At evens LAB looks value for a Commons majority – politicalbetting.com

Leon said:

ydoethur said:

Leon said:

AlistairM said:

Leon said:

AlistairM said:

Got to love the Ukrainian MoD Twitter:

So, russkies, you really think you can compensate for your impotence on the battlefield with missile strikes on peaceful cities? You just don’t get it do you - your terrorist strikes only make us stronger. We are coming after you.
https://twitter.com/DefenceU/status/1579388767336648706

They’ve lost the moral high ground tho

There are Ukrainian govt officials on Twitter complaining about “Russian terror attacks on civilians”

Er, what was the Kerch bridge?! Civilians died. It was probably a truck bomb, possibly by suicide. It was a terror attack on Russia by that definition

The Ukrainian attack was precisely targeted. The attacks by Russia were random and indiscriminate.

If you take a step back, you will hear how insane this sounds

Why? What was strategic about a toddlers' playground?

Was Darya Dugina, killed by a Ukrainian car bomb in Moscow, a strategic target?

Putin is the evil aggressor here, but both sides are now fighting a dirty horrible war. Which is escalating exactly as some of us predicted

Ukraine will now take further revenge. Etc. This quite likely ends in nukes

And was she killed by Ukraine ?
You simply don't know.

LostPassword said:

TimS said:

LostPassword said:

Belarus is inching closer to direct involvement in the war. The pressure from Putin on them to join in must be intense.

Faytuks News Δ
@Faytuks
BREAKING: Russia and Belarus agreed to deploy a joint "regional group of troops" - BelTa

https://mobile.twitter.com/Faytuks/status/1579395361378291712

Belarus may well be the first domino to fall.

Yes, it might. Whether before or after another attempt to invade Ukraine from Belarus, I don't know. I would think that's a more likely development than nuclear weapons though.

If troops and missiles start coming from Belarus, then a Ukranian attack on that country directly will be fair game. And Lukashenko doesn’t have nukes.

Also, France was defeated by domestic and international politics in Algeria - not the FLA.

France had won back military control of Algeria by 1959. Had exactly the same war been fought in the 1880s or even as late as the 1920s Algeria would have stayed French.

But, by the 1960s, such methods were considered beyond the pale.

OnlyLivingBoy said:

MarqueeMark said:

Leon said:

AlistairM said:

Got to love the Ukrainian MoD Twitter:

So, russkies, you really think you can compensate for your impotence on the battlefield with missile strikes on peaceful cities? You just don’t get it do you - your terrorist strikes only make us stronger. We are coming after you.
https://twitter.com/DefenceU/status/1579388767336648706

They’ve lost the moral high ground tho

There are Ukrainian govt officials on Twitter complaining about “Russian terror attacks on civilians”

Er, what was the Kerch bridge?! Civilians died. It was probably a truck bomb, possibly by suicide. It was a terror attack on Russia by that definition

Russia claims three civilians died.

And stop repeating their line of it being a truck bomb. It wasn't - and you have nothing other than Russian propaganda to say so. Unless you want to look a complete twerp/Russian useful idiot, use the evidence of your eyes. This would have had to be a truck bomb bigger than that the IRA used to level Manchester city centre. Go and look at images of that and other truck bombings. There is mess EVERYWHERE. The sections of bridge were ridiculously clean. Even the white lines still on the sunken sections. The only debris visible was what fell off the burning bridge above.

It embarrasses Russia that its prestigious bridge - Putin's bridge - protected by 20 different systems, was badly damaged by the Ukrainians (with or without help). It embarrasses you that you spout the Russian attempts at face-saving talking points.

Yes the bridge was almost certainly blown up from below and is clearly a military target as it is one of the key routes for supplying the Russian military occupiers in Crimea and Kherson. Bravo to Ukraine.
I think we have gone beyond the phase of being scared of Putin's escalation. He has become the number one danger to European and world peace and his nuclear threats simply underline that fact. Appeasing him now will only keep the danger in place. We are in a very dangerous situation but I think we now need to allow the Ukrainians to defeat Russia and have Putin deposed. His nuclear threats may or may not be genuine but they have to be faced down now.

I don't think we can have deposing Putin as a war aim, because there's no way to achieve that which doesn't genuinely risk nuclear war.

What we can do is something like the First Gulf War. Push Russia back to its own borders and contain it within those, with certain stringent conditions for normalising relations - and those may involve war criminals facing justice.

Golf courses do of course take up a lot of what would otherwise be productive farmland.

OnlyLivingBoy said:

MarqueeMark said:

Leon said:

AlistairM said:

Got to love the Ukrainian MoD Twitter:

So, russkies, you really think you can compensate for your impotence on the battlefield with missile strikes on peaceful cities? You just don’t get it do you - your terrorist strikes only make us stronger. We are coming after you.
https://twitter.com/DefenceU/status/1579388767336648706

They’ve lost the moral high ground tho

There are Ukrainian govt officials on Twitter complaining about “Russian terror attacks on civilians”

Er, what was the Kerch bridge?! Civilians died. It was probably a truck bomb, possibly by suicide. It was a terror attack on Russia by that definition

Russia claims three civilians died.

And stop repeating their line of it being a truck bomb. It wasn't - and you have nothing other than Russian propaganda to say so. Unless you want to look a complete twerp/Russian useful idiot, use the evidence of your eyes. This would have had to be a truck bomb bigger than that the IRA used to level Manchester city centre. Go and look at images of that and other truck bombings. There is mess EVERYWHERE. The sections of bridge were ridiculously clean. Even the white lines still on the sunken sections. The only debris visible was what fell off the burning bridge above.

