cmtte hearing: "To my knowledge, it wasn't pre-consulted with us that they planned to give these planes to us."
Sky News is suggesting that the US is going cool on the whole idea of providing or in this case just enabling air reinforcements to Ukraine. Logistical difficulties of providing Poland with replacements promised to Taiwan. Worried that it would be seen as escalation. A no fly zone by the back door. etc etc
FFS
I disagree. This has to be done very delicately. We do edge close to outright confrontation, which means outright war
Clearly the US has been intimidated by Putin's threats of escalation, such that it's prepared to allow what remains of the Ukrainian air force to wither on the vine rather than enable the supply of even just 20 replacement fighter jets. Putin will only be emboldened to go further. Threats work.
"Clearly the US has been intimidated by Putin's threats of escalation"
Perhaps clear to you, but sounds like horseshit to me.
And perhaps you think that possible nuke blackmail by Putin was NOT thought of previously by White House, Pentagon and Foggy Bottom?
I'll leave you to mess around with horseshit and just address your points.
Whether the US has been intimidated by Putin's recent threats or had been intimidated from a point well in advance of the invasion kicking off isn't really the point. It's clearly a weak response regardless. The danger is more that Putin himself will conclude that the equivocation is in response to his threats and that they are working.
What worries me too is that it blurs what seemed previously to be a well defined red line. Supply of logistics to Ukraine would go ahead, the red line being to go beyond that and involve armed personnel from NATO countries directly. Now it becomes apparent that the supply of logistics too can be compromised, so the red line, wherever it is, is located elsewhere.
Let's just hope that Putin knows where the NATO red line is. At the moment, it's not all that clear to me where it is, and whether it's fixed or not. And if Putin miscalculates, and having been emboldened oversteps it, that's when things get really frightening.
Excuse me if I leave the strategy to Biden & etc,. and discount armchair strategists (including me).
"Clearly a weak response"? In your learned opinion - which at moment is worth less than 2-cents. Granted, mine may well be worth even less. Still doesn't make yours the Gold Standard.
So your point is that backing down from supplying those planes could be seen as something other than a weak response. You've got me there. Lost for words.
Russia has suspended the sale of foreign currencies until September 9, the central bank said Wednesday. Between March 9 and September 9 "the banks will not be able to sell foreign currencies to citizens." (AFP) All ruble convertibility is over. Putin has destroyed the ruble.
Interesting. If things ever do get down to negotiations divisions in Ukraine could be awkward
BBC: Ukraine's ruling Servant of the People party is proposing new security guarantees to protect its sovereignty.
"Nato is not ready to accept Ukraine for at least the next 15 years, and it has made this clear," a statement reads.
The party calls therefore for "a concrete agreement that can guarantee Ukraine's full security until Nato is ready to accept us".
The US and Turkey, as well as Ukraine's neighbours, are named as possible "guarantor states" that could take specific political, economic and military steps to protect Ukraine.
But the party says Russia too would need to sign on to the guarantees and "legally state that it recognises Ukrainian statehood".
"We will not even theoretically consider the possibility of reviewing or abandoning any pieces of our territory. It is unacceptable. Our Ukraine [includes] Donetsk, Luhansk and Crimea."
Not sure that pseudo-NATO in place of actual NATO (which they can see they won't get) works for Russia whilst not getting to keep its previous landgrabs.
That's the kind of defensive non-NATO deal that I was suggesting as likely to reassure Russia just enough. The problem is the East and Crimea, and the answer to that, surely, is to revive the Minsk deal that everyone agreed to before, albeit woth gritted teeth - one integral Ukraine, no land grabs by Russia, but substantial regional government so the pro-Russian groups can play at being Governors, run the schools, etc. Ukraine can say "We preserved the nation in one piece and we have a solid defensive guarantee", the Russians avoid having NATO troops or missiles next to them and can buy off their local supporters with nice regional jobs. Worth fighting the war for Putin? Hell no, but the best he'll get without 6 months more war.
The thing is that everyone's dug in on "trigger" issues - NATO, independent republics, Ukraine not existing, neo-Nazis, etc. Avoid the triggers and you get an outcome people can swallow. I know there are some who would rather fight to the last Russian/Ukrainian and "win", but rationally a deal ought to make sense.
Interesting. If things ever do get down to negotiations divisions in Ukraine could be awkward
BBC: Ukraine's ruling Servant of the People party is proposing new security guarantees to protect its sovereignty.
"Nato is not ready to accept Ukraine for at least the next 15 years, and it has made this clear," a statement reads.
The party calls therefore for "a concrete agreement that can guarantee Ukraine's full security until Nato is ready to accept us".
The US and Turkey, as well as Ukraine's neighbours, are named as possible "guarantor states" that could take specific political, economic and military steps to protect Ukraine.
But the party says Russia too would need to sign on to the guarantees and "legally state that it recognises Ukrainian statehood".
"We will not even theoretically consider the possibility of reviewing or abandoning any pieces of our territory. It is unacceptable. Our Ukraine [includes] Donetsk, Luhansk and Crimea."
Not sure that pseudo-NATO in place of actual NATO (which they can see they won't get) works for Russia whilst not getting to keep its previous landgrabs.
That's the kind of defensive non-NATO deal that I was suggesting as likely to reassure Russia just enough. The problem is the East and Crimea, and the answer to that, surely, is to revive the Minsk deal that everyone agreed to before, albeit woth gritted teeth - one integral Ukraine, no land grabs by Russia, but substantial regional government so the pro-Russian groups can play at being Governors, run the schools, etc. Ukraine can say "We preserved the nation in one piece and we have a solid defensive guarantee", the Russians avoid having NATO troops or missiles next to them and can buy off their local supporters with nice regional jobs. Worth fighting the war for Putin? Hell no, but the best he'll get without 6 months more war.
The thing is that everyone's dug in on "trigger" issues - NATO, independent republics, Ukraine not existing, neo-Nazis, etc. Avoid the triggers and you get an outcome people can swallow. I know there are some who would rather fight to the last Russian/Ukrainian and "win", but rationally a deal ought to make sense.
It’s hard for us to understand the emotional side though isn’t it? I certainly don’t.
Awkward analogy alert.
Sticking to the regional point, if Ireland had invaded NI and the compromise was over super-autonomy in NI (but it staying in the UK in theory) such that both parties could say they won, then I could see that working because we’d sort of accept enough of NI wanted to be Irish anyway, and it all feels a bit arms length.
On the other hand if France invaded Kent I’d accept nothing less than full withdrawal.
I simply don’t understand enough about Ukrainian views on the eastern regions (though clearly where are those who feel Russian). Only they know and only they can tell us.
Maybe the solution is what the US and Canada did before Pearl Harbor: lay a very long runway across the border, land the planes at one end with the brakes off and then the next day say “gosh whatever happened to those planes, someone must have nicked them!”
Interesting. If things ever do get down to negotiations divisions in Ukraine could be awkward
BBC: Ukraine's ruling Servant of the People party is proposing new security guarantees to protect its sovereignty.
"Nato is not ready to accept Ukraine for at least the next 15 years, and it has made this clear," a statement reads.
The party calls therefore for "a concrete agreement that can guarantee Ukraine's full security until Nato is ready to accept us".
The US and Turkey, as well as Ukraine's neighbours, are named as possible "guarantor states" that could take specific political, economic and military steps to protect Ukraine.
