She increased her vote by about 9% on 2017, if she did the same in 2027 she would be on 50%.
Macron cannot run again so could be close next time
I actually suspect it will be less close without Macron.
He's a capable politician but not a particularly popular one, and won this election despite relatively low approval ratings.
Nothing is impossible, of course, but there's a reasonably high chance that the next election will be a moderate versus an extremist, and the moderate will be relatively fresh compared with Macron, and compared with the non-moderate.
Indeed, I think a Melenchon successor is more likely, on balance, to be a threat rather than Le Pen. She's stood in three Presidential elections now and, whilst you can point to progress, she's still lost pretty heavily, isn't getting any younger, and a lot of people have fixed views on her.
Macron has charisma, nobody else in his party does really.
Melenchon is just a French Corbyn.
The right will have been out of the Elysee for 15 years in 2027, hopefully Les Republicains pick a decent candidate like Bertrand who can actually win next time
Yay, 58/42 it is then. I've played this one like a violin. Still, not great that the Far Right come this close to winning power in France. 66/34 last time. At this rate it'll be 50/50 in 2027.
The problem has been the collapse of the centre-right in France.
I wonder how things would have been if 2017 had been Fillon vs Melanchon.
Fillon would have won, hopefully the centre right pick a better candidate like Bertrand in 2027 rather than Pecresse. They could then beat Le Pen and Melenchon in the first round and take on the En Marche candidate in the runoff
Steady on there. The Socialists will be back in the game by then...
There is another unknown about Putin and nukes. Despite the talk of "buttons" in the Kremlin and the White House, in fact a nuclear strike depends on men following orders. Would the Russian soldiers in charge of those weapons follow a Putin order for a first strike, knowing that their families would almost certainly die in the Western response?
Military generally do follow orders , its not a holywood thriller - the only two times nuclear bombs have been ordered to be dropped the guys doing it did it
Rather different situation to now though, wasn’t it? I’d imagine the crews families were all safely tucked up home in the USA, and no one else had nukes.
It already is de facto involvement with NATO arming Ukrainian and it cannot be ruled out that NATO will be drawn into the conflict at some time
Just repeating your opinion does not make it an unqualified fact in this intractable and unpredictable war, sadly
The Cold War was a series of proxy conflicts where sometimes the USA and Soviet Union would be arming one side or both sides. Ukraine is more like Vietnam or Afghanistan in which the forces of one of the superpowers are faced with what should be an inferior force but which is armed and supplied by the other superpower.
The results of both of those conflicts should give Ukraine some encouragement.
We have to avoid the temptation to become directly involved.
We are discussing this without considering one important thing. What is NATO's war aim? We are all-but belligerent, we must be working towards some end.
#Ukraine: As a few of the NLAW launchers delivered to Ukraine by the UK have ran into battery issues (Running out too fast, or not functioning well in the cold), well, as ever, local forces are coming up with solutions.
That’s the sort of military training that makes a difference. Knowing how to jump start a dead anti-tank weapon, may save your life!
Let us hope Ben Wallace (and anyone sneering at badly-maintained Russian kit) is paying attention so the next time they are needed, our weapons have working batteries.
I do hope our own military have cut down on the parading around in favour of something more practical these last two months.
I sincerely hope that we are buying all the spares and additional kit we can find at the moment. I fear our actual strength is somewhat different from our paper strength. We need all we have in good working order.
It already is de facto involvement with NATO arming Ukrainian and it cannot be ruled out that NATO will be drawn into the conflict at some time
Just repeating your opinion does not make it an unqualified fact in this intractable and unpredictable war, sadly
The Cold War was a series of proxy conflicts where sometimes the USA and Soviet Union would be arming one side or both sides. Ukraine is more like Vietnam or Afghanistan in which the forces of one of the superpowers are faced with what should be an inferior force but which is armed and supplied by the other superpower.
The results of both of those conflicts should give Ukraine some encouragement.
We have to avoid the temptation to become directly involved.
Yes. There is a good thread on twitter (Lawrence Freedman IIRC), on why 'proxy war' is an inappropriate term for Ukraine (or Afganistan against the Russians, or Viet Nam) as it implies the underdog is coerced into fighting on behalf of the Superpower's interests. Whereas, in fact, the fighting party has a great deal of agency (which is why they fight better).
The Superpower's interests are the reason they supply the arms; they are not the reason the fighters fight.
Yay, 58/42 it is then. I've played this one like a violin. Still, not great that the Far Right come this close to winning power in France. 66/34 last time. At this rate it'll be 50/50 in 2027.
The problem has been the collapse of the centre-right in France.
I wonder how things would have been if 2017 had been Fillon vs Melanchon.
This run-off system in a time of populism and disenchantment is precarious, that's for sure.
Depressing chat with friend back from Ukraine. His view is that NATO will inevitably get sucked in and war is inevitable.
Reason for the sudden desire in NATO countries* to give Ukraine every bit of kit they ask for, on my understanding. If NATO is on the hook to hold back Russia they definitely want Ukraine to be able to manage on its own without their own countries needing to fight Russia.
Yay, 58/42 it is then. I've played this one like a violin. Still, not great that the Far Right come this close to winning power in France. 66/34 last time. At this rate it'll be 50/50 in 2027.
The problem has been the collapse of the centre-right in France.
I wonder how things would have been if 2017 had been Fillon vs Melanchon.
Fillon would have won, hopefully the centre right pick a better candidate like Bertrand in 2027 rather than Pecresse. They could then beat Le Pen and Melenchon in the first round and take on the En Marche candidate in the runoff
Steady on there. The Socialists will be back in the game by then...
Hidalgo did even worse than Pecresse in the first round
Yay, 58/42 it is then. I've played this one like a violin. Still, not great that the Far Right come this close to winning power in France. 66/34 last time. At this rate it'll be 50/50 in 2027.
The problem has been the collapse of the centre-right in France.
I wonder how things would have been if 2017 had been Fillon vs Melanchon.
I think a lot of people would say a centre right candidate has just pretty tidily won the Presidential election. Certainly, he's more centre right than centre left, and has pitched his big tent across the lawn of the traditional centre right. Pecresse tacked right to take on Le Pen, but it was inauthentic and she couldn't convince anyone that there was space for her.
I find the centre left collapse more surprising in a way. There probably was a social democratic space to occupy there, but there never even looked to be a vague possibility of it being filled, whereas at least Pecresse briefy sparked interest before fizzling out.
Well, Macron occupies most of the old centre left so no surprise. The rest was split across a few candidates but mostly tactical votes for Mélenchon, because he had bloc support from urban Muslims and angry radicals, similar to in the UK when lots of people stayed with Labour under Corbyn.
unofficial results via Ministry of Interior confirm big Le Pen wins in Guadeloupe, Martinique, St Martin & French Guiana, split decision in St Pierre Miquelon
Landslides for Macron in New Caledonia and Wallis & Futuna, narrow win in French Polynesia.
Yay, 58/42 it is then. I've played this one like a violin. Still, not great that the Far Right come this close to winning power in France. 66/34 last time. At this rate it'll be 50/50 in 2027.
The problem has been the collapse of the centre-right in France.
I wonder how things would have been if 2017 had been Fillon vs Melanchon.
I think a lot of people would say a centre right candidate has just pretty tidily won the Presidential election. Certainly, he's more centre right than centre left, and has pitched his big tent across the lawn of the traditional centre right. Pecresse tacked right to take on Le Pen, but it was inauthentic and she couldn't convince anyone that there was space for her.
I find the centre left collapse more surprising in a way. There probably was a social democratic space to occupy there, but there never even looked to be a vague possibility of it being filled, whereas at least Pecresse briefy sparked interest before fizzling out.
Macron is a classical liberal, neither socialist or social democratic nor conservative.
There is another unknown about Putin and nukes. Despite the talk of "buttons" in the Kremlin and the White House, in fact a nuclear strike depends on men following orders. Would the Russian soldiers in charge of those weapons follow a Putin order for a first strike, knowing that their families would almost certainly die in the Western response?
Military generally do follow orders , its not a holywood thriller - the only two times nuclear bombs have been ordered to be dropped the guys doing it did it
Did they do it knowing that it would result in their death and the deaths of all their family and friends?
I'm going as usual to be slightly counter-intuitive.
Le Pen should have done better - she's had five years to prepare against an ostensibly unpopular President. She's tacked toward the centre-right while maintaining her right flank and seeing off the challenge of Zemmour.
She's had five years to game plan the debate - to come up with the knock out blow, the decisive argument which would undermine Macron and leave him, like Hollande and Sarkozy, a one-term leader.
In the end, while she has done better than 2017, she's not really been able to convince France she's the right leader. Perhaps she's been unlucky because her relationship with Putin has proven a real liability.
Perhaps her party will do better in the Legislative Elections but that isn't usually the case and it may well be LREM will be back with another majority.
The thing that most worries me about the Ukraine situation is how Putin will react if his armies in Ukraine suffer a sudden, almost complete collapse. I don't think this is certain to happen, but by some accounts they are being attrited faster than new reinforcements are arriving. At some point, the reinforcements stop arriving.
Given that Ukraine has already dispatched some 50% of Russia's functioning armour, a complete collapse in 2-3 months time is not out of the question if the current pattern continues.
What does Putin do then? He will have virtually no conventional armed forces left to defend Mother Russia. It scares me enough I try not to think about it, even though I would love to see the total collapse of the Russian AF without the ... ahem ... fallout.
Some think he will use Victory Day to announce a full mobilisation.
Interesting rumours that Zelensky has plans to mark Victory Day too, and in a way that Russia would find very embarrasing.
What's Putin going to kit this "full mobilisation" with?
So unlike Brexit and Trump this one is in line with central polling
The US polls in 2020 were pretty accurate and in 2016 on national popular vote (not EC) not far out either.
A few polls had Leave ahead in 2016
On the eve of the Brexit vote, Opinium and TNS had Leave ahead, while YouGov, Populous and Ipsos Mori gave it to Remain.
Ironically, YouGov's penultimate survey got it almost completely right, with a three point lead for Leave but their final prediction downweighted Leave on the basis of differential turnover.
Is “differential turnover” a euphemism for “more old voters would have died”?
The thing that most worries me about the Ukraine situation is how Putin will react if his armies in Ukraine suffer a sudden, almost complete collapse. I don't think this is certain to happen, but by some accounts they are being attrited faster than new reinforcements are arriving. At some point, the reinforcements stop arriving.
Given that Ukraine has already dispatched some 50% of Russia's functioning armour, a complete collapse in 2-3 months time is not out of the question if the current pattern continues.
What does Putin do then? He will have virtually no conventional armed forces left to defend Mother Russia. It scares me enough I try not to think about it, even though I would love to see the total collapse of the Russian AF without the ... ahem ... fallout.
Some think he will use Victory Day to announce a full mobilisation.
Interesting rumours that Zelensky has plans to mark Victory Day too, and in a way that Russia would find very embarrasing.
You can tell from the posts on here who spends their time obsessively following certain persons on twitter.
I'm going as usual to be slightly counter-intuitive.
Le Pen should have done better - she's had five years to prepare against an ostensibly unpopular President. She's tacked toward the centre-right while maintaining her right flank and seeing off the challenge of Zemmour.
She's had five years to game plan the debate - to come up with the knock out blow, the decisive argument which would undermine Macron and leave him, like Hollande and Sarkozy, a one-term leader.
In the end, while she has done better than 2017, she's not really been able to convince France she's the right leader. Perhaps she's been unlucky because her relationship with Putin has proven a real liability.
Perhaps her party will do better in the Legislative Elections but that isn't usually the case and it may well be LREM will be back with another majority.