But the party says Russia too would need to sign on to the guarantees and "legally state that it recognises Ukrainian statehood".
"We will not even theoretically consider the possibility of reviewing or abandoning any pieces of our territory. It is unacceptable. Our Ukraine [includes] Donetsk, Luhansk and Crimea."
Not sure that pseudo-NATO in place of actual NATO (which they can see they won't get) works for Russia whilst not getting to keep its previous landgrabs.
That's the kind of defensive non-NATO deal that I was suggesting as likely to reassure Russia just enough. The problem is the East and Crimea, and the answer to that, surely, is to revive the Minsk deal that everyone agreed to before, albeit woth gritted teeth - one integral Ukraine, no land grabs by Russia, but substantial regional government so the pro-Russian groups can play at being Governors, run the schools, etc. Ukraine can say "We preserved the nation in one piece and we have a solid defensive guarantee", the Russians avoid having NATO troops or missiles next to them and can buy off their local supporters with nice regional jobs. Worth fighting the war for Putin? Hell no, but the best he'll get without 6 months more war.
The thing is that everyone's dug in on "trigger" issues - NATO, independent republics, Ukraine not existing, neo-Nazis, etc. Avoid the triggers and you get an outcome people can swallow. I know there are some who would rather fight to the last Russian/Ukrainian and "win", but rationally a deal ought to make sense.
Yes, given that the alternative might be destruction of all human life, the West should just about be able to accept that. Likewise Ukraine - ending the pure human suffering for them. Putin can, if he is clever, sell that as a win to his people, who are already beginning to question the wisdom of the, er, Special Operation, and who face a dystopia of Depression via sanctions if this war continues (let alone the threat of total war)
Not satisfactory for anyone, but better than any probable alternative
IF- if if if - this goes through, the West must wean itself off reliance - in any form - on Russia or China, and build robust energy, food, tech supplies within its own sphere. We are certainly big and rich enough to do that
Let these hideous dictatorships go fuck themselves. Whatever happens, Putin has doomed Russia to a decade of Deep Cold War at best, maybe several decades, and quasi vassal status under China. His stupid choice
It will be so funny if Melenchon scrapes into the runoff.
Still looks like a Macron v Le Pen runoff but Melenchon making a late rally with the left getting behind him.
However the polls show Macron would trounce Melenchon in any runoff, even more than he would beat Zemmour
Macron is home and dry
Ironically Le Pen now runs him closest in runoff polls
Yes, well, the field is just awful. Pecresse has triangulated herself into a corner, Melanchon is a trotskyist trouble-maker, Zemmour is a near-fascist poseur. there is a scattering of candidates with no hope whatsoever, and then there's Le Pen, who is familiar enough to appear almost mainstream. If I was French I'd vote Macron, simply to keep everyone else out.
It is a terrible field. On the other hand, given where Macron has placed himself, and the amount of the political mainstream that he therefore cuts off from light and water, where is the political position that a rival can occupy with a hope of being competitive against him?
That’s much better thinking than many on here tonight Stu. They feel Macron is best attacked from centre right? Or they just want the final two to be the two most moderate candidates so they can sleep at night not fretting of the result.
Political betting isn’t about coalescing around what you want, but what you analyse and predict could happen, is happening. Nor is politics about left v right. When 2 of Melenchon, Le Pen, Zemour are no longer in the race, where do their first round votes go? Last time Melenchon and Fillon votes went largely to abstention or Macron in second round, I feel it’s a huge mistake to assume they will this time as well as acknowledging the Fillon/Pecrese figure is smaller because Macron has gobbled it up early this time.
In the French election I analyse and predict a Nationalist, anti immigration, anti EU candidate uniting and energising the yellow jackets, spouting economically illiterate stuff about fairer tax system and early retirement to swell the numbers, mopping up mountain of abstentions that benifited Macron last time, pushing Macron close. That could be either Le Pen or Melenchon. Why? Because that may be where France is right now. The best of, perhaps I mean the worst of Zemmour, Le Pen and Melechon combined, attracting added Nationalists, anti immigration, fantasy financial giveaway votes from across the political spectrum.
I suggest caution to have Macron hot favourite candidate when he is not standing in Macron territory.
Real Covid-19 cases in New Zealand now probably exceed half a million and could be approaching a million due to massive under-reporting, a public health expert says.
Is it okay because no one in Europe gives a shit if they get hit by stray missils let alone go to war over Rammstein blown up (I’m joking by the way, i have German heritage on my Dad’s side)
I suppose, as Putin, in his infinite strategic wisdom, has left the West of Ukraine untouched, anything with a Ukraine flag recently superglued on can launch from there? That’s What he wants 🤔
PS video NSFW, views of IT lessons at one point in there
Maybe the solution is what the US and Canada did before Pearl Harbor: lay a very long runway across the border, land the planes at one end with the brakes off and then the next day say “gosh whatever happened to those planes, someone must have nicked them!”
Putin - they are miggin me off. They are taking me from a propa mig.
🤭 if Putin is reading PB tonight he will know the jets are in Ramstein
Real Covid-19 cases in New Zealand now probably exceed half a million and could be approaching a million due to massive under-reporting, a public health expert says.
Interesting. If things ever do get down to negotiations divisions in Ukraine could be awkward
BBC: Ukraine's ruling Servant of the People party is proposing new security guarantees to protect its sovereignty.
"Nato is not ready to accept Ukraine for at least the next 15 years, and it has made this clear," a statement reads.
The party calls therefore for "a concrete agreement that can guarantee Ukraine's full security until Nato is ready to accept us".
The US and Turkey, as well as Ukraine's neighbours, are named as possible "guarantor states" that could take specific political, economic and military steps to protect Ukraine.
But the party says Russia too would need to sign on to the guarantees and "legally state that it recognises Ukrainian statehood".
"We will not even theoretically consider the possibility of reviewing or abandoning any pieces of our territory. It is unacceptable. Our Ukraine [includes] Donetsk, Luhansk and Crimea."
Not sure that pseudo-NATO in place of actual NATO (which they can see they won't get) works for Russia whilst not getting to keep its previous landgrabs.
That's the kind of defensive non-NATO deal that I was suggesting as likely to reassure Russia just enough. The problem is the East and Crimea, and the answer to that, surely, is to revive the Minsk deal that everyone agreed to before, albeit woth gritted teeth - one integral Ukraine, no land grabs by Russia, but substantial regional government so the pro-Russian groups can play at being Governors, run the schools, etc. Ukraine can say "We preserved the nation in one piece and we have a solid defensive guarantee", the Russians avoid having NATO troops or missiles next to them and can buy off their local supporters with nice regional jobs. Worth fighting the war for Putin? Hell no, but the best he'll get without 6 months more war.
The thing is that everyone's dug in on "trigger" issues - NATO, independent republics, Ukraine not existing, neo-Nazis, etc. Avoid the triggers and you get an outcome people can swallow. I know there are some who would rather fight to the last Russian/Ukrainian and "win", but rationally a deal ought to make sense.