In the French parliament though remember Les Republicains were still the main opposition, even in 2017, not Le Pen's RN party.
So while En Marche may remain largest party, in the legislative elections it will probably lose seats to Melenchon's party, RN and Les Republicains and the Greens and maybe its majority too
Yay, 58/42 it is then. I've played this one like a violin. Still, not great that the Far Right come this close to winning power in France. 66/34 last time. At this rate it'll be 50/50 in 2027.
But Roger was right, they didn’t do it.
Yep. And as long as they keep not doing it they'll never do it.
Hey, I noticed your comments on Macron the other day. You described him as centre-right, and didn't like him cosying up to Trump. We tend to agree on most stuff, but I think you were harsh. I reckon Macron's just, marginally, to the left of centre. And I reckon he despises Trump and was playing him.
For what it's worth, I also think Macron will tack a bit to the left in his second term - a bit more redistributive, and keen to distance him/his party from the bourgeoisie a bit more.
“A great wind of freedom could have swept through this country. The fate of the ballot box wanted otherwise,” Le Pen told her supporters in a speech.
But she said her score of more than 40 percent of the vote “represents in itself a great victory. Millions of our compatriots have chosen the national camp and change.”
She also thanked her voters, especially those in rural and remote areas: “This France which has been too much forgotten, we do not forget it.”
SSI - Am NOT a fan of Putin's French understudy, but think that last para above is smack bang on the euro . . . AND the pound AND (lest we forget) the almighty dollar . . .
I'm going as usual to be slightly counter-intuitive.
Le Pen should have done better - she's had five years to prepare against an ostensibly unpopular President. She's tacked toward the centre-right while maintaining her right flank and seeing off the challenge of Zemmour.
She's had five years to game plan the debate - to come up with the knock out blow, the decisive argument which would undermine Macron and leave him, like Hollande and Sarkozy, a one-term leader.
In the end, while she has done better than 2017, she's not really been able to convince France she's the right leader. Perhaps she's been unlucky because her relationship with Putin has proven a real liability.
Perhaps her party will do better in the Legislative Elections but that isn't usually the case and it may well be LREM will be back with another majority.
Here's a question would MLP have done better if she emerged from the traditional right than from the extreme right but other things, personalities and polices, being the same ?
Yay, 58/42 it is then. I've played this one like a violin. Still, not great that the Far Right come this close to winning power in France. 66/34 last time. At this rate it'll be 50/50 in 2027.
The problem has been the collapse of the centre-right in France.
I wonder how things would have been if 2017 had been Fillon vs Melanchon.
Fillon would have won, hopefully the centre right pick a better candidate like Bertrand in 2027 rather than Pecresse. They could then beat Le Pen and Melenchon in the first round and take on the En Marche candidate in the runoff
Steady on there. The Socialists will be back in the game by then...
Hidalgo did even worse than Pecresse in the first round
The argument is that Socialist voters lent their support to Melenchon. The true base is somewhat higher.
Yay, 58/42 it is then. I've played this one like a violin. Still, not great that the Far Right come this close to winning power in France. 66/34 last time. At this rate it'll be 50/50 in 2027.
The problem has been the collapse of the centre-right in France.
I wonder how things would have been if 2017 had been Fillon vs Melanchon.
I think a lot of people would say a centre right candidate has just pretty tidily won the Presidential election. Certainly, he's more centre right than centre left, and has pitched his big tent across the lawn of the traditional centre right. Pecresse tacked right to take on Le Pen, but it was inauthentic and she couldn't convince anyone that there was space for her.
I find the centre left collapse more surprising in a way. There probably was a social democratic space to occupy there, but there never even looked to be a vague possibility of it being filled, whereas at least Pecresse briefy sparked interest before fizzling out.
Macron is a classical liberal, neither socialist or social democratic nor conservative.
He is basically a French Nick Clegg
Clegg was pretty clearly centre right. The smoothness of the relationship with Cameron, and extent to which their agendas aligned was ultimately a big part of his problem. He was to the left of the Tory rank and file, and many of its backbenchers for sure. But he was more closely aligned with the leadership of the Conservatives in those days than either party feels comfortable admitting.
Shame really. France as expected gave the far right its usual kick up the backside but the UK are landed with our far right for another two years.
Life's a bitch
I wouldn't say our current government is far right, so much as far out of its depth. The far right culture war stuff is just performative and they back down really quickly. For example on the misogyny and class contempt for Rayner.
Yay, 58/42 it is then. I've played this one like a violin. Still, not great that the Far Right come this close to winning power in France. 66/34 last time. At this rate it'll be 50/50 in 2027.
The problem has been the collapse of the centre-right in France.
I wonder how things would have been if 2017 had been Fillon vs Melanchon.
I think a lot of people would say a centre right candidate has just pretty tidily won the Presidential election. Certainly, he's more centre right than centre left, and has pitched his big tent across the lawn of the traditional centre right. Pecresse tacked right to take on Le Pen, but it was inauthentic and she couldn't convince anyone that there was space for her.
I find the centre left collapse more surprising in a way. There probably was a social democratic space to occupy there, but there never even looked to be a vague possibility of it being filled, whereas at least Pecresse briefy sparked interest before fizzling out.
Macron is a classical liberal, neither socialist or social democratic nor conservative.
Putin must know that there is a significant chance he will be liquidated by the FSB (or suddenly become very ill) if he looks likely to go nuclear. An internal coup isn't guaranteed to work but not everyone in the security forces (or military) is an insane nihilistic nationalist.
The thing that most worries me about the Ukraine situation is how Putin will react if his armies in Ukraine suffer a sudden, almost complete collapse. I don't think this is certain to happen, but by some accounts they are being attrited faster than new reinforcements are arriving. At some point, the reinforcements stop arriving.
Given that Ukraine has already dispatched some 50% of Russia's functioning armour, a complete collapse in 2-3 months time is not out of the question if the current pattern continues.
What does Putin do then? He will have virtually no conventional armed forces left to defend Mother Russia. It scares me enough I try not to think about it, even though I would love to see the total collapse of the Russian AF without the ... ahem ... fallout.
Some think he will use Victory Day to announce a full mobilisation.
Interesting rumours that Zelensky has plans to mark Victory Day too, and in a way that Russia would find very embarrasing.
Lighting up a Russian victory parade somewhere in occupied Ukraine would amuse me more than it should. Or maybe Belgorod.
Take Kherson? Although they should be in by the end of the week.
The thing that most worries me about the Ukraine situation is how Putin will react if his armies in Ukraine suffer a sudden, almost complete collapse. I don't think this is certain to happen, but by some accounts they are being attrited faster than new reinforcements are arriving. At some point, the reinforcements stop arriving.
Given that Ukraine has already dispatched some 50% of Russia's functioning armour, a complete collapse in 2-3 months time is not out of the question if the current pattern continues.
What does Putin do then? He will have virtually no conventional armed forces left to defend Mother Russia. It scares me enough I try not to think about it, even though I would love to see the total collapse of the Russian AF without the ... ahem ... fallout.
Some think he will use Victory Day to announce a full mobilisation.
Although I do wonder what good full mobilization will do if there is no armour left to support the infantry.
Update from Slovenia - latest projection has Svoboda on 38 seats, SDS on 33, Christian Democrats on 9 and Social Democrats on 8 with the other two seats to the Italian and Hungarian minorities.
Svoboda plus the Social Democrats would have a bare majority.
I'm going as usual to be slightly counter-intuitive.
Le Pen should have done better - she's had five years to prepare against an ostensibly unpopular President. She's tacked toward the centre-right while maintaining her right flank and seeing off the challenge of Zemmour.
She's had five years to game plan the debate - to come up with the knock out blow, the decisive argument which would undermine Macron and leave him, like Hollande and Sarkozy, a one-term leader.
In the end, while she has done better than 2017, she's not really been able to convince France she's the right leader. Perhaps she's been unlucky because her relationship with Putin has proven a real liability.
Perhaps her party will do better in the Legislative Elections but that isn't usually the case and it may well be LREM will be back with another majority.
Here's a question would MLP have done better if she emerged from the traditional right than from the extreme right but other things, personalities and polices, being the same ?
No, because she wouldn't have blackmailed conservative voters into supporting her with tactical votes, if she didn't carry in around 10-15% from the traditional extreme right. Same way Mélenchon blackmails the moderate, pro-NATO left with his bloc of "insoumises".
Yay, 58/42 it is then. I've played this one like a violin. Still, not great that the Far Right come this close to winning power in France. 66/34 last time. At this rate it'll be 50/50 in 2027.
The problem has been the collapse of the centre-right in France.
I wonder how things would have been if 2017 had been Fillon vs Melanchon.
Macron is the centre-right candidate. He's moved rightwards for this election compared with 2017. Some misunderstanding about this north of the Channel.
If we wind back to 2017, Fillon had it all sorted. He would get the Gaullist nomination, would swan through first round and beat Le Pen in the second as the only respectable candidate left. The Right/Far Right playbook had been run a couple of times already. Fillon hardly needed to campaign.
And then his campaign self-combusted for reasons that are quite astonishing in the French context: for employing his family in shadow jobs where they didn't need to turn up to work. No-one ever gets done for anything like that. In 2017 both Macron and Le Pen were challengers. This time round Macron is the Fillon establishment candidate. It's why Pécresse did so badly, She had nothing to offer. Most of her would be voters were already in the Macron camp and the others who wanted to give Le Pen a chance had jumped ship.
Edit which is probably why Mélenchon did so well. Supporters of other left parties realising their candidates didn't stand a chance voted for him tactically to get a Left/Centre Right choice in the second round instead. They almost succeeded. Macron would still have won the second round however.
I'm going as usual to be slightly counter-intuitive.
Le Pen should have done better - she's had five years to prepare against an ostensibly unpopular President. She's tacked toward the centre-right while maintaining her right flank and seeing off the challenge of Zemmour.
She's had five years to game plan the debate - to come up with the knock out blow, the decisive argument which would undermine Macron and leave him, like Hollande and Sarkozy, a one-term leader.
In the end, while she has done better than 2017, she's not really been able to convince France she's the right leader. Perhaps she's been unlucky because her relationship with Putin has proven a real liability.
Perhaps her party will do better in the Legislative Elections but that isn't usually the case and it may well be LREM will be back with another majority.
Here's a question would MLP have done better if she emerged from the traditional right than from the extreme right but other things, personalities and polices, being the same ?
Very good question . I tend to think she would do better. She can change the name of the party but can’t escape her family. The Le Pen name still frightens many French people .
It already is de facto involvement with NATO arming Ukrainian and it cannot be ruled out that NATO will be drawn into the conflict at some time
Just repeating your opinion does not make it an unqualified fact in this intractable and unpredictable war, sadly
The Cold War was a series of proxy conflicts where sometimes the USA and Soviet Union would be arming one side or both sides. Ukraine is more like Vietnam or Afghanistan in which the forces of one of the superpowers are faced with what should be an inferior force but which is armed and supplied by the other superpower.
The results of both of those conflicts should give Ukraine some encouragement.
We have to avoid the temptation to become directly involved.
We are discussing this without considering one important thing. What is NATO's war aim? We are all-but belligerent, we must be working towards some end.
The end is the defence of the western democratic, human rights, liberal economics ideal in a rules-based world, and defending it at the first, not last domino. That is a defensive posture; NATO is not being an aggressor.
Just out of interest on the whole Rayner story today. This Oxford Union debating training Boris has that Rayner supposedly can't compete with...is he planning to unleash these skills one day?
#Ukraine: As a few of the NLAW launchers delivered to Ukraine by the UK have ran into battery issues (Running out too fast, or not functioning well in the cold), well, as ever, local forces are coming up with solutions.
That’s the sort of military training that makes a difference. Knowing how to jump start a dead anti-tank weapon, may save your life!
Let us hope Ben Wallace (and anyone sneering at badly-maintained Russian kit) is paying attention so the next time they are needed, our weapons have working batteries.
Batteries don’t like it cold, and there isn’t much we can do about it. The Ukranians will be very used to the concept of having to charge batteries on all sorts of equipment that’s been out in the cold.
In the proper Siberian winter, there’s a ‘process’ to starting a car, that involves taking the battery out and keeping it indoors overnight, turning on fuel and oil heaters for several minutes, then cranking the engine with the spark disconnected, before actually switching it on.
The thing that most worries me about the Ukraine situation is how Putin will react if his armies in Ukraine suffer a sudden, almost complete collapse. I don't think this is certain to happen, but by some accounts they are being attrited faster than new reinforcements are arriving. At some point, the reinforcements stop arriving.
Given that Ukraine has already dispatched some 50% of Russia's functioning armour, a complete collapse in 2-3 months time is not out of the question if the current pattern continues.
What does Putin do then? He will have virtually no conventional armed forces left to defend Mother Russia. It scares me enough I try not to think about it, even though I would love to see the total collapse of the Russian AF without the ... ahem ... fallout.
Some think he will use Victory Day to announce a full mobilisation.
Interesting rumours that Zelensky has plans to mark Victory Day too, and in a way that Russia would find very embarrasing.
What show off all the Western kit the Russians can only dream of?
Having a debate with GF about how to define "far-right". Seems a stretch to describe a candidate with 42% "far", though the binary choice exaggerates?
I come from it on a relative, France-only basis, while GF comes at it from a policy perspective. Wonder how the BBC decide.
Certainly NOT everyone who voted for Le Pen in round 2 is far-right politically, but (for whatever reason) they voted for far-right candidate.
Note that in 1932 presidential election in Germany, 2nd round but with 3 candidates, Adolf Hitler won 36.8% of the total vote; further note that his share of the vote for top two candidates - himself & Hindenburg - was 41.0%
Olaf Scholz, the Chancellor, claimed to be delivering on his promise to send arms to Ukraine — but was revealed by the tabloid Bild to have secretly refused every item of heavy equipment requested by Kyiv. After Scholz had crossed tanks and artillery off the list, an aid package said to be worth €1 billion (£836 million) had been reduced by more than two thirds.
Party hats and Soviet era defective and mouldy weapons. While they sold actual useful arms to Russia.
Though what Germany has actually sorted isn't insignificant:
Ukraine have outlined what they need and why they need it. Now the Russian tactics have changed, it isn't simply about weapons, weapons, weapons.
Ukraine have stated the specifics of the types of weaponry they require, different countries have different elements of this, none of the kit they actually have asked Germany for has been sent.
Its left to the US to provide more of the heavy weapons (and seems in combination with UK surveillance to assist with its usage).
The UK is expected to deliver 20 AS-90 self-propelled howitzers and 45,000 shells to Ukraine this week. The equipment will be first send to Poland, where Ukrainian troops will train on them. https://twitter.com/Archer83Able/status/1518205018230472706
We’re reaching the point where the war is at serious risk of metastasising.
Just an observation, not a comment on whether we/the poles are doing the right thing.
Dark clouds hang over Europe.
Yes, you have to wonder. At this stage there are no good options. It could very quickly escalate. The Ukraine govt and top level US diplomats are about to have discussions and more arms will be supplied. One has to wonder what the exit strategy is for Putin and Russia.
At some point soon, they are going to come to the realisation that the Ukranians have access to effectively unlimited military equipment and training, while their own forces are being rapidly depleted. Six months more of this, and there will barely be a Russian military, bar whatever unconventional weapons they can get serviceable.
Importantly, if the sanctions hold he’ll be unable to get replacement weapons manufactured, will be relying on China to actively join in - at which point we really are in WWIII.
If we're on track for WW3 we ought to change direction. But I don't think we are. I think Putin will consolidate a limited gain of territory and proclaim victory. The situation will then move from this 'hot' war in Ukraine to whatever you call a tense unstable stand-off between Russia and the West.
That's possible but I think that Ukraine are quite capable of ousting the Russians from all their gains and then the 2014 territories come into play. A palpable Russian military collapse is also conceivable and how would that affect the Russian political dynamic? God knows. The pace of the Russian defeat may be significant.
I'm the very opposite of expert on military matters but I'd be surprised if Russia were to lose this war to quite that extent. Of course (with the caveat of no crazy 'back against the wall' nuclear action from Putin) it would be great if I'm wrong.
More likely is that, if that scenario was looming, Russia would declare victory with the gains it had and then expect the West to tell Ukraine to stop fighting given the effect it is having on the world economy. TBH, though, if that is their thinking, I suspect they are in for a shock.
I think the coalition of support would split on that point - plenty of people already argue anything prolonging things is bad - though if Ukraine is capable theres little reason theyd listen.
Yay, 58/42 it is then. I've played this one like a violin. Still, not great that the Far Right come this close to winning power in France. 66/34 last time. At this rate it'll be 50/50 in 2027.
The problem has been the collapse of the centre-right in France.
I wonder how things would have been if 2017 had been Fillon vs Melanchon.
I think a lot of people would say a centre right candidate has just pretty tidily won the Presidential election. Certainly, he's more centre right than centre left, and has pitched his big tent across the lawn of the traditional centre right. Pecresse tacked right to take on Le Pen, but it was inauthentic and she couldn't convince anyone that there was space for her.
I find the centre left collapse more surprising in a way. There probably was a social democratic space to occupy there, but there never even looked to be a vague possibility of it being filled, whereas at least Pecresse briefy sparked interest before fizzling out.
It's all a bit confusing these days. I view Macron as a centre right politician. But in the Trads v Progs political binary (which is encroaching heavily on the Right v Left one) I view him as a Prog. So from my side of things he's on the wrong side and the right side at the same time. And somebody on the other side will think the opposite, that he's on the right side and the wrong side at the same time.
I'm going as usual to be slightly counter-intuitive.
Le Pen should have done better - she's had five years to prepare against an ostensibly unpopular President. She's tacked toward the centre-right while maintaining her right flank and seeing off the challenge of Zemmour.
She's had five years to game plan the debate - to come up with the knock out blow, the decisive argument which would undermine Macron and leave him, like Hollande and Sarkozy, a one-term leader.
In the end, while she has done better than 2017, she's not really been able to convince France she's the right leader. Perhaps she's been unlucky because her relationship with Putin has proven a real liability.
Perhaps her party will do better in the Legislative Elections but that isn't usually the case and it may well be LREM will be back with another majority.
Broadly agree with this. The poor recent re-election record of French Presidents tends to indicate every election is a change election, and it's been difficult in France as it has here.
In 2017, both she and Macron were change candidates, and you can see why he was more attractive and unifying. This time round, he had a (mixed) record to defend and ultimately it wasn't a squeaker. She's not getting any younger and next time she'll be up against a fresh opponent. Never say never, but she might well have blown her best chance.
Putin must know that there is a significant chance he will be liquidated by the FSB (or suddenly become very ill) if he looks likely to go nuclear. An internal coup isn't guaranteed to work but not everyone in the security forces (or military) is an insane nihilistic nationalist.
I see the internal coup argument come up, but I'm not convinced because it relies on the inner circle i) having access to the relevant information and ii) being rational enough to identify the 'correct' course of action.
I hope the internal coupists are right, I desperately hope so, but I can't help remembering that the Generals and Ministers in Hitler's bunker, with the Red Army above them raping through Berlin, remained loyal to the end. A good chunk would have been zealots, another chunk just stupid, but apparently no one down there thought offing the man was in their interests despite it being seemingly obvious that it was in the World's interest.
Olaf Scholz, the Chancellor, claimed to be delivering on his promise to send arms to Ukraine — but was revealed by the tabloid Bild to have secretly refused every item of heavy equipment requested by Kyiv. After Scholz had crossed tanks and artillery off the list, an aid package said to be worth €1 billion (£836 million) had been reduced by more than two thirds.
Party hats and Soviet era defective and mouldy weapons. While they sold actual useful arms to Russia.
Though what Germany has actually sorted isn't insignificant:
Ukraine have outlined what they need and why they need it. Now the Russian tactics have changed, it isn't simply about weapons, weapons, weapons.
Ukraine have stated the specifics of the types of weaponry they require, different countries have different elements of this, none of the kit they actually have asked Germany for has been sent.
Its left to the US to provide more of the heavy weapons (and seems in combination with UK surveillance to assist with its usage).
The UK is expected to deliver 20 AS-90 self-propelled howitzers and 45,000 shells to Ukraine this week. The equipment will be first send to Poland, where Ukrainian troops will train on them. https://twitter.com/Archer83Able/status/1518205018230472706
We’re reaching the point where the war is at serious risk of metastasising.
Just an observation, not a comment on whether we/the poles are doing the right thing.
Dark clouds hang over Europe.
Yes, you have to wonder. At this stage there are no good options. It could very quickly escalate. The Ukraine govt and top level US diplomats are about to have discussions and more arms will be supplied. One has to wonder what the exit strategy is for Putin and Russia.
At some point soon, they are going to come to the realisation that the Ukranians have access to effectively unlimited military equipment and training, while their own forces are being rapidly depleted. Six months more of this, and there will barely be a Russian military, bar whatever unconventional weapons they can get serviceable.
Importantly, if the sanctions hold he’ll be unable to get replacement weapons manufactured, will be relying on China to actively join in - at which point we really are in WWIII.
If we're on track for WW3 we ought to change direction. But I don't think we are. I think Putin will consolidate a limited gain of territory and proclaim victory. The situation will then move from this 'hot' war in Ukraine to whatever you call a tense unstable stand-off between Russia and the West.
That's possible but I think that Ukraine are quite capable of ousting the Russians from all their gains and then the 2014 territories come into play. A palpable Russian military collapse is also conceivable and how would that affect the Russian political dynamic? God knows. The pace of the Russian defeat may be significant.
I'm the very opposite of expert on military matters but I'd be surprised if Russia were to lose this war to quite that extent. Of course (with the caveat of no crazy 'back against the wall' nuclear action from Putin) it would be great if I'm wrong.
It does seem hard to believe they could be defeated so comprehensively, even if Ukraine were able and willing to launch the kind of city smashing assault that would presumably be needed to push the Russians out of the cities taken in 2014.
I think the Russians retreating to the 2014 positions is quite possible. They are getting the same treatment at Izium that they got near Kyiv.
I can see retaking Kherson will be hard for Ukraine, but that may well be the plan.
The South is the tricky problem. Russia are strong because of the supply lines through Crimea and Ukraine could never agree to give up that land as part of a potential peace settlement.
The problem Ukraine has is that the people who live in Crimea now... well, those people are mostly Russian.
A fudge on Crimea could probably be found, depending on Donbas. But I'm not sure Russia is mentally able to accept that.
She increased her vote by about 9% on 2017, if she did the same in 2027 she would be on 50%.
Macron cannot run again so could be close next time
Clinging onto straws and your love of the far right, Le Pen, Trump and Farage
I said last week I would have voted for Pecresse in the first round and Macron in the runoff.
I also never voted for Farage, so stop sprouting rubbish.
So you reject Le Pen, Farage and Trump ?
I am a conservative not a far right nationalist, I did not even vote for Brexit although I accepted the result like you
Fair play - we have our disagreements but good we both utterly reject the likes of Le Pen, Trump and Farage
I think HYUFD has pretty consistent in his opposition to Trump, Le Pen and Farage. They do have a few secret supporters on PB but HYUFD isn't really one of them, and as he says he didn't actually vote for Brexit.