Yes, given that the alternative might be destruction of all human life, the West should just about be able to accept that. Likewise Ukraine - ending the pure human suffering for them. Putin can, if he is clever, sell that as a win to his people, who are already beginning to question the wisdom of the, er, Special Operation, and who face a dystopia of Depression via sanctions if this war continues (let alone the threat of total war)
Not satisfactory for anyone, but better than any probable alternative
IF- if if if - this goes through, the West must wean itself off reliance - in any form - on Russia or China, and build robust energy, food, tech supplies within its own sphere. We are certainly big and rich enough to do that
Let these hideous dictatorships go fuck themselves. Whatever happens, Putin has doomed Russia to a decade of Deep Cold War at best, maybe several decades, and quasi vassal status under China. His stupid choice
Does this mean that the decline and fall of the West is off then?
Plot twist!! Washington indicates it wasn't pre-consulted on Poland's decision to transfer jets...
Victoria Nuland, State Department Undersecretary, just told Senate cmtte hearing: "To my knowledge, it wasn't pre-consulted with us that they planned to give these planes to us."
Sky News is suggesting that the US is going cool on the whole idea of providing or in this case just enabling air reinforcements to Ukraine. Logistical difficulties of providing Poland with replacements promised to Taiwan. Worried that it would be seen as escalation. A no fly zone by the back door. etc etc
FFS
I disagree. This has to be done very delicately. We do edge close to outright confrontation, which means outright war
Clearly the US has been intimidated by Putin's threats of escalation, such that it's prepared to allow what remains of the Ukrainian air force to wither on the vine rather than enable the supply of even just 20 replacement fighter jets. Putin will only be emboldened to go further. Threats work.
"Clearly the US has been intimidated by Putin's threats of escalation"
Perhaps clear to you, but sounds like horseshit to me.
And perhaps you think that possible nuke blackmail by Putin was NOT thought of previously by White House, Pentagon and Foggy Bottom?
I'll leave you to mess around with horseshit and just address your points.
Whether the US has been intimidated by Putin's recent threats or had been intimidated from a point well in advance of the invasion kicking off isn't really the point. It's clearly a weak response regardless. The danger is more that Putin himself will conclude that the equivocation is in response to his threats and that they are working.
What worries me too is that it blurs what seemed previously to be a well defined red line. Supply of logistics to Ukraine would go ahead, the red line being to go beyond that and involve armed personnel from NATO countries directly. Now it becomes apparent that the supply of logistics too can be compromised, so the red line, wherever it is, is located elsewhere.
Let's just hope that Putin knows where the NATO red line is. At the moment, it's not all that clear to me where it is, and whether it's fixed or not. And if Putin miscalculates, and having been emboldened oversteps it, that's when things get really frightening.
Excuse me if I leave the strategy to Biden & etc,. and discount armchair strategists (including me).
"Clearly a weak response"? In your learned opinion - which at moment is worth less than 2-cents. Granted, mine may well be worth even less. Still doesn't make yours the Gold Standard.
So your point is that backing down from supplying those planes could be seen as something other than a weak response. You've got me there. Lost for words.
The planes will be supplied, that's what I'm saying, or rather fearlessly forecasting.
Ways and means are not my ken, nor yours for that matter.
Real Covid-19 cases in New Zealand now probably exceed half a million and could be approaching a million due to massive under-reporting, a public health expert says.
At this rate, everybody in NZ will have had in a few weeks.
Yet of those just 756 in hospital ie less than 0.1% as the vast majority of New Zealanders are vaccinated
Putting aside you are making the classic mistake of using current hospital numbers when we all know there a couple week delay, that was my point....you can't stop Omicron, but it isn't necessarily a bad thing / too much to be worried about if everybody is vaccinated.
Plot twist!! Washington indicates it wasn't pre-consulted on Poland's decision to transfer jets...
Victoria Nuland, State Department Undersecretary, just told Senate cmtte hearing: "To my knowledge, it wasn't pre-consulted with us that they planned to give these planes to us."
Sky News is suggesting that the US is going cool on the whole idea of providing or in this case just enabling air reinforcements to Ukraine. Logistical difficulties of providing Poland with replacements promised to Taiwan. Worried that it would be seen as escalation. A no fly zone by the back door. etc etc
FFS
I disagree. This has to be done very delicately. We do edge close to outright confrontation, which means outright war
Clearly the US has been intimidated by Putin's threats of escalation, such that it's prepared to allow what remains of the Ukrainian air force to wither on the vine rather than enable the supply of even just 20 replacement fighter jets. Putin will only be emboldened to go further. Threats work.
"Clearly the US has been intimidated by Putin's threats of escalation"
Perhaps clear to you, but sounds like horseshit to me.
And perhaps you think that possible nuke blackmail by Putin was NOT thought of previously by White House, Pentagon and Foggy Bottom?
I'll leave you to mess around with horseshit and just address your points.
Whether the US has been intimidated by Putin's recent threats or had been intimidated from a point well in advance of the invasion kicking off isn't really the point. It's clearly a weak response regardless. The danger is more that Putin himself will conclude that the equivocation is in response to his threats and that they are working.
What worries me too is that it blurs what seemed previously to be a well defined red line. Supply of logistics to Ukraine would go ahead, the red line being to go beyond that and involve armed personnel from NATO countries directly. Now it becomes apparent that the supply of logistics too can be compromised, so the red line, wherever it is, is located elsewhere.
Let's just hope that Putin knows where the NATO red line is. At the moment, it's not all that clear to me where it is, and whether it's fixed or not. And if Putin miscalculates, and having been emboldened oversteps it, that's when things get really frightening.
Excuse me if I leave the strategy to Biden & etc,. and discount armchair strategists (including me).
"Clearly a weak response"? In your learned opinion - which at moment is worth less than 2-cents. Granted, mine may well be worth even less. Still doesn't make yours the Gold Standard.
So your point is that backing down from supplying those planes could be seen as something other than a weak response. You've got me there. Lost for words.
The planes will be supplied, that's what I'm saying, or rather fearlessly forecasting.
Ways and means are not my ken, nor yours for that matter.
On nuclear weapons, if Putin would use them in a war with NATO to avoid a humiliating conventional defeat, why would he be any less likely to use them to avoid an even more humiliating defeat in Ukraine? This is the kind of question that is no doubt keeping the US cautious about things like supplying planes.
Interesting. If things ever do get down to negotiations divisions in Ukraine could be awkward
BBC: Ukraine's ruling Servant of the People party is proposing new security guarantees to protect its sovereignty.
"Nato is not ready to accept Ukraine for at least the next 15 years, and it has made this clear," a statement reads.
The party calls therefore for "a concrete agreement that can guarantee Ukraine's full security until Nato is ready to accept us".
The US and Turkey, as well as Ukraine's neighbours, are named as possible "guarantor states" that could take specific political, economic and military steps to protect Ukraine.
But the party says Russia too would need to sign on to the guarantees and "legally state that it recognises Ukrainian statehood".
"We will not even theoretically consider the possibility of reviewing or abandoning any pieces of our territory. It is unacceptable. Our Ukraine [includes] Donetsk, Luhansk and Crimea."
Not sure that pseudo-NATO in place of actual NATO (which they can see they won't get) works for Russia whilst not getting to keep its previous landgrabs.
Negotiations have to start somewhere. Given Russia’s opening position is Ukraine’s surrender, I think Ukraine’s opening is pretty moderate.