The few fanboys on PB try to hide it (out of embarrassment I presume) but give themselves away by getting overexcited when the possibility of one of them pulling a surprise happens. We saw it tonight when the rumours about the French overseas territories votes emerged.
Yay, 58/42 it is then. I've played this one like a violin. Still, not great that the Far Right come this close to winning power in France. 66/34 last time. At this rate it'll be 50/50 in 2027.
The problem has been the collapse of the centre-right in France.
I wonder how things would have been if 2017 had been Fillon vs Melanchon.
I think a lot of people would say a centre right candidate has just pretty tidily won the Presidential election. Certainly, he's more centre right than centre left, and has pitched his big tent across the lawn of the traditional centre right. Pecresse tacked right to take on Le Pen, but it was inauthentic and she couldn't convince anyone that there was space for her.
I find the centre left collapse more surprising in a way. There probably was a social democratic space to occupy there, but there never even looked to be a vague possibility of it being filled, whereas at least Pecresse briefy sparked interest before fizzling out.
Macron is a classical liberal, neither socialist or social democratic nor conservative.
He is basically a French Nick Clegg
Clegg was pretty clearly centre right. The smoothness of the relationship with Cameron, and extent to which their agendas aligned was ultimately a big part of his problem. He was to the left of the Tory rank and file, and many of its backbenchers for sure. But he was more closely aligned with the leadership of the Conservatives in those days than either party feels comfortable admitting.
Clegg was centre right on economics yes but on social issues and Brexit he was certainly not aligned with most Conservatives.
He could deal with Cameron, or indeed would have dealt with Blair or Starmer, he was too far away from Corbyn or Boris though
The thing that most worries me about the Ukraine situation is how Putin will react if his armies in Ukraine suffer a sudden, almost complete collapse. I don't think this is certain to happen, but by some accounts they are being attrited faster than new reinforcements are arriving. At some point, the reinforcements stop arriving.
Given that Ukraine has already dispatched some 50% of Russia's functioning armour, a complete collapse in 2-3 months time is not out of the question if the current pattern continues.
What does Putin do then? He will have virtually no conventional armed forces left to defend Mother Russia. It scares me enough I try not to think about it, even though I would love to see the total collapse of the Russian AF without the ... ahem ... fallout.
Some think he will use Victory Day to announce a full mobilisation.
Interesting rumours that Zelensky has plans to mark Victory Day too, and in a way that Russia would find very embarrasing.
The most obvious high-profile target would be to destroy the bridge from the Russian mainland to Crimea.
“A great wind of freedom could have swept through this country. The fate of the ballot box wanted otherwise,” Le Pen told her supporters in a speech.
But she said her score of more than 40 percent of the vote “represents in itself a great victory. Millions of our compatriots have chosen the national camp and change.”
She also thanked her voters, especially those in rural and remote areas: “This France which has been too much forgotten, we do not forget it.”
SSI - Am NOT a fan of Putin's French understudy, but think that last para above is smack bang on the euro . . . AND the pound AND (lest we forget) the almighty dollar . . .
Losing is a "great victory"? Now who does that remind me of? Step forward, Jezza's mates (though not Jezza himself, actually).
The thing that most worries me about the Ukraine situation is how Putin will react if his armies in Ukraine suffer a sudden, almost complete collapse. I don't think this is certain to happen, but by some accounts they are being attrited faster than new reinforcements are arriving. At some point, the reinforcements stop arriving.
Given that Ukraine has already dispatched some 50% of Russia's functioning armour, a complete collapse in 2-3 months time is not out of the question if the current pattern continues.
What does Putin do then? He will have virtually no conventional armed forces left to defend Mother Russia. It scares me enough I try not to think about it, even though I would love to see the total collapse of the Russian AF without the ... ahem ... fallout.
Some think he will use Victory Day to announce a full mobilisation.
Interesting rumours that Zelensky has plans to mark Victory Day too, and in a way that Russia would find very embarrasing.
What show off all the Western kit the Russians can only dream of?
You mean the Internet of Things connected fridge/freezers?
Clegg was pretty clearly centre right. The smoothness of the relationship with Cameron, and extent to which their agendas aligned was ultimately a big part of his problem. He was to the left of the Tory rank and file, and many of its backbenchers for sure. But he was more closely aligned with the leadership of the Conservatives in those days than either party feels comfortable admitting.
There was a brief period of convergence between the Orange Bookers and Cameron's "liberal conservatism" which allowed for the Coalition to come into being.
Undoubtedly aided by the personal relationship the two leaders had, it was nonetheless also based on a convergence of ideas from post the GFC and recognising it was the end of more than a decade of Blairite "Third Way" policies.
The convergence didn't last and the two parties are now as wide apart as ever but I wouldn't assume that translates to automatic support for a Starmer-led Labour minority Government at this time.
Putin must know that there is a significant chance he will be liquidated by the FSB (or suddenly become very ill) if he looks likely to go nuclear. An internal coup isn't guaranteed to work but not everyone in the security forces (or military) is an insane nihilistic nationalist.
There must be someone low down enough to know the urvanished truth about the capability, but high up enough to be able to countermand the order, or at least demand a rethink when it comes.
I'm going as usual to be slightly counter-intuitive.
Le Pen should have done better - she's had five years to prepare against an ostensibly unpopular President. She's tacked toward the centre-right while maintaining her right flank and seeing off the challenge of Zemmour.
She's had five years to game plan the debate - to come up with the knock out blow, the decisive argument which would undermine Macron and leave him, like Hollande and Sarkozy, a one-term leader.
In the end, while she has done better than 2017, she's not really been able to convince France she's the right leader. Perhaps she's been unlucky because her relationship with Putin has proven a real liability.
Perhaps her party will do better in the Legislative Elections but that isn't usually the case and it may well be LREM will be back with another majority.
Here's a question would MLP have done better if she emerged from the traditional right than from the extreme right but other things, personalities and polices, being the same ?
Yay, 58/42 it is then. I've played this one like a violin. Still, not great that the Far Right come this close to winning power in France. 66/34 last time. At this rate it'll be 50/50 in 2027.
The problem has been the collapse of the centre-right in France.
I wonder how things would have been if 2017 had been Fillon vs Melanchon.
Macron is the centre-right candidate. He's moved rightwards for this election compared with 2017. Some misunderstanding about this north of the Channel.
If we wind back to 2017, Fillon had it all sorted. He would get the Gaullist nomination, would swan through first round and beat Le Pen in the second as the only respectable candidate left. The Right/Far Right playbook had been run a couple of times already. Fillon hardly needed to campaign.
And then his campaign self-combusted for reasons that are quite astonishing in the French context: for employing his family in shadow jobs where they didn't need to turn up to work. No-one ever gets done for anything like that. In 2017 both Macron and Le Pen were challengers. This time round Macron is the Fillon establishment candidate. It's why Pécresse did so badly, She had nothing to offer. Most of her would be voters were already in the Macron camp and the others who wanted to give Le Pen a chance had jumped ship.
Edit which is probably why Mélenchon did so well. Supporters of other left parties realising their candidates didn't stand a chance voted for him tactically to get a Left/Centre Right choice in the second round instead. They almost succeeded. Macron would still have won the second round however.
Macron is not centre-right. He is centre. (Not centre-left either, despite his background in the Socialist government.) The BBC and Guardian may disagree and swallow the line from the anti-NATO insoumises wholesale, but remember also they spent most of the campaign reporting from places like Saint-Denis and Trappes - which is like reporting on a British election mostly from places like Bradford and Tower Hamlets, except the election is between two candidates who call out radical Islam.
Putin must know that there is a significant chance he will be liquidated by the FSB (or suddenly become very ill) if he looks likely to go nuclear. An internal coup isn't guaranteed to work but not everyone in the security forces (or military) is an insane nihilistic nationalist.
I see the internal coup argument come up, but I'm not convinced because it relies on the inner circle i) having access to the relevant information and ii) being rational enough to identify the 'correct' course of action.
I hope the internal coupists are right, I desperately hope so, but I can't help remembering that the Generals and Ministers in Hitler's bunker, with the Red Army above them raping through Berlin, remained loyal to the end. A good chunk would have been zealots, another chunk just stupid, but apparently no one down there thought offing the man was in their interests despite it being seemingly obvious that it was in the World's interest.
AND. Two of the things tyrants do: 1. Make their inner circle complicit in their own crimes 2. Make their downfall the downfall of the inner circle
“A great wind of freedom could have swept through this country. The fate of the ballot box wanted otherwise,” Le Pen told her supporters in a speech.
But she said her score of more than 40 percent of the vote “represents in itself a great victory. Millions of our compatriots have chosen the national camp and change.”
She also thanked her voters, especially those in rural and remote areas: “This France which has been too much forgotten, we do not forget it.”
SSI - Am NOT a fan of Putin's French understudy, but think that last para above is smack bang on the euro . . . AND the pound AND (lest we forget) the almighty dollar . . .
Losing is a "great victory"? Now who does that remind me of? Step forward, Jezza's mates (though not Jezza himself, actually).
Le Pen wants to keep her supporters - base & swing - motivated for the upcoming legislative elections.
Yay, 58/42 it is then. I've played this one like a violin. Still, not great that the Far Right come this close to winning power in France. 66/34 last time. At this rate it'll be 50/50 in 2027.
But Roger was right, they didn’t do it.
Yep. And as long as they keep not doing it they'll never do it.
Hey, I noticed your comments on Macron the other day. You described him as centre-right, and didn't like him cosying up to Trump. We tend to agree on most stuff, but I think you were harsh. I reckon Macron's just, marginally, to the left of centre. And I reckon he despises Trump and was playing him.
For what it's worth, I also think Macron will tack a bit to the left in his second term - a bit more redistributive, and keen to distance him/his party from the bourgeoisie a bit more.
Oh I agree he was playing Trump and has contempt for him. It's just I have zero tolerance for showing Trump any warmth or respect even if it's fake. I have the worst case of 'TDS' in Britain, I think.
CR v CL? No, I stick to that, CR, based on how he's governed 1st term. But let's see if his 2nd term bears out your view. Hope so.
Olaf Scholz, the Chancellor, claimed to be delivering on his promise to send arms to Ukraine — but was revealed by the tabloid Bild to have secretly refused every item of heavy equipment requested by Kyiv. After Scholz had crossed tanks and artillery off the list, an aid package said to be worth €1 billion (£836 million) had been reduced by more than two thirds.
Party hats and Soviet era defective and mouldy weapons. While they sold actual useful arms to Russia.
Though what Germany has actually sorted isn't insignificant:
Ukraine have outlined what they need and why they need it. Now the Russian tactics have changed, it isn't simply about weapons, weapons, weapons.
Ukraine have stated the specifics of the types of weaponry they require, different countries have different elements of this, none of the kit they actually have asked Germany for has been sent.
Its left to the US to provide more of the heavy weapons (and seems in combination with UK surveillance to assist with its usage).
The UK is expected to deliver 20 AS-90 self-propelled howitzers and 45,000 shells to Ukraine this week. The equipment will be first send to Poland, where Ukrainian troops will train on them. https://twitter.com/Archer83Able/status/1518205018230472706
We’re reaching the point where the war is at serious risk of metastasising.
Just an observation, not a comment on whether we/the poles are doing the right thing.
Dark clouds hang over Europe.
Yes, you have to wonder. At this stage there are no good options. It could very quickly escalate. The Ukraine govt and top level US diplomats are about to have discussions and more arms will be supplied. One has to wonder what the exit strategy is for Putin and Russia.