Pentagon nixes Polish plan to give MiG’s to Ukraine via Ramstein:
“departing from a U.S./NATO base in Germany to fly into airspace that is contested with Russia over Ukraine raises serious concerns for the entire NATO alliance…simply not clear there is substantive rationale.”
Plot twist!! Washington indicates it wasn't pre-consulted on Poland's decision to transfer jets...
Victoria Nuland, State Department Undersecretary, just told Senate cmtte hearing: "To my knowledge, it wasn't pre-consulted with us that they planned to give these planes to us."
Sky News is suggesting that the US is going cool on the whole idea of providing or in this case just enabling air reinforcements to Ukraine. Logistical difficulties of providing Poland with replacements promised to Taiwan. Worried that it would be seen as escalation. A no fly zone by the back door. etc etc
FFS
I disagree. This has to be done very delicately. We do edge close to outright confrontation, which means outright war
Clearly the US has been intimidated by Putin's threats of escalation, such that it's prepared to allow what remains of the Ukrainian air force to wither on the vine rather than enable the supply of even just 20 replacement fighter jets. Putin will only be emboldened to go further. Threats work.
"Clearly the US has been intimidated by Putin's threats of escalation"
Perhaps clear to you, but sounds like horseshit to me.
And perhaps you think that possible nuke blackmail by Putin was NOT thought of previously by White House, Pentagon and Foggy Bottom?
I'll leave you to mess around with horseshit and just address your points.
Whether the US has been intimidated by Putin's recent threats or had been intimidated from a point well in advance of the invasion kicking off isn't really the point. It's clearly a weak response regardless. The danger is more that Putin himself will conclude that the equivocation is in response to his threats and that they are working.
What worries me too is that it blurs what seemed previously to be a well defined red line. Supply of logistics to Ukraine would go ahead, the red line being to go beyond that and involve armed personnel from NATO countries directly. Now it becomes apparent that the supply of logistics too can be compromised, so the red line, wherever it is, is located elsewhere.
Let's just hope that Putin knows where the NATO red line is. At the moment, it's not all that clear to me where it is, and whether it's fixed or not. And if Putin miscalculates, and having been emboldened oversteps it, that's when things get really frightening.
Excuse me if I leave the strategy to Biden & etc,. and discount armchair strategists (including me).
"Clearly a weak response"? In your learned opinion - which at moment is worth less than 2-cents. Granted, mine may well be worth even less. Still doesn't make yours the Gold Standard.
So your point is that backing down from supplying those planes could be seen as something other than a weak response. You've got me there. Lost for words.
The planes will be supplied, that's what I'm saying, or rather fearlessly forecasting.
Ways and means are not my ken, nor yours for that matter.
On nuclear weapons, if Putin would use them in a war with NATO to avoid a humiliating conventional defeat, why would he be any less likely to use them to avoid an even more humiliating defeat in Ukraine? This is the kind of question that is no doubt keeping the US cautious about things like supplying planes.
Neither of those pieces seriously look at the current reality of Ukraine having a good chance of halting the Russian attack (the Guardian piece isn’t from yesterday, as it was published elsewhere a week ago).
They are more concerned with how to manage a Ukraine defeat, an approach which I doubt is politically possible right now. The author of the first piece even refers to Ukraine’s fight as ‘an insurgency’, which implies Russia has already defeated them.
The nuclear concern is very real, but I’m not convinced that allowing Ukraine’s devastation and defeat solves it.
Plot twist!! Washington indicates it wasn't pre-consulted on Poland's decision to transfer jets...
Victoria Nuland, State Department Undersecretary, just told Senate cmtte hearing: "To my knowledge, it wasn't pre-consulted with us that they planned to give these planes to us."
Sky News is suggesting that the US is going cool on the whole idea of providing or in this case just enabling air reinforcements to Ukraine. Logistical difficulties of providing Poland with replacements promised to Taiwan. Worried that it would be seen as escalation. A no fly zone by the back door. etc etc
FFS
I disagree. This has to be done very delicately. We do edge close to outright confrontation, which means outright war
Clearly the US has been intimidated by Putin's threats of escalation, such that it's prepared to allow what remains of the Ukrainian air force to wither on the vine rather than enable the supply of even just 20 replacement fighter jets. Putin will only be emboldened to go further. Threats work.
"Clearly the US has been intimidated by Putin's threats of escalation"
Perhaps clear to you, but sounds like horseshit to me.
And perhaps you think that possible nuke blackmail by Putin was NOT thought of previously by White House, Pentagon and Foggy Bottom?
I'll leave you to mess around with horseshit and just address your points.
Whether the US has been intimidated by Putin's recent threats or had been intimidated from a point well in advance of the invasion kicking off isn't really the point. It's clearly a weak response regardless. The danger is more that Putin himself will conclude that the equivocation is in response to his threats and that they are working.
What worries me too is that it blurs what seemed previously to be a well defined red line. Supply of logistics to Ukraine would go ahead, the red line being to go beyond that and involve armed personnel from NATO countries directly. Now it becomes apparent that the supply of logistics too can be compromised, so the red line, wherever it is, is located elsewhere.
Let's just hope that Putin knows where the NATO red line is. At the moment, it's not all that clear to me where it is, and whether it's fixed or not. And if Putin miscalculates, and having been emboldened oversteps it, that's when things get really frightening.
Excuse me if I leave the strategy to Biden & etc,. and discount armchair strategists (including me).
"Clearly a weak response"? In your learned opinion - which at moment is worth less than 2-cents. Granted, mine may well be worth even less. Still doesn't make yours the Gold Standard.
So your point is that backing down from supplying those planes could be seen as something other than a weak response. You've got me there. Lost for words.
The planes will be supplied, that's what I'm saying, or rather fearlessly forecasting.
Ways and means are not my ken, nor yours for that matter.
On nuclear weapons, if Putin would use them in a war with NATO to avoid a humiliating conventional defeat, why would he be any less likely to use them to avoid an even more humiliating defeat in Ukraine? This is the kind of question that is no doubt keeping the US cautious about things like supplying planes.
Neither of those pieces seriously look at the current reality of Ukraine having a good chance of halting the Russian attack (the Guardian piece isn’t from yesterday, as it was published elsewhere a week ago).
They are more concerned with how to manage a Ukraine defeat, an approach which I doubt is politically possible right now. The author of the first piece even refers to Ukraine’s fight as ‘an insurgency’, which implies Russia has already defeated them.
The nuclear concern is very real, but I’m not convinced that allowing Ukraine’s devastation and defeat solves it.
The first article is clearly making predictions about the future eg "there are really only two paths toward ending the war: one, continued escalation, potentially across the nuclear threshold; the other, a bitter peace imposed on a defeated Ukraine that will be extremely hard for the United States and many European allies to swallow." It nowhere implies that Russia has already defeated Ukraine, which would be a bizarre thing to say.
I think the prediction is too pessimistic - there has to be a chance of a negotiated settlement. I think maybe the calculation (eg about supplying planes) is to give the Ukrainians enough support to get Russia to negotiate, but not enough for Ukraine to think they might actually defeat Russia.
Plot twist!! Washington indicates it wasn't pre-consulted on Poland's decision to transfer jets...
Victoria Nuland, State Department Undersecretary, just told Senate cmtte hearing: "To my knowledge, it wasn't pre-consulted with us that they planned to give these planes to us."