At some point soon, they are going to come to the realisation that the Ukranians have access to effectively unlimited military equipment and training, while their own forces are being rapidly depleted. Six months more of this, and there will barely be a Russian military, bar whatever unconventional weapons they can get serviceable.
Importantly, if the sanctions hold he’ll be unable to get replacement weapons manufactured, will be relying on China to actively join in - at which point we really are in WWIII.
If we're on track for WW3 we ought to change direction. But I don't think we are. I think Putin will consolidate a limited gain of territory and proclaim victory. The situation will then move from this 'hot' war in Ukraine to whatever you call a tense unstable stand-off between Russia and the West.
That's possible but I think that Ukraine are quite capable of ousting the Russians from all their gains and then the 2014 territories come into play. A palpable Russian military collapse is also conceivable and how would that affect the Russian political dynamic? God knows. The pace of the Russian defeat may be significant.
I'm the very opposite of expert on military matters but I'd be surprised if Russia were to lose this war to quite that extent. Of course (with the caveat of no crazy 'back against the wall' nuclear action from Putin) it would be great if I'm wrong.
More likely is that, if that scenario was looming, Russia would declare victory with the gains it had and then expect the West to tell Ukraine to stop fighting given the effect it is having on the world economy. TBH, though, if that is their thinking, I suspect they are in for a shock.
Too many egos on either side when most people just want a solution that takes away a nuclear war - the west does not have to win - we are talking about the end of civilisation here not a playground fight
Given the only side threatening nuclear war is Russia's regime: what is your proposed 'solution' to the war that would stop him ever threatening their use again?
No such solution exists, so what is the poinht of demanding one? The best we can hope for is whatever minimises the risk of his doing so, and that - I am afraid - involves hoping that he achieves enough conventionally to satisfy him. There is no point in school-story rhetoric about "standing up to bullies" and as I have said, we have already tacitly crumbled by failing to perform on our unambiguous promise in the 1948 convention to prevent genocide.
If he's "satisfied" by his gains in this war then there's no reason for him not to have another go somewhere else once he's had a chance to rebuild his army.
There isn't an alternative to standing up to Russia. We either do it now, or we do it later.
He doesn't even need to rebuild his army to take over other countries. His favoured approach so far is to interfere politically - he has spent (and mis-spent) a great deal of treasure on doing that. If he wins in Ukraine, he can say to the states he threatens: "Vote for my candidate or what happened to Ukraine may just happen to you."
Of course he would not be as blatant as that; but pro-Russian candidates and parties might well find such fear a useful recruiting ground. "We can save you from war! Look at how the west let Ukraine down; our future lies with the east!"
Which is why the West need to make it very clear that Putin needs to be defeated, and be seen to have been defeated.
Yes, the 'he must be given something he can claim as a win' talk is misguided attempts at realpolitik, ignoring what he has done and thus will do in future with wins to date.
Olaf Scholz, the Chancellor, claimed to be delivering on his promise to send arms to Ukraine — but was revealed by the tabloid Bild to have secretly refused every item of heavy equipment requested by Kyiv. After Scholz had crossed tanks and artillery off the list, an aid package said to be worth €1 billion (£836 million) had been reduced by more than two thirds.
Party hats and Soviet era defective and mouldy weapons. While they sold actual useful arms to Russia.
Though what Germany has actually sorted isn't insignificant:
Ukraine have outlined what they need and why they need it. Now the Russian tactics have changed, it isn't simply about weapons, weapons, weapons.
Ukraine have stated the specifics of the types of weaponry they require, different countries have different elements of this, none of the kit they actually have asked Germany for has been sent.
Its left to the US to provide more of the heavy weapons (and seems in combination with UK surveillance to assist with its usage).
The UK is expected to deliver 20 AS-90 self-propelled howitzers and 45,000 shells to Ukraine this week. The equipment will be first send to Poland, where Ukrainian troops will train on them. https://twitter.com/Archer83Able/status/1518205018230472706
We’re reaching the point where the war is at serious risk of metastasising.
Just an observation, not a comment on whether we/the poles are doing the right thing.
Dark clouds hang over Europe.
Yes, you have to wonder. At this stage there are no good options. It could very quickly escalate. The Ukraine govt and top level US diplomats are about to have discussions and more arms will be supplied. One has to wonder what the exit strategy is for Putin and Russia.
At some point soon, they are going to come to the realisation that the Ukranians have access to effectively unlimited military equipment and training, while their own forces are being rapidly depleted. Six months more of this, and there will barely be a Russian military, bar whatever unconventional weapons they can get serviceable.
Importantly, if the sanctions hold he’ll be unable to get replacement weapons manufactured, will be relying on China to actively join in - at which point we really are in WWIII.
If we're on track for WW3 we ought to change direction. But I don't think we are. I think Putin will consolidate a limited gain of territory and proclaim victory. The situation will then move from this 'hot' war in Ukraine to whatever you call a tense unstable stand-off between Russia and the West.
That's possible but I think that Ukraine are quite capable of ousting the Russians from all their gains and then the 2014 territories come into play. A palpable Russian military collapse is also conceivable and how would that affect the Russian political dynamic? God knows. The pace of the Russian defeat may be significant.
I'm the very opposite of expert on military matters but I'd be surprised if Russia were to lose this war to quite that extent. Of course (with the caveat of no crazy 'back against the wall' nuclear action from Putin) it would be great if I'm wrong.
It does seem hard to believe they could be defeated so comprehensively, even if Ukraine were able and willing to launch the kind of city smashing assault that would presumably be needed to push the Russians out of the cities taken in 2014.
I think the Russians retreating to the 2014 positions is quite possible. They are getting the same treatment at Izium that they got near Kyiv.
I can see retaking Kherson will be hard for Ukraine, but that may well be the plan.
The South is the tricky problem. Russia are strong because of the supply lines through Crimea and Ukraine could never agree to give up that land as part of a potential peace settlement.
The problem Ukraine has is that the people who live in Crimea now... well, those people are mostly Russian.
A fudge on Crimea could probably be found, depending on Donbas. But I'm not sure Russia is mentally able to accept that.
The population could be deported. If the Russians lose badly enough.
The thing that most worries me about the Ukraine situation is how Putin will react if his armies in Ukraine suffer a sudden, almost complete collapse. I don't think this is certain to happen, but by some accounts they are being attrited faster than new reinforcements are arriving. At some point, the reinforcements stop arriving.
Given that Ukraine has already dispatched some 50% of Russia's functioning armour, a complete collapse in 2-3 months time is not out of the question if the current pattern continues.
What does Putin do then? He will have virtually no conventional armed forces left to defend Mother Russia. It scares me enough I try not to think about it, even though I would love to see the total collapse of the Russian AF without the ... ahem ... fallout.
Some think he will use Victory Day to announce a full mobilisation.
Interesting rumours that Zelensky has plans to mark Victory Day too, and in a way that Russia would find very embarrasing.
Lighting up a Russian victory parade somewhere in occupied Ukraine would amuse me more than it should. Or maybe Belgorod.
Take Kherson? Although they should be in by the end of the week.
Kherson will be tricky, because of the scale of the Dneiper, and the very limited crossing points. The city maybe, but the oblast very difficult. Trapping the Russian forces east of the river would be a major victory though, and would really secure Odesa.
The thing that most worries me about the Ukraine situation is how Putin will react if his armies in Ukraine suffer a sudden, almost complete collapse. I don't think this is certain to happen, but by some accounts they are being attrited faster than new reinforcements are arriving. At some point, the reinforcements stop arriving.
Given that Ukraine has already dispatched some 50% of Russia's functioning armour, a complete collapse in 2-3 months time is not out of the question if the current pattern continues.
What does Putin do then? He will have virtually no conventional armed forces left to defend Mother Russia. It scares me enough I try not to think about it, even though I would love to see the total collapse of the Russian AF without the ... ahem ... fallout.
Some think he will use Victory Day to announce a full mobilisation.
Interesting rumours that Zelensky has plans to mark Victory Day too, and in a way that Russia would find very embarrasing.
What show off all the Western kit the Russians can only dream of?
More like, showing off all the Russian kit the Russians can only dream of.
Putin must know that there is a significant chance he will be liquidated by the FSB (or suddenly become very ill) if he looks likely to go nuclear. An internal coup isn't guaranteed to work but not everyone in the security forces (or military) is an insane nihilistic nationalist.
I see the internal coup argument come up, but I'm not convinced because it relies on the inner circle i) having access to the relevant information and ii) being rational enough to identify the 'correct' course of action.
I hope the internal coupists are right, I desperately hope so, but I can't help remembering that the Generals and Ministers in Hitler's bunker, with the Red Army above them raping through Berlin, remained loyal to the end. A good chunk would have been zealots, another chunk just stupid, but apparently no one down there thought offing the man was in their interests despite it being seemingly obvious that it was in the World's interest.
The thing that most worries me about the Ukraine situation is how Putin will react if his armies in Ukraine suffer a sudden, almost complete collapse. I don't think this is certain to happen, but by some accounts they are being attrited faster than new reinforcements are arriving. At some point, the reinforcements stop arriving.
Given that Ukraine has already dispatched some 50% of Russia's functioning armour, a complete collapse in 2-3 months time is not out of the question if the current pattern continues.
What does Putin do then? He will have virtually no conventional armed forces left to defend Mother Russia. It scares me enough I try not to think about it, even though I would love to see the total collapse of the Russian AF without the ... ahem ... fallout.
Some think he will use Victory Day to announce a full mobilisation.
Interesting rumours that Zelensky has plans to mark Victory Day too, and in a way that Russia would find very embarrasing.
What show off all the Western kit the Russians can only dream of?
More like, showing off all the Russian kit the Russians can only dream of.
Captured Russian equipment is Ukraine's largest source of heavy armour, and Ukraine now reportedly has more tanks in Ukraine than Russia.
The thing that most worries me about the Ukraine situation is how Putin will react if his armies in Ukraine suffer a sudden, almost complete collapse. I don't think this is certain to happen, but by some accounts they are being attrited faster than new reinforcements are arriving. At some point, the reinforcements stop arriving.
Given that Ukraine has already dispatched some 50% of Russia's functioning armour, a complete collapse in 2-3 months time is not out of the question if the current pattern continues.
What does Putin do then? He will have virtually no conventional armed forces left to defend Mother Russia. It scares me enough I try not to think about it, even though I would love to see the total collapse of the Russian AF without the ... ahem ... fallout.
Some think he will use Victory Day to announce a full mobilisation.
Interesting rumours that Zelensky has plans to mark Victory Day too, and in a way that Russia would find very embarrasing.
Olaf Scholz, the Chancellor, claimed to be delivering on his promise to send arms to Ukraine — but was revealed by the tabloid Bild to have secretly refused every item of heavy equipment requested by Kyiv. After Scholz had crossed tanks and artillery off the list, an aid package said to be worth €1 billion (£836 million) had been reduced by more than two thirds.
Party hats and Soviet era defective and mouldy weapons. While they sold actual useful arms to Russia.
Though what Germany has actually sorted isn't insignificant:
Ukraine have outlined what they need and why they need it. Now the Russian tactics have changed, it isn't simply about weapons, weapons, weapons.
Ukraine have stated the specifics of the types of weaponry they require, different countries have different elements of this, none of the kit they actually have asked Germany for has been sent.
Its left to the US to provide more of the heavy weapons (and seems in combination with UK surveillance to assist with its usage).
The UK is expected to deliver 20 AS-90 self-propelled howitzers and 45,000 shells to Ukraine this week. The equipment will be first send to Poland, where Ukrainian troops will train on them. https://twitter.com/Archer83Able/status/1518205018230472706
We’re reaching the point where the war is at serious risk of metastasising.
Just an observation, not a comment on whether we/the poles are doing the right thing.
Dark clouds hang over Europe.
Yes, you have to wonder. At this stage there are no good options. It could very quickly escalate. The Ukraine govt and top level US diplomats are about to have discussions and more arms will be supplied. One has to wonder what the exit strategy is for Putin and Russia.
At some point soon, they are going to come to the realisation that the Ukranians have access to effectively unlimited military equipment and training, while their own forces are being rapidly depleted. Six months more of this, and there will barely be a Russian military, bar whatever unconventional weapons they can get serviceable.
Importantly, if the sanctions hold he’ll be unable to get replacement weapons manufactured, will be relying on China to actively join in - at which point we really are in WWIII.
If we're on track for WW3 we ought to change direction. But I don't think we are. I think Putin will consolidate a limited gain of territory and proclaim victory. The situation will then move from this 'hot' war in Ukraine to whatever you call a tense unstable stand-off between Russia and the West.
That's possible but I think that Ukraine are quite capable of ousting the Russians from all their gains and then the 2014 territories come into play. A palpable Russian military collapse is also conceivable and how would that affect the Russian political dynamic? God knows. The pace of the Russian defeat may be significant.
I'm the very opposite of expert on military matters but I'd be surprised if Russia were to lose this war to quite that extent. Of course (with the caveat of no crazy 'back against the wall' nuclear action from Putin) it would be great if I'm wrong.
More likely is that, if that scenario was looming, Russia would declare victory with the gains it had and then expect the West to tell Ukraine to stop fighting given the effect it is having on the world economy. TBH, though, if that is their thinking, I suspect they are in for a shock.
Too many egos on either side when most people just want a solution that takes away a nuclear war - the west does not have to win - we are talking about the end of civilisation here not a playground fight
Given the only side threatening nuclear war is Russia's regime: what is your proposed 'solution' to the war that would stop him ever threatening their use again?
No such solution exists, so what is the poinht of demanding one? The best we can hope for is whatever minimises the risk of his doing so, and that - I am afraid - involves hoping that he achieves enough conventionally to satisfy him. There is no point in school-story rhetoric about "standing up to bullies" and as I have said, we have already tacitly crumbled by failing to perform on our unambiguous promise in the 1948 convention to prevent genocide.
If he's "satisfied" by his gains in this war then there's no reason for him not to have another go somewhere else once he's had a chance to rebuild his army.
There isn't an alternative to standing up to Russia. We either do it now, or we do it later.
He doesn't even need to rebuild his army to take over other countries. His favoured approach so far is to interfere politically - he has spent (and mis-spent) a great deal of treasure on doing that. If he wins in Ukraine, he can say to the states he threatens: "Vote for my candidate or what happened to Ukraine may just happen to you."
Of course he would not be as blatant as that; but pro-Russian candidates and parties might well find such fear a useful recruiting ground. "We can save you from war! Look at how the west let Ukraine down; our future lies with the east!"
Which is why the West need to make it very clear that Putin needs to be defeated, and be seen to have been defeated.
Yes, the 'he must be given something he can claim as a win' talk is misguided attempts at realpolitik, ignoring what he has done and thus will do in future with wins to date.
One of Putin's many stupidities in his invasion of Ukraine is setting up a situation where most of the other actors require him to be defeated.
“A great wind of freedom could have swept through this country. The fate of the ballot box wanted otherwise,” Le Pen told her supporters in a speech.
But she said her score of more than 40 percent of the vote “represents in itself a great victory. Millions of our compatriots have chosen the national camp and change.”
She also thanked her voters, especially those in rural and remote areas: “This France which has been too much forgotten, we do not forget it.”
SSI - Am NOT a fan of Putin's French understudy, but think that last para above is smack bang on the euro . . . AND the pound AND (lest we forget) the almighty dollar . . .
Losing is a "great victory"? Now who does that remind me of? Step forward, Jezza's mates (though not Jezza himself, actually).
Le Pen wants to keep her supporters - base & swing - motivated for the upcoming legislative elections.
Biggest result for her party, ever.
My biggest concern is how the polling maps showed support across France for the National Rally. If replicated in the final results, this would show breakthroughs in a number of regions. I am old enough to remember when the wise heads told us that the French National Front was severely regional and could never be competitive nationwide.
It already is de facto involvement with NATO arming Ukrainian and it cannot be ruled out that NATO will be drawn into the conflict at some time
Just repeating your opinion does not make it an unqualified fact in this intractable and unpredictable war, sadly
The Cold War was a series of proxy conflicts where sometimes the USA and Soviet Union would be arming one side or both sides. Ukraine is more like Vietnam or Afghanistan in which the forces of one of the superpowers are faced with what should be an inferior force but which is armed and supplied by the other superpower.
The results of both of those conflicts should give Ukraine some encouragement.
We have to avoid the temptation to become directly involved.
We are discussing this without considering one important thing. What is NATO's war aim? We are all-but belligerent, we must be working towards some end.
The end is the defence of the western democratic, human rights, liberal economics ideal in a rules-based world, and defending it at the first, not last domino. That is a defensive posture; NATO is not being an aggressor.
Yes, but is it the defeat of Russia, the destruction of their Army of Ukraine, a truce on 2014 borders, a bullet in the back of Putin's head, etc, etc.
#Ukraine: As a few of the NLAW launchers delivered to Ukraine by the UK have ran into battery issues (Running out too fast, or not functioning well in the cold), well, as ever, local forces are coming up with solutions.
That’s the sort of military training that makes a difference. Knowing how to jump start a dead anti-tank weapon, may save your life!
Let us hope Ben Wallace (and anyone sneering at badly-maintained Russian kit) is paying attention so the next time they are needed, our weapons have working batteries.
I'm sure they will pay attention. For a month or two.
Olaf Scholz, the Chancellor, claimed to be delivering on his promise to send arms to Ukraine — but was revealed by the tabloid Bild to have secretly refused every item of heavy equipment requested by Kyiv. After Scholz had crossed tanks and artillery off the list, an aid package said to be worth €1 billion (£836 million) had been reduced by more than two thirds.
Party hats and Soviet era defective and mouldy weapons. While they sold actual useful arms to Russia.
Though what Germany has actually sorted isn't insignificant:
Ukraine have outlined what they need and why they need it. Now the Russian tactics have changed, it isn't simply about weapons, weapons, weapons.
Ukraine have stated the specifics of the types of weaponry they require, different countries have different elements of this, none of the kit they actually have asked Germany for has been sent.
Its left to the US to provide more of the heavy weapons (and seems in combination with UK surveillance to assist with its usage).
The UK is expected to deliver 20 AS-90 self-propelled howitzers and 45,000 shells to Ukraine this week. The equipment will be first send to Poland, where Ukrainian troops will train on them. https://twitter.com/Archer83Able/status/1518205018230472706
We’re reaching the point where the war is at serious risk of metastasising.
Just an observation, not a comment on whether we/the poles are doing the right thing.
Dark clouds hang over Europe.
Yes, you have to wonder. At this stage there are no good options. It could very quickly escalate. The Ukraine govt and top level US diplomats are about to have discussions and more arms will be supplied. One has to wonder what the exit strategy is for Putin and Russia.
At some point soon, they are going to come to the realisation that the Ukranians have access to effectively unlimited military equipment and training, while their own forces are being rapidly depleted. Six months more of this, and there will barely be a Russian military, bar whatever unconventional weapons they can get serviceable.
Importantly, if the sanctions hold he’ll be unable to get replacement weapons manufactured, will be relying on China to actively join in - at which point we really are in WWIII.
If we're on track for WW3 we ought to change direction. But I don't think we are. I think Putin will consolidate a limited gain of territory and proclaim victory. The situation will then move from this 'hot' war in Ukraine to whatever you call a tense unstable stand-off between Russia and the West.
That's possible but I think that Ukraine are quite capable of ousting the Russians from all their gains and then the 2014 territories come into play. A palpable Russian military collapse is also conceivable and how would that affect the Russian political dynamic? God knows. The pace of the Russian defeat may be significant.
I'm the very opposite of expert on military matters but I'd be surprised if Russia were to lose this war to quite that extent. Of course (with the caveat of no crazy 'back against the wall' nuclear action from Putin) it would be great if I'm wrong.
It does seem hard to believe they could be defeated so comprehensively, even if Ukraine were able and willing to launch the kind of city smashing assault that would presumably be needed to push the Russians out of the cities taken in 2014.
I think the Russians retreating to the 2014 positions is quite possible. They are getting the same treatment at Izium that they got near Kyiv.
I can see retaking Kherson will be hard for Ukraine, but that may well be the plan.
The South is the tricky problem. Russia are strong because of the supply lines through Crimea and Ukraine could never agree to give up that land as part of a potential peace settlement.
The problem Ukraine has is that the people who live in Crimea now... well, those people are mostly Russian.
A fudge on Crimea could probably be found, depending on Donbas. But I'm not sure Russia is mentally able to accept that.
politico.com - ‘Not good idea’: Ukrainians dump on U.N. chief’s planned Putin meeting Prime Minister Denys Shmyhal said the Russians are interested in genocide, not more negotiations.
politico.eu - POLLSTERS LARGELY AGREE ON PROJECTIONS
Pollsters were generally very close in their initial second round projections tonight, putting Emmanuel Macron easily ahead of his challenger Marine Le Pen.
Here are their projections (official results will be published later by the interior ministry):
IPSOS: 58.2 percent for Macron, 41.8 percent for Le Pen.
IFOP: 58 percent for Macron, 42 percent for Le Pen.
OpinionWay: 57.9 percent for Macron, 42.1 percent for Le Pen.
Harris Interactive: 58 percent for Macron, 42 percent for Le Pen.
She increased her vote by about 9% on 2017, if she did the same in 2027 she would be on 50%.
Macron cannot run again so could be close next time
Clinging onto straws and your love of the far right, Le Pen, Trump and Farage
I said last week I would have voted for Pecresse in the first round and Macron in the runoff.
I also never voted for Farage, so stop sprouting rubbish.
So you reject Le Pen, Farage and Trump ?
I am a conservative not a far right nationalist, I did not even vote for Brexit although I accepted the result like you
Fair play - we have our disagreements but good we both utterly reject the likes of Le Pen, Trump and Farage
I think HYUFD has pretty consistent in his opposition to Trump, Le Pen and Farage. They do have a few secret supporters on PB but HYUFD isn't really one of them, and as he says he didn't actually vote for Brexit.
The few fanboys on PB try to hide it (out of embarrassment I presume) but give themselves away by getting overexcited when the possibility of one of them pulling a surprise happens. We saw it tonight when the rumours about the French overseas territories votes emerged.
Let me share with you my pet PB hate: it's dickless generalisers. You want to attack a poster? so attack them. Your generative organ is so microscopic that attacking is simply not an option? Hang weights on it, and STFU. "Few fanboys" ffs.
Your brain seems to be vying (vieing?) with your willy on the nanometer. This is a betting website, and surely even you can see that punters might be excited by the thought of a Le Pen victory for betting reasons?
The thing that most worries me about the Ukraine situation is how Putin will react if his armies in Ukraine suffer a sudden, almost complete collapse. I don't think this is certain to happen, but by some accounts they are being attrited faster than new reinforcements are arriving. At some point, the reinforcements stop arriving.
Given that Ukraine has already dispatched some 50% of Russia's functioning armour, a complete collapse in 2-3 months time is not out of the question if the current pattern continues.
What does Putin do then? He will have virtually no conventional armed forces left to defend Mother Russia. It scares me enough I try not to think about it, even though I would love to see the total collapse of the Russian AF without the ... ahem ... fallout.