Sky News is suggesting that the US is going cool on the whole idea of providing or in this case just enabling air reinforcements to Ukraine. Logistical difficulties of providing Poland with replacements promised to Taiwan. Worried that it would be seen as escalation. A no fly zone by the back door. etc etc
FFS
I disagree. This has to be done very delicately. We do edge close to outright confrontation, which means outright war
Clearly the US has been intimidated by Putin's threats of escalation, such that it's prepared to allow what remains of the Ukrainian air force to wither on the vine rather than enable the supply of even just 20 replacement fighter jets. Putin will only be emboldened to go further. Threats work.
"Clearly the US has been intimidated by Putin's threats of escalation"
Perhaps clear to you, but sounds like horseshit to me.
And perhaps you think that possible nuke blackmail by Putin was NOT thought of previously by White House, Pentagon and Foggy Bottom?
I'll leave you to mess around with horseshit and just address your points.
Whether the US has been intimidated by Putin's recent threats or had been intimidated from a point well in advance of the invasion kicking off isn't really the point. It's clearly a weak response regardless. The danger is more that Putin himself will conclude that the equivocation is in response to his threats and that they are working.
What worries me too is that it blurs what seemed previously to be a well defined red line. Supply of logistics to Ukraine would go ahead, the red line being to go beyond that and involve armed personnel from NATO countries directly. Now it becomes apparent that the supply of logistics too can be compromised, so the red line, wherever it is, is located elsewhere.
Let's just hope that Putin knows where the NATO red line is. At the moment, it's not all that clear to me where it is, and whether it's fixed or not. And if Putin miscalculates, and having been emboldened oversteps it, that's when things get really frightening.
Excuse me if I leave the strategy to Biden & etc,. and discount armchair strategists (including me).
"Clearly a weak response"? In your learned opinion - which at moment is worth less than 2-cents. Granted, mine may well be worth even less. Still doesn't make yours the Gold Standard.
So your point is that backing down from supplying those planes could be seen as something other than a weak response. You've got me there. Lost for words.
The planes will be supplied, that's what I'm saying, or rather fearlessly forecasting.
Ways and means are not my ken, nor yours for that matter.
On nuclear weapons, if Putin would use them in a war with NATO to avoid a humiliating conventional defeat, why would he be any less likely to use them to avoid an even more humiliating defeat in Ukraine? This is the kind of question that is no doubt keeping the US cautious about things like supplying planes.
Neither of those pieces seriously look at the current reality of Ukraine having a good chance of halting the Russian attack (the Guardian piece isn’t from yesterday, as it was published elsewhere a week ago).
They are more concerned with how to manage a Ukraine defeat, an approach which I doubt is politically possible right now. The author of the first piece even refers to Ukraine’s fight as ‘an insurgency’, which implies Russia has already defeated them.
The nuclear concern is very real, but I’m not convinced that allowing Ukraine’s devastation and defeat solves it.
The first article is clearly making predictions about the future eg "there are really only two paths toward ending the war: one, continued escalation, potentially across the nuclear threshold; the other, a bitter peace imposed on a defeated Ukraine that will be extremely hard for the United States and many European allies to swallow." It nowhere implies that Russia has already defeated Ukraine, which would be a bizarre thing to say.
I think the prediction is too pessimistic - there has to be a chance of a negotiated settlement. I think maybe the calculation (eg about supplying planes) is to give the Ukrainians enough support to get Russia to negotiate, but not enough for Ukraine to think they might actually defeat Russia.
Question arises: is Russia going to demand the lifting of all sanctions before they even allow the Ukrainians to accept their terms? Are they going to blame all future deaths on NATO until we do? I think we can guess the answer.
Not that anyone is going to invest there for many years. Their economy is still trashed by this invasion.
Plot twist!! Washington indicates it wasn't pre-consulted on Poland's decision to transfer jets...
Victoria Nuland, State Department Undersecretary, just told Senate cmtte hearing: "To my knowledge, it wasn't pre-consulted with us that they planned to give these planes to us."
Sky News is suggesting that the US is going cool on the whole idea of providing or in this case just enabling air reinforcements to Ukraine. Logistical difficulties of providing Poland with replacements promised to Taiwan. Worried that it would be seen as escalation. A no fly zone by the back door. etc etc
FFS
I disagree. This has to be done very delicately. We do edge close to outright confrontation, which means outright war
Clearly the US has been intimidated by Putin's threats of escalation, such that it's prepared to allow what remains of the Ukrainian air force to wither on the vine rather than enable the supply of even just 20 replacement fighter jets. Putin will only be emboldened to go further. Threats work.
"Clearly the US has been intimidated by Putin's threats of escalation"
Perhaps clear to you, but sounds like horseshit to me.
And perhaps you think that possible nuke blackmail by Putin was NOT thought of previously by White House, Pentagon and Foggy Bottom?
I'll leave you to mess around with horseshit and just address your points.
Whether the US has been intimidated by Putin's recent threats or had been intimidated from a point well in advance of the invasion kicking off isn't really the point. It's clearly a weak response regardless. The danger is more that Putin himself will conclude that the equivocation is in response to his threats and that they are working.
What worries me too is that it blurs what seemed previously to be a well defined red line. Supply of logistics to Ukraine would go ahead, the red line being to go beyond that and involve armed personnel from NATO countries directly. Now it becomes apparent that the supply of logistics too can be compromised, so the red line, wherever it is, is located elsewhere.
Let's just hope that Putin knows where the NATO red line is. At the moment, it's not all that clear to me where it is, and whether it's fixed or not. And if Putin miscalculates, and having been emboldened oversteps it, that's when things get really frightening.
Excuse me if I leave the strategy to Biden & etc,. and discount armchair strategists (including me).
"Clearly a weak response"? In your learned opinion - which at moment is worth less than 2-cents. Granted, mine may well be worth even less. Still doesn't make yours the Gold Standard.
So your point is that backing down from supplying those planes could be seen as something other than a weak response. You've got me there. Lost for words.
The planes will be supplied, that's what I'm saying, or rather fearlessly forecasting.
Ways and means are not my ken, nor yours for that matter.
On nuclear weapons, if Putin would use them in a war with NATO to avoid a humiliating conventional defeat, why would he be any less likely to use them to avoid an even more humiliating defeat in Ukraine? This is the kind of question that is no doubt keeping the US cautious about things like supplying planes.
Neither of those pieces seriously look at the current reality of Ukraine having a good chance of halting the Russian attack (the Guardian piece isn’t from yesterday, as it was published elsewhere a week ago).
They are more concerned with how to manage a Ukraine defeat, an approach which I doubt is politically possible right now. The author of the first piece even refers to Ukraine’s fight as ‘an insurgency’, which implies Russia has already defeated them.
The nuclear concern is very real, but I’m not convinced that allowing Ukraine’s devastation and defeat solves it.
The first article is clearly making predictions about the future eg "there are really only two paths toward ending the war: one, continued escalation, potentially across the nuclear threshold; the other, a bitter peace imposed on a defeated Ukraine that will be extremely hard for the United States and many European allies to swallow." It nowhere implies that Russia has already defeated Ukraine, which would be a bizarre thing to say….
I was just remarking the use of ‘insurgency’, which means uprising or revolt. Probably an inadvertent misuse, but that is what it implies.
Plot twist!! Washington indicates it wasn't pre-consulted on Poland's decision to transfer jets...