Some think he will use Victory Day to announce a full mobilisation.
Interesting rumours that Zelensky has plans to mark Victory Day too, and in a way that Russia would find very embarrasing.
What show off all the Western kit the Russians can only dream of?
More like, showing off all the Russian kit the Russians can only dream of.
Captured Russian equipment is Ukraine's largest source of heavy armour, and Ukraine now reportedly has more tanks in Ukraine than Russia.
Even ignoring the Western reinforcements, the Ukranians now have more tanks than they did before the war started! They’ve captured more than they’ve lost themselves.
“A great wind of freedom could have swept through this country. The fate of the ballot box wanted otherwise,” Le Pen told her supporters in a speech.
But she said her score of more than 40 percent of the vote “represents in itself a great victory. Millions of our compatriots have chosen the national camp and change.”
She also thanked her voters, especially those in rural and remote areas: “This France which has been too much forgotten, we do not forget it.”
SSI - Am NOT a fan of Putin's French understudy, but think that last para above is smack bang on the euro . . . AND the pound AND (lest we forget) the almighty dollar . . .
Losing is a "great victory"? Now who does that remind me of? Step forward, Jezza's mates (though not Jezza himself, actually).
Le Pen wants to keep her supporters - base & swing - motivated for the upcoming legislative elections.
Biggest result for her party, ever.
My biggest concern is how the polling maps showed support across France for the National Rally. If replicated in the final results, this would show breakthroughs in a number of regions. I am old enough to remember when the wise heads told us that the French National Front was severely regional and could never be competitive nationwide.
Dont they always get screwed in the legislative elections?
Yay, 58/42 it is then. I've played this one like a violin. Still, not great that the Far Right come this close to winning power in France. 66/34 last time. At this rate it'll be 50/50 in 2027.
The problem has been the collapse of the centre-right in France.
I wonder how things would have been if 2017 had been Fillon vs Melanchon.
I think a lot of people would say a centre right candidate has just pretty tidily won the Presidential election. Certainly, he's more centre right than centre left, and has pitched his big tent across the lawn of the traditional centre right. Pecresse tacked right to take on Le Pen, but it was inauthentic and she couldn't convince anyone that there was space for her.
I find the centre left collapse more surprising in a way. There probably was a social democratic space to occupy there, but there never even looked to be a vague possibility of it being filled, whereas at least Pecresse briefy sparked interest before fizzling out.
Macron is a classical liberal, neither socialist or social democratic nor conservative.
He is basically a French Nick Clegg
Clegg was pretty clearly centre right. The smoothness of the relationship with Cameron, and extent to which their agendas aligned was ultimately a big part of his problem. He was to the left of the Tory rank and file, and many of its backbenchers for sure. But he was more closely aligned with the leadership of the Conservatives in those days than either party feels comfortable admitting.
Clegg was centre right on economics yes but on social issues and Brexit he was certainly not aligned with most Conservatives.
He could deal with Cameron, or indeed would have dealt with Blair or Starmer, he was too far away from Corbyn or Boris though
Similarly, Cameron wasn't aligned with most Conservatives on social issues.
The Notting Hill set were a long way removed from the Gammonati.
Putin must know that there is a significant chance he will be liquidated by the FSB (or suddenly become very ill) if he looks likely to go nuclear. An internal coup isn't guaranteed to work but not everyone in the security forces (or military) is an insane nihilistic nationalist.
I see the internal coup argument come up, but I'm not convinced because it relies on the inner circle i) having access to the relevant information and ii) being rational enough to identify the 'correct' course of action.
I hope the internal coupists are right, I desperately hope so, but I can't help remembering that the Generals and Ministers in Hitler's bunker, with the Red Army above them raping through Berlin, remained loyal to the end. A good chunk would have been zealots, another chunk just stupid, but apparently no one down there thought offing the man was in their interests despite it being seemingly obvious that it was in the World's interest.
"The second most powerful man in the Reich couldn't find a step ladder?"
The thing that most worries me about the Ukraine situation is how Putin will react if his armies in Ukraine suffer a sudden, almost complete collapse. I don't think this is certain to happen, but by some accounts they are being attrited faster than new reinforcements are arriving. At some point, the reinforcements stop arriving.
Given that Ukraine has already dispatched some 50% of Russia's functioning armour, a complete collapse in 2-3 months time is not out of the question if the current pattern continues.
What does Putin do then? He will have virtually no conventional armed forces left to defend Mother Russia. It scares me enough I try not to think about it, even though I would love to see the total collapse of the Russian AF without the ... ahem ... fallout.
Some think he will use Victory Day to announce a full mobilisation.
Interesting rumours that Zelensky has plans to mark Victory Day too, and in a way that Russia would find very embarrasing.
Lighting up a Russian victory parade somewhere in occupied Ukraine would amuse me more than it should. Or maybe Belgorod.
Take Kherson? Although they should be in by the end of the week.
Kherson will be tricky, because of the scale of the Dneiper, and the very limited crossing points. The city maybe, but the oblast very difficult. Trapping the Russian forces east of the river would be a major victory though, and would really secure Odesa.
A push to the Dnipro at the Antonovskiy Bridge and then pushing eastwards along the north side of the river to the dam in order to create a big gap between Kherson and the Russian troops to the east and north of the river while denying both sets of Russian troops resupply across either bridge would be awesome, if highly unlikely.
It would not matter if the Russians blow the Antonovskiy Bridge, either, in terms of securing Odesa. But the Russians will not blow the dam - Crimea relies on it.
Olaf Scholz, the Chancellor, claimed to be delivering on his promise to send arms to Ukraine — but was revealed by the tabloid Bild to have secretly refused every item of heavy equipment requested by Kyiv. After Scholz had crossed tanks and artillery off the list, an aid package said to be worth €1 billion (£836 million) had been reduced by more than two thirds.
Party hats and Soviet era defective and mouldy weapons. While they sold actual useful arms to Russia.
Though what Germany has actually sorted isn't insignificant:
Ukraine have outlined what they need and why they need it. Now the Russian tactics have changed, it isn't simply about weapons, weapons, weapons.
Ukraine have stated the specifics of the types of weaponry they require, different countries have different elements of this, none of the kit they actually have asked Germany for has been sent.
Its left to the US to provide more of the heavy weapons (and seems in combination with UK surveillance to assist with its usage).
The UK is expected to deliver 20 AS-90 self-propelled howitzers and 45,000 shells to Ukraine this week. The equipment will be first send to Poland, where Ukrainian troops will train on them. https://twitter.com/Archer83Able/status/1518205018230472706
We’re reaching the point where the war is at serious risk of metastasising.
Just an observation, not a comment on whether we/the poles are doing the right thing.
Dark clouds hang over Europe.
Yes, you have to wonder. At this stage there are no good options. It could very quickly escalate. The Ukraine govt and top level US diplomats are about to have discussions and more arms will be supplied. One has to wonder what the exit strategy is for Putin and Russia.
At some point soon, they are going to come to the realisation that the Ukranians have access to effectively unlimited military equipment and training, while their own forces are being rapidly depleted. Six months more of this, and there will barely be a Russian military, bar whatever unconventional weapons they can get serviceable.
Importantly, if the sanctions hold he’ll be unable to get replacement weapons manufactured, will be relying on China to actively join in - at which point we really are in WWIII.
If we're on track for WW3 we ought to change direction. But I don't think we are. I think Putin will consolidate a limited gain of territory and proclaim victory. The situation will then move from this 'hot' war in Ukraine to whatever you call a tense unstable stand-off between Russia and the West.
That's possible but I think that Ukraine are quite capable of ousting the Russians from all their gains and then the 2014 territories come into play. A palpable Russian military collapse is also conceivable and how would that affect the Russian political dynamic? God knows. The pace of the Russian defeat may be significant.
I'm the very opposite of expert on military matters but I'd be surprised if Russia were to lose this war to quite that extent. Of course (with the caveat of no crazy 'back against the wall' nuclear action from Putin) it would be great if I'm wrong.
It does seem hard to believe they could be defeated so comprehensively, even if Ukraine were able and willing to launch the kind of city smashing assault that would presumably be needed to push the Russians out of the cities taken in 2014.
I think the Russians retreating to the 2014 positions is quite possible. They are getting the same treatment at Izium that they got near Kyiv.
I can see retaking Kherson will be hard for Ukraine, but that may well be the plan.
The South is the tricky problem. Russia are strong because of the supply lines through Crimea and Ukraine could never agree to give up that land as part of a potential peace settlement.
The problem Ukraine has is that the people who live in Crimea now... well, those people are mostly Russian.
A fudge on Crimea could probably be found, depending on Donbas. But I'm not sure Russia is mentally able to accept that.
An independent Crimea?
Long grass, I think. A special international commission to oversee a final settlement, taking into consideration the interests and wishes of the residents, blah. Basically it will settle on the status quo, ie Russian possession but will delay formal acknowledgement for long enough that the rest of the agreement - Russia wholly or mostly returning to pre-2014 borders - can be implemented.
No departements on mainland in yet, but partial results currently showing double-digit drops for Macron in rural areas versus his 8-point fall nationwide.
Olaf Scholz, the Chancellor, claimed to be delivering on his promise to send arms to Ukraine — but was revealed by the tabloid Bild to have secretly refused every item of heavy equipment requested by Kyiv. After Scholz had crossed tanks and artillery off the list, an aid package said to be worth €1 billion (£836 million) had been reduced by more than two thirds.
Party hats and Soviet era defective and mouldy weapons. While they sold actual useful arms to Russia.
Though what Germany has actually sorted isn't insignificant:
Ukraine have outlined what they need and why they need it. Now the Russian tactics have changed, it isn't simply about weapons, weapons, weapons.
Ukraine have stated the specifics of the types of weaponry they require, different countries have different elements of this, none of the kit they actually have asked Germany for has been sent.
Its left to the US to provide more of the heavy weapons (and seems in combination with UK surveillance to assist with its usage).
The UK is expected to deliver 20 AS-90 self-propelled howitzers and 45,000 shells to Ukraine this week. The equipment will be first send to Poland, where Ukrainian troops will train on them. https://twitter.com/Archer83Able/status/1518205018230472706
We’re reaching the point where the war is at serious risk of metastasising.
Just an observation, not a comment on whether we/the poles are doing the right thing.
Dark clouds hang over Europe.
Yes, you have to wonder. At this stage there are no good options. It could very quickly escalate. The Ukraine govt and top level US diplomats are about to have discussions and more arms will be supplied. One has to wonder what the exit strategy is for Putin and Russia.
At some point soon, they are going to come to the realisation that the Ukranians have access to effectively unlimited military equipment and training, while their own forces are being rapidly depleted. Six months more of this, and there will barely be a Russian military, bar whatever unconventional weapons they can get serviceable.
Importantly, if the sanctions hold he’ll be unable to get replacement weapons manufactured, will be relying on China to actively join in - at which point we really are in WWIII.
If we're on track for WW3 we ought to change direction. But I don't think we are. I think Putin will consolidate a limited gain of territory and proclaim victory. The situation will then move from this 'hot' war in Ukraine to whatever you call a tense unstable stand-off between Russia and the West.
That's possible but I think that Ukraine are quite capable of ousting the Russians from all their gains and then the 2014 territories come into play. A palpable Russian military collapse is also conceivable and how would that affect the Russian political dynamic? God knows. The pace of the Russian defeat may be significant.
I'm the very opposite of expert on military matters but I'd be surprised if Russia were to lose this war to quite that extent. Of course (with the caveat of no crazy 'back against the wall' nuclear action from Putin) it would be great if I'm wrong.
It does seem hard to believe they could be defeated so comprehensively, even if Ukraine were able and willing to launch the kind of city smashing assault that would presumably be needed to push the Russians out of the cities taken in 2014.
I think the Russians retreating to the 2014 positions is quite possible. They are getting the same treatment at Izium that they got near Kyiv.
I can see retaking Kherson will be hard for Ukraine, but that may well be the plan.
The South is the tricky problem. Russia are strong because of the supply lines through Crimea and Ukraine could never agree to give up that land as part of a potential peace settlement.
The problem Ukraine has is that the people who live in Crimea now... well, those people are mostly Russian.
A fudge on Crimea could probably be found, depending on Donbas. But I'm not sure Russia is mentally able to accept that.
An independent Crimea?
A way to troll the Russians would be to allow them to keep Crimea, but have all the resources offshore go to Ukraine. After all, this is not about oil and gas, is it, Putin?
(Hint; it is, in part. Transnistria, Donbass and Crimea all have large oil and/or gas deposits nearby. If Ukraine was to develop those, it could remove most of its, and Europe's, reliance on Russia.)
No departements on mainland in yet, but partial results currently showing double-digit drops for Macron in rural areas versus his 8-point fall nationwide.
Final word from me on Le Pen. There's no doubt that she's tried to ditch the (neo-) fascist baggage of her party. But I watched most of the televised Macron-Le Pen debate a few days ago and some of her views, and language, still remain firmly entrenched in the far right. I was a bit taken aback - as I am that her vote is so high. If this is Le Pen having ditched her father's fascism, there's still more to ditch. The racism and unbridled nationalism is still there in the subtext, even if she chooses her words a bit more carefully. Her dog whistles on race and religion are much, much louder than even Farage's. It would have been a disaster for France, and Europe, if she'd won.
She increased her vote by about 9% on 2017, if she did the same in 2027 she would be on 50%.
Macron cannot run again so could be close next time
Clinging onto straws and your love of the far right, Le Pen, Trump and Farage
I said last week I would have voted for Pecresse in the first round and Macron in the runoff.
I also never voted for Farage, so stop sprouting rubbish.
So you reject Le Pen, Farage and Trump ?
I am a conservative not a far right nationalist, I did not even vote for Brexit although I accepted the result like you
Fair play - we have our disagreements but good we both utterly reject the likes of Le Pen, Trump and Farage
I think HYUFD has pretty consistent in his opposition to Trump, Le Pen and Farage. They do have a few secret supporters on PB but HYUFD isn't really one of them, and as he says he didn't actually vote for Brexit.
The few fanboys on PB try to hide it (out of embarrassment I presume) but give themselves away by getting overexcited when the possibility of one of them pulling a surprise happens. We saw it tonight when the rumours about the French overseas territories votes emerged.
Let me share with you my pet PB hate: it's dickless generalisers. You want to attack a poster? so attack them. Your generative organ is so microscopic that attacking is simply not an option? Hang weights on it, and STFU. "Few fanboys" ffs.
Your brain seems to be vying (vieing?) with your willy on the nanometer. This is a betting website, and surely even you can see that punters might be excited by the thought of a Le Pen victory for betting reasons?
Of course they are.
Seem to have hit a bit of nerve there judging by the OTT personal abuse
“A great wind of freedom could have swept through this country. The fate of the ballot box wanted otherwise,” Le Pen told her supporters in a speech.
But she said her score of more than 40 percent of the vote “represents in itself a great victory. Millions of our compatriots have chosen the national camp and change.”
She also thanked her voters, especially those in rural and remote areas: “This France which has been too much forgotten, we do not forget it.”
SSI - Am NOT a fan of Putin's French understudy, but think that last para above is smack bang on the euro . . . AND the pound AND (lest we forget) the almighty dollar . . .
Losing is a "great victory"? Now who does that remind me of? Step forward, Jezza's mates (though not Jezza himself, actually).
Le Pen wants to keep her supporters - base & swing - motivated for the upcoming legislative elections.
Biggest result for her party, ever.
My biggest concern is how the polling maps showed support across France for the National Rally. If replicated in the final results, this would show breakthroughs in a number of regions. I am old enough to remember when the wise heads told us that the French National Front was severely regional and could never be competitive nationwide.
Dont they always get screwed in the legislative elections?
Mostly - yes.
But if the support in national elections increases, then at some point they will do much better.
Unless, of course, Le Pen was "lent" a lot of her vote.
Comments
Melenchon is just a French Corbyn.
The right will have been out of the Elysee for 15 years in 2027, hopefully Les Republicains pick a decent candidate like Bertrand who can actually win next time
The Superpower's interests are the reason they supply the arms; they are not the reason the fighters fight.
Little more than 20% gets a place in the run-off.
I come from it on a relative, France-only basis, while GF comes at it from a policy perspective. Wonder how the BBC decide.
* Exceptions apply.
Landslides for Macron in New Caledonia and Wallis & Futuna, narrow win in French Polynesia.
He is basically a French Nick Clegg
I'm so glad Everton and in particular Richarlison's shithousery lost today.
Highlight of the match, Alisson taking the piss out of Pickford.
https://twitter.com/AnfieldWatch/status/1518288475786821632
I'm going as usual to be slightly counter-intuitive.
Le Pen should have done better - she's had five years to prepare against an ostensibly unpopular President. She's tacked toward the centre-right while maintaining her right flank and seeing off the challenge of Zemmour.
She's had five years to game plan the debate - to come up with the knock out blow, the decisive argument which would undermine Macron and leave him, like Hollande and Sarkozy, a one-term leader.
In the end, while she has done better than 2017, she's not really been able to convince France she's the right leader. Perhaps she's been unlucky because her relationship with Putin has proven a real liability.
Perhaps her party will do better in the Legislative Elections but that isn't usually the case and it may well be LREM will be back with another majority.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=e8gIZU5qSqM
But as they say, it takes one to know one.
So while En Marche may remain largest party, in the legislative elections it will probably lose seats to Melenchon's party, RN and Les Republicains and the Greens and maybe its majority too
For what it's worth, I also think Macron will tack a bit to the left in his second term - a bit more redistributive, and keen to distance him/his party from the bourgeoisie a bit more.
“A great wind of freedom could have swept through this country. The fate of the ballot box wanted otherwise,” Le Pen told her supporters in a speech.
But she said her score of more than 40 percent of the vote “represents in itself a great victory. Millions of our compatriots have chosen the national camp and change.”
She also thanked her voters, especially those in rural and remote areas: “This France which has been too much forgotten, we do not forget it.”
SSI - Am NOT a fan of Putin's French understudy, but think that last para above is smack bang on the euro . . . AND the pound AND (lest we forget) the almighty dollar . . .
But I agree that it was a shockingly bad result.
The Le Pen name is so toxic, it's like Farage in by elections.
I do fear though in 2027 or later a Le Pen will win by by accident, not sure if it will be Marine or Marion.
Take Kherson? Although they should be in by the end of the week.
Svoboda plus the Social Democrats would have a bare majority.
If Gordon doesn't dive he gets a penalty later in the match, reap what you sow.
If we wind back to 2017, Fillon had it all sorted. He would get the Gaullist nomination, would swan through first round and beat Le Pen in the second as the only respectable candidate left. The Right/Far Right playbook had been run a couple of times already. Fillon hardly needed to campaign.
And then his campaign self-combusted for reasons that are quite astonishing in the French context: for employing his family in shadow jobs where they didn't need to turn up to work. No-one ever gets done for anything like that. In 2017 both Macron and Le Pen were challengers. This time round Macron is the Fillon establishment candidate. It's why Pécresse did so badly, She had nothing to offer. Most of her would be voters were already in the Macron camp and the others who wanted to give Le Pen a chance had jumped ship.
Edit which is probably why Mélenchon did so well. Supporters of other left parties realising their candidates didn't stand a chance voted for him tactically to get a Left/Centre Right choice in the second round instead. They almost succeeded. Macron would still have won the second round however.
https://twitter.com/Tactical_Times/status/1518287697323962368
In the proper Siberian winter, there’s a ‘process’ to starting a car, that involves taking the battery out and keeping it indoors overnight, turning on fuel and oil heaters for several minutes, then cranking the engine with the spark disconnected, before actually switching it on.
Note that in 1932 presidential election in Germany, 2nd round but with 3 candidates, Adolf Hitler won 36.8% of the total vote; further note that his share of the vote for top two candidates - himself & Hindenburg - was 41.0%
In 2017, both she and Macron were change candidates, and you can see why he was more attractive and unifying. This time round, he had a (mixed) record to defend and ultimately it wasn't a squeaker. She's not getting any younger and next time she'll be up against a fresh opponent. Never say never, but she might well have blown her best chance.
I hope the internal coupists are right, I desperately hope so, but I can't help remembering that the Generals and Ministers in Hitler's bunker, with the Red Army above them raping through Berlin, remained loyal to the end. A good chunk would have been zealots, another chunk just stupid, but apparently no one down there thought offing the man was in their interests despite it being seemingly obvious that it was in the World's interest.
The few fanboys on PB try to hide it (out of embarrassment I presume) but give themselves away by getting overexcited when the possibility of one of them pulling a surprise happens. We saw it tonight when the rumours about the French overseas territories votes emerged.
He could deal with Cameron, or indeed would have dealt with Blair or Starmer, he was too far away from Corbyn or Boris though
Undoubtedly aided by the personal relationship the two leaders had, it was nonetheless also based on a convergence of ideas from post the GFC and recognising it was the end of more than a decade of Blairite "Third Way" policies.
The convergence didn't last and the two parties are now as wide apart as ever but I wouldn't assume that translates to automatic support for a Starmer-led Labour minority Government at this time.
BTW Hope your new job is going well despite Covid
AND. Two of the things tyrants do:
1. Make their inner circle complicit in their own crimes
2. Make their downfall the downfall of the inner circle
CR v CL? No, I stick to that, CR, based on how he's governed 1st term. But let's see if his 2nd term bears out your view. Hope so.
My biggest concern is how the polling maps showed support across France for the National Rally. If replicated in the final results, this would show breakthroughs in a number of regions. I am old enough to remember when the wise heads told us that the French National Front was severely regional and could never be competitive nationwide.
Prime Minister Denys Shmyhal said the Russians are interested in genocide, not more negotiations.
https://www.politico.com/news/2022/04/24/ukraine-putin-united-nations-00027383
Pollsters were generally very close in their initial second round projections tonight, putting Emmanuel Macron easily ahead of his challenger Marine Le Pen.
Here are their projections (official results will be published later by the interior ministry):
IPSOS: 58.2 percent for Macron, 41.8 percent for Le Pen.
IFOP: 58 percent for Macron, 42 percent for Le Pen.
OpinionWay: 57.9 percent for Macron, 42.1 percent for Le Pen.
Harris Interactive: 58 percent for Macron, 42 percent for Le Pen.
Your brain seems to be vying (vieing?) with your willy on the nanometer. This is a betting website, and surely even you can see that punters might be excited by the thought of a Le Pen victory for betting reasons?
The Notting Hill set were a long way removed from the Gammonati.
It would not matter if the Russians blow the Antonovskiy Bridge, either, in terms of securing Odesa. But the Russians will not blow the dam - Crimea relies on it.
(Hint; it is, in part. Transnistria, Donbass and Crimea all have large oil and/or gas deposits nearby. If Ukraine was to develop those, it could remove most of its, and Europe's, reliance on Russia.)
Seem to have hit a bit of nerve there judging by the OTT personal abuse
But if the support in national elections increases, then at some point they will do much better.
Unless, of course, Le Pen was "lent" a lot of her vote.