Victoria Nuland, State Department Undersecretary, just told Senate cmtte hearing: "To my knowledge, it wasn't pre-consulted with us that they planned to give these planes to us."
Sky News is suggesting that the US is going cool on the whole idea of providing or in this case just enabling air reinforcements to Ukraine. Logistical difficulties of providing Poland with replacements promised to Taiwan. Worried that it would be seen as escalation. A no fly zone by the back door. etc etc
FFS
I disagree. This has to be done very delicately. We do edge close to outright confrontation, which means outright war
Clearly the US has been intimidated by Putin's threats of escalation, such that it's prepared to allow what remains of the Ukrainian air force to wither on the vine rather than enable the supply of even just 20 replacement fighter jets. Putin will only be emboldened to go further. Threats work.
"Clearly the US has been intimidated by Putin's threats of escalation"
Perhaps clear to you, but sounds like horseshit to me.
And perhaps you think that possible nuke blackmail by Putin was NOT thought of previously by White House, Pentagon and Foggy Bottom?
I'll leave you to mess around with horseshit and just address your points.
Whether the US has been intimidated by Putin's recent threats or had been intimidated from a point well in advance of the invasion kicking off isn't really the point. It's clearly a weak response regardless. The danger is more that Putin himself will conclude that the equivocation is in response to his threats and that they are working.
What worries me too is that it blurs what seemed previously to be a well defined red line. Supply of logistics to Ukraine would go ahead, the red line being to go beyond that and involve armed personnel from NATO countries directly. Now it becomes apparent that the supply of logistics too can be compromised, so the red line, wherever it is, is located elsewhere.
Let's just hope that Putin knows where the NATO red line is. At the moment, it's not all that clear to me where it is, and whether it's fixed or not. And if Putin miscalculates, and having been emboldened oversteps it, that's when things get really frightening.
Excuse me if I leave the strategy to Biden & etc,. and discount armchair strategists (including me).
"Clearly a weak response"? In your learned opinion - which at moment is worth less than 2-cents. Granted, mine may well be worth even less. Still doesn't make yours the Gold Standard.
So your point is that backing down from supplying those planes could be seen as something other than a weak response. You've got me there. Lost for words.
The planes will be supplied, that's what I'm saying, or rather fearlessly forecasting.
Ways and means are not my ken, nor yours for that matter.
On nuclear weapons, if Putin would use them in a war with NATO to avoid a humiliating conventional defeat, why would he be any less likely to use them to avoid an even more humiliating defeat in Ukraine? This is the kind of question that is no doubt keeping the US cautious about things like supplying planes.
Neither of those pieces seriously look at the current reality of Ukraine having a good chance of halting the Russian attack (the Guardian piece isn’t from yesterday, as it was published elsewhere a week ago).
They are more concerned with how to manage a Ukraine defeat, an approach which I doubt is politically possible right now. The author of the first piece even refers to Ukraine’s fight as ‘an insurgency’, which implies Russia has already defeated them.
The nuclear concern is very real, but I’m not convinced that allowing Ukraine’s devastation and defeat solves it.
I think the prediction is too pessimistic - there has to be a chance of a negotiated settlement. I think maybe the calculation (eg about supplying planes) is to give the Ukrainians enough support to get Russia to negotiate, but not enough for Ukraine to think they might actually defeat Russia.
That seems implausibly cynical - not because of an absence of cynicism on the part of the west, but because such a calculation just isn’t possible until you really have reached the insurgency stage. At the moment, it’s a conventional war which could either way quite quickly. Very few indeed really predicted Ukraine could hold the Russians as long as they have: I doubt the analysts are as confident of their ability to predict now.
Plot twist!! Washington indicates it wasn't pre-consulted on Poland's decision to transfer jets...
Victoria Nuland, State Department Undersecretary, just told Senate cmtte hearing: "To my knowledge, it wasn't pre-consulted with us that they planned to give these planes to us."
Sky News is suggesting that the US is going cool on the whole idea of providing or in this case just enabling air reinforcements to Ukraine. Logistical difficulties of providing Poland with replacements promised to Taiwan. Worried that it would be seen as escalation. A no fly zone by the back door. etc etc
FFS
I disagree. This has to be done very delicately. We do edge close to outright confrontation, which means outright war
Clearly the US has been intimidated by Putin's threats of escalation, such that it's prepared to allow what remains of the Ukrainian air force to wither on the vine rather than enable the supply of even just 20 replacement fighter jets. Putin will only be emboldened to go further. Threats work.
"Clearly the US has been intimidated by Putin's threats of escalation"
Perhaps clear to you, but sounds like horseshit to me.
And perhaps you think that possible nuke blackmail by Putin was NOT thought of previously by White House, Pentagon and Foggy Bottom?
I'll leave you to mess around with horseshit and just address your points.
Whether the US has been intimidated by Putin's recent threats or had been intimidated from a point well in advance of the invasion kicking off isn't really the point. It's clearly a weak response regardless. The danger is more that Putin himself will conclude that the equivocation is in response to his threats and that they are working.
What worries me too is that it blurs what seemed previously to be a well defined red line. Supply of logistics to Ukraine would go ahead, the red line being to go beyond that and involve armed personnel from NATO countries directly. Now it becomes apparent that the supply of logistics too can be compromised, so the red line, wherever it is, is located elsewhere.
Let's just hope that Putin knows where the NATO red line is. At the moment, it's not all that clear to me where it is, and whether it's fixed or not. And if Putin miscalculates, and having been emboldened oversteps it, that's when things get really frightening.
Excuse me if I leave the strategy to Biden & etc,. and discount armchair strategists (including me).
"Clearly a weak response"? In your learned opinion - which at moment is worth less than 2-cents. Granted, mine may well be worth even less. Still doesn't make yours the Gold Standard.
So your point is that backing down from supplying those planes could be seen as something other than a weak response. You've got me there. Lost for words.
The planes will be supplied, that's what I'm saying, or rather fearlessly forecasting.
Ways and means are not my ken, nor yours for that matter.
On nuclear weapons, if Putin would use them in a war with NATO to avoid a humiliating conventional defeat, why would he be any less likely to use them to avoid an even more humiliating defeat in Ukraine? This is the kind of question that is no doubt keeping the US cautious about things like supplying planes.
Neither of those pieces seriously look at the current reality of Ukraine having a good chance of halting the Russian attack (the Guardian piece isn’t from yesterday, as it was published elsewhere a week ago).
They are more concerned with how to manage a Ukraine defeat, an approach which I doubt is politically possible right now. The author of the first piece even refers to Ukraine’s fight as ‘an insurgency’, which implies Russia has already defeated them.
The nuclear concern is very real, but I’m not convinced that allowing Ukraine’s devastation and defeat solves it.
The first article is clearly making predictions about the future eg "there are really only two paths toward ending the war: one, continued escalation, potentially across the nuclear threshold; the other, a bitter peace imposed on a defeated Ukraine that will be extremely hard for the United States and many European allies to swallow." It nowhere implies that Russia has already defeated Ukraine, which would be a bizarre thing to say.
I think the prediction is too pessimistic - there has to be a chance of a negotiated settlement. I think maybe the calculation (eg about supplying planes) is to give the Ukrainians enough support to get Russia to negotiate, but not enough for Ukraine to think they might actually defeat Russia.
Question arises: is Russia going to demand the lifting of all sanctions before they even allow the Ukrainians to accept their terms? Are they going to blame all future deaths on NATO until we do? I think we can guess the answer.
Not that anyone is going to invest there for many years. Their economy is still trashed by this invasion.
China is. Though that’s not so much to the Russian advantage.
Plot twist!! Washington indicates it wasn't pre-consulted on Poland's decision to transfer jets...
Victoria Nuland, State Department Undersecretary, just told Senate cmtte hearing: "To my knowledge, it wasn't pre-consulted with us that they planned to give these planes to us."
Sky News is suggesting that the US is going cool on the whole idea of providing or in this case just enabling air reinforcements to Ukraine. Logistical difficulties of providing Poland with replacements promised to Taiwan. Worried that it would be seen as escalation. A no fly zone by the back door. etc etc
FFS
I disagree. This has to be done very delicately. We do edge close to outright confrontation, which means outright war
Clearly the US has been intimidated by Putin's threats of escalation, such that it's prepared to allow what remains of the Ukrainian air force to wither on the vine rather than enable the supply of even just 20 replacement fighter jets. Putin will only be emboldened to go further. Threats work.
"Clearly the US has been intimidated by Putin's threats of escalation"
Perhaps clear to you, but sounds like horseshit to me.
And perhaps you think that possible nuke blackmail by Putin was NOT thought of previously by White House, Pentagon and Foggy Bottom?
I'll leave you to mess around with horseshit and just address your points.
Whether the US has been intimidated by Putin's recent threats or had been intimidated from a point well in advance of the invasion kicking off isn't really the point. It's clearly a weak response regardless. The danger is more that Putin himself will conclude that the equivocation is in response to his threats and that they are working.
What worries me too is that it blurs what seemed previously to be a well defined red line. Supply of logistics to Ukraine would go ahead, the red line being to go beyond that and involve armed personnel from NATO countries directly. Now it becomes apparent that the supply of logistics too can be compromised, so the red line, wherever it is, is located elsewhere.
Let's just hope that Putin knows where the NATO red line is. At the moment, it's not all that clear to me where it is, and whether it's fixed or not. And if Putin miscalculates, and having been emboldened oversteps it, that's when things get really frightening.
Excuse me if I leave the strategy to Biden & etc,. and discount armchair strategists (including me).
"Clearly a weak response"? In your learned opinion - which at moment is worth less than 2-cents. Granted, mine may well be worth even less. Still doesn't make yours the Gold Standard.
So your point is that backing down from supplying those planes could be seen as something other than a weak response. You've got me there. Lost for words.
The planes will be supplied, that's what I'm saying, or rather fearlessly forecasting.
Ways and means are not my ken, nor yours for that matter.
On nuclear weapons, if Putin would use them in a war with NATO to avoid a humiliating conventional defeat, why would he be any less likely to use them to avoid an even more humiliating defeat in Ukraine? This is the kind of question that is no doubt keeping the US cautious about things like supplying planes.
Neither of those pieces seriously look at the current reality of Ukraine having a good chance of halting the Russian attack (the Guardian piece isn’t from yesterday, as it was published elsewhere a week ago).
They are more concerned with how to manage a Ukraine defeat, an approach which I doubt is politically possible right now. The author of the first piece even refers to Ukraine’s fight as ‘an insurgency’, which implies Russia has already defeated them.
The nuclear concern is very real, but I’m not convinced that allowing Ukraine’s devastation and defeat solves it.
The first article is clearly making predictions about the future eg "there are really only two paths toward ending the war: one, continued escalation, potentially across the nuclear threshold; the other, a bitter peace imposed on a defeated Ukraine that will be extremely hard for the United States and many European allies to swallow." It nowhere implies that Russia has already defeated Ukraine, which would be a bizarre thing to say.
I think the prediction is too pessimistic - there has to be a chance of a negotiated settlement. I think maybe the calculation (eg about supplying planes) is to give the Ukrainians enough support to get Russia to negotiate, but not enough for Ukraine to think they might actually defeat Russia.
Question arises: is Russia going to demand the lifting of all sanctions before they even allow the Ukrainians to accept their terms? Are they going to blame all future deaths on NATO until we do? I think we can guess the answer.
Not that anyone is going to invest there for many years. Their economy is still trashed by this invasion.
China is. Though that’s not so much to the Russian advantage.
Well, that becomes the next big question: to what extent will the rest of the world want to lean on China to keep that investment in Russia to a minimum. Or to extract a heavy price from Russia for doing so.
My sense is that Russia is already destabilised by Putin's crazy war. If the Russian army collapses in Ukraine or even if it is bogged down with continuing big losses really big repercussions could start soon inside Russia. Some plausible outcomes are optimistic whilst some are pessimistic (some appalling) but I don't think it likely that the current Russian government and military leadership have time for an extended campaign of attrition.
Comments
Edit - And yes, that’s also true of US policy in Europe. It’s fine because there’s no division.
Even if Trump was elected POTUS again in 2024 and took the US out of NATO, NATO would still continue on that basis, especially given the more aggressive and expansionist Russian leadership
It's not an issue now of course because the tories currently have us on an AEW&C 'capability gap'.
Here is Politico's take, updated couple hours ago:
https://www.politico.com/news/2022/03/08/poland-transfers-mig-fighters-to-the-us-as-ukraine-asks-for-help-00015259
Around the world, there are lots and lots of LNG projects. Those projects get funded because the operator (Total, Shell, Exxon, etc.) secures long-term supply contracts to utilities. So, Papua New Guinea LNG - an Exxon project - was cornerstoned by two massive supply contracts, one with Tepco in Japan and one with Kepco in Korea.
In the UK, our generators have shied away from long-term energy supply contracts (except for some Norwegian gas).
Why?
Because over the last decade (until mid 2021), generators that bought on long-term contracts ended up paying more for gas than those who bought it on the spot market. (Indeed, Calon Energy went bust in the UK because they committed to long-term gas supply contracts that meant that they were unable to generate electricity profitably, as they were paying more for their gas than competitors who bought spot.)
We need to change that mentality. So, I wouldn't guarantee a price for UK produced natural gas, but why not instead offer tax advantages to firms that enter into long-term politically secure natural gas contracts?
If the USA proposed a pretty radical NATO policy, the one country that might check it, or even stop it, is the UK. Without the UK's support the USA is often more cautious, within and without NATO
We have seen this several times, from Iraq to Syria, if the USA can get at least the UK on board, that's usually enough; If even the UK demurs, that causes Americans to hesitate
Of course we are just an influence, not the leader, bit we ARE influential. This is geopolitics
Pentagon: U.S. sending two Patriot surface-to-air missile batteries Poland amid Russia tensions
https://twitter.com/LucasFoxNews/status/1501341671115538433
BBC: Ukraine's ruling Servant of the People party is proposing new security guarantees to protect its sovereignty.
"Nato is not ready to accept Ukraine for at least the next 15 years, and it has made this clear," a statement reads.
The party calls therefore for "a concrete agreement that can guarantee Ukraine's full security until Nato is ready to accept us".
The US and Turkey, as well as Ukraine's neighbours, are named as possible "guarantor states" that could take specific political, economic and military steps to protect Ukraine.
But the party says Russia too would need to sign on to the guarantees and "legally state that it recognises Ukrainian statehood".
"We will not even theoretically consider the possibility of reviewing or abandoning any pieces of our territory. It is unacceptable. Our Ukraine [includes] Donetsk, Luhansk and Crimea."
Not sure that pseudo-NATO in place of actual NATO (which they can see they won't get) works for Russia whilst not getting to keep its previous landgrabs.
Should have been reading the Guardian on 19th June 2014:
"Russia 'secretly working with environmentalists to oppose fracking'
Nato chief, Anders Fogh Rasmussen, says Moscow mounting disinformation campaign to maintain reliance on Russian gas"
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/jun/19/russia-secretly-working-with-environmentalists-to-oppose-fracking
Erm…. that sort of makes my point. We made a proper hash of the Nimrod AEW rubbish, but it was our right to do so. We weren’t forced to do or support something we didn’t like.
The backstory of how this all went down in Warsaw is both hilarious and terrifying, FYI.
https://twitter.com/michaeldweiss/status/1501294460981948418?s=21
Pentagon nixes Polish plan to give MiG’s to Ukraine via Ramstein:
“departing from a U.S./NATO base in Germany to fly into airspace that is contested with Russia over Ukraine raises serious concerns for the entire NATO alliance…simply not clear there is substantive rationale.”
https://twitter.com/jacquiheinrich/status/1501333459972800527?s=21
Between March 9 and September 9 "the banks will not be able to sell foreign currencies to citizens." (AFP)
All ruble convertibility is over. Putin has destroyed the ruble.
https://twitter.com/anders_aslund/status/1501315627386118145?s=21
https://news.stv.tv/world/environmental-activists-let-down-tyres-on-hundreds-of-suvs-across-britain-because-they-are-a-climate-disaster
The thing is that everyone's dug in on "trigger" issues - NATO, independent republics, Ukraine not existing, neo-Nazis, etc. Avoid the triggers and you get an outcome people can swallow. I know there are some who would rather fight to the last Russian/Ukrainian and "win", but rationally a deal ought to make sense.
Awkward analogy alert.
Sticking to the regional point, if Ireland had invaded NI and the compromise was over super-autonomy in NI (but it staying in the UK in theory) such that both parties could say they won, then I could see that working because we’d sort of accept enough of NI wanted to be Irish anyway, and it all feels a bit arms length.
On the other hand if France invaded Kent I’d accept nothing less than full withdrawal.
I simply don’t understand enough about Ukrainian views on the eastern regions (though clearly where are those who feel Russian). Only they know and only they can tell us.
Not satisfactory for anyone, but better than any probable alternative
IF- if if if - this goes through, the West must wean itself off reliance - in any form - on Russia or China, and build robust energy, food, tech supplies within its own sphere. We are certainly big and rich enough to do that
Let these hideous dictatorships go fuck themselves. Whatever happens, Putin has doomed Russia to a decade of Deep Cold War at best, maybe several decades, and quasi vassal status under China. His stupid choice
Political betting isn’t about coalescing around what you want, but what you analyse and predict could happen, is happening. Nor is politics about left v right. When 2 of Melenchon, Le Pen, Zemour are no longer in the race, where do their first round votes go? Last time Melenchon and Fillon votes went largely to abstention or Macron in second round, I feel it’s a huge mistake to assume they will this time as well as acknowledging the Fillon/Pecrese figure is smaller because Macron has gobbled it up early this time.
In the French election I analyse and predict a Nationalist, anti immigration, anti EU candidate uniting and energising the yellow jackets, spouting economically illiterate stuff about fairer tax system and early retirement to swell the numbers, mopping up mountain of abstentions that benifited Macron last time, pushing Macron close. That could be either Le Pen or Melenchon.
Why? Because that may be where France is right now. The best of, perhaps I mean the worst of Zemmour, Le Pen and Melechon combined, attracting added Nationalists, anti immigration, fantasy financial giveaway votes from across the political spectrum.
I suggest caution to have Macron hot favourite candidate when he is not standing in Macron territory.
'I don't feel safe driving the children around when all the other vehicles are so big. We need a Q7 darling.'
Fuckers are worse for everyone and everything in every conceivable way.
https://medium.com/lessons-from-history/why-britain-pulled-aircraft-with-horses-and-trucks-ddd2dbd2aaa4
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/covid-19-omicron-outbreak-true-cases-probably-500000-to-1-million-but-less-crucial-than-hospital-cases-public-health-expert-says/IT22ALZC7EV6AHIICYOXFBBQGU/
At this rate, everybody in NZ will have had in a few weeks.
So the fear was, if they were in Poland talked up as being on route to Ukraine, some stray Putin missils as US call them could have landed in Poland?
But it’s okay now, because they have been moved to Rammstein in Germany.
https://vimeo.com/477784834 who trusts them with 30 mig fighter jets??? 🤦♀️
Is it okay because no one in Europe gives a shit if they get hit by stray missils let alone go to war over Rammstein blown up (I’m joking by the way, i have German heritage on my Dad’s side)
I suppose, as Putin, in his infinite strategic wisdom, has left the West of Ukraine untouched, anything with a Ukraine flag recently superglued on can launch from there? That’s What he wants 🤔
PS video NSFW, views of IT lessons at one point in there
🤭 if Putin is reading PB tonight he will know the jets are in Ramstein
Ways and means are not my ken, nor yours for that matter.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/mar/08/russia-ukraine-war-possible-trajectories
Which predicts either brutal conventional Russian victory or use of nuclear wespons.
There's also this analysis from January from the Rand Corporation
https://www.rand.org/blog/2022/01/us-military-aid-to-ukraine-a-silver-bullet.html
arguing against supplying Ukraine with more weapons - which also argues Russian victory is inevitable. Is it too soon to say that analysis was wrong?
On nuclear weapons, if Putin would use them in a war with NATO to avoid a humiliating conventional defeat, why would he be any less likely to use them to avoid an even more humiliating defeat in Ukraine?
This is the kind of question that is no doubt keeping the US cautious about things like supplying planes.
Given Russia’s opening position is Ukraine’s surrender, I think Ukraine’s opening is pretty moderate.
They are more concerned with how to manage a Ukraine defeat, an approach which I doubt is politically possible right now.
The author of the first piece even refers to Ukraine’s fight as ‘an insurgency’, which implies Russia has already defeated them.
The nuclear concern is very real, but I’m not convinced that allowing Ukraine’s devastation and defeat solves it.
"there are really only two paths toward ending the war: one, continued escalation, potentially across the nuclear threshold; the other, a bitter peace imposed on a defeated Ukraine that will be extremely hard for the United States and many European allies to swallow."
It nowhere implies that Russia has already defeated Ukraine, which would be a bizarre thing to say.
I think the prediction is too pessimistic - there has to be a chance of a negotiated settlement. I think maybe the calculation (eg about supplying planes) is to give the Ukrainians enough support to get Russia to negotiate, but not enough for Ukraine to think they might actually defeat Russia.
Not that anyone is going to invest there for many years. Their economy is still trashed by this invasion.
Probably an inadvertent misuse, but that is what it implies.
At the moment, it’s a conventional war which could either way quite quickly. Very few indeed really predicted Ukraine could hold the Russians as long as they have: I doubt the analysts are as confident of their ability to predict now.
"Where are your markets, China?"