It embarrasses Russia that its prestigious bridge - Putin's bridge - protected by 20 different systems, was badly damaged by the Ukrainians (with or without help). It embarrasses you that you spout the Russian attempts at face-saving talking points.

Yes the bridge was almost certainly blown up from below and is clearly a military target as it is one of the key routes for supplying the Russian military occupiers in Crimea and Kherson. Bravo to Ukraine.
I think we have gone beyond the phase of being scared of Putin's escalation. He has become the number one danger to European and world peace and his nuclear threats simply underline that fact. Appeasing him now will only keep the danger in place. We are in a very dangerous situation but I think we now need to allow the Ukrainians to defeat Russia and have Putin deposed. His nuclear threats may or may not be genuine but they have to be faced down now.

The FT article (££) is quite persuasive that it was probably a truck, driven from Russia. That’s the conclusion of analysts, including some Ukrainians

The second possibility is a missile, but that seems less likely

The article also makes the point that the Ukes will want to blur the picture to confuse and confound Moscow

Pulpstar said:

Leon said:

My bombs are *precisely targeted*
Your bombs are indiscriminate and evil
His bombs are a WAR CRIME

Our bombs saved millions of lives.

Net saving?

Leon said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

MarqueeMark said:

Leon said:

AlistairM said:

Got to love the Ukrainian MoD Twitter:

So, russkies, you really think you can compensate for your impotence on the battlefield with missile strikes on peaceful cities? You just don’t get it do you - your terrorist strikes only make us stronger. We are coming after you.
https://twitter.com/DefenceU/status/1579388767336648706

They’ve lost the moral high ground tho

There are Ukrainian govt officials on Twitter complaining about “Russian terror attacks on civilians”

Er, what was the Kerch bridge?! Civilians died. It was probably a truck bomb, possibly by suicide. It was a terror attack on Russia by that definition

Russia claims three civilians died.

And stop repeating their line of it being a truck bomb. It wasn't - and you have nothing other than Russian propaganda to say so. Unless you want to look a complete twerp/Russian useful idiot, use the evidence of your eyes. This would have had to be a truck bomb bigger than that the IRA used to level Manchester city centre. Go and look at images of that and other truck bombings. There is mess EVERYWHERE. The sections of bridge were ridiculously clean. Even the white lines still on the sunken sections. The only debris visible was what fell off the burning bridge above.

It embarrasses Russia that its prestigious bridge - Putin's bridge - protected by 20 different systems, was badly damaged by the Ukrainians (with or without help). It embarrasses you that you spout the Russian attempts at face-saving talking points.

Yes the bridge was almost certainly blown up from below and is clearly a military target as it is one of the key routes for supplying the Russian military occupiers in Crimea and Kherson. Bravo to Ukraine.
I think we have gone beyond the phase of being scared of Putin's escalation. He has become the number one danger to European and world peace and his nuclear threats simply underline that fact. Appeasing him now will only keep the danger in place. We are in a very dangerous situation but I think we now need to allow the Ukrainians to defeat Russia and have Putin deposed. His nuclear threats may or may not be genuine but they have to be faced down now.

The FT article (££) is quite persuasive that it was probably a truck, driven from Russia. That’s the conclusion of analysts, including some Ukrainians

The second possibility is a missile, but that seems less likely

The article also makes the point that the Ukes will want to blur the picture to confuse and confound Moscow

No, it really isn't. Lots of evidence is out there that its an explosion that has come from underneath, which isn't reported (in fact just dismissed out of hand) there.

OnlyLivingBoy said:

MarqueeMark said:

Leon said:

AlistairM said:

Got to love the Ukrainian MoD Twitter:

So, russkies, you really think you can compensate for your impotence on the battlefield with missile strikes on peaceful cities? You just don’t get it do you - your terrorist strikes only make us stronger. We are coming after you.
https://twitter.com/DefenceU/status/1579388767336648706

They’ve lost the moral high ground tho

There are Ukrainian govt officials on Twitter complaining about “Russian terror attacks on civilians”

Er, what was the Kerch bridge?! Civilians died. It was probably a truck bomb, possibly by suicide. It was a terror attack on Russia by that definition

Russia claims three civilians died.

And stop repeating their line of it being a truck bomb. It wasn't - and you have nothing other than Russian propaganda to say so. Unless you want to look a complete twerp/Russian useful idiot, use the evidence of your eyes. This would have had to be a truck bomb bigger than that the IRA used to level Manchester city centre. Go and look at images of that and other truck bombings. There is mess EVERYWHERE. The sections of bridge were ridiculously clean. Even the white lines still on the sunken sections. The only debris visible was what fell off the burning bridge above.

It embarrasses Russia that its prestigious bridge - Putin's bridge - protected by 20 different systems, was badly damaged by the Ukrainians (with or without help). It embarrasses you that you spout the Russian attempts at face-saving talking points.

Yes the bridge was almost certainly blown up from below and is clearly a military target as it is one of the key routes for supplying the Russian military occupiers in Crimea and Kherson. Bravo to Ukraine.
I think we have gone beyond the phase of being scared of Putin's escalation. He has become the number one danger to European and world peace and his nuclear threats simply underline that fact. Appeasing him now will only keep the danger in place. We are in a very dangerous situation but I think we now need to allow the Ukrainians to defeat Russia and have Putin deposed. His nuclear threats may or may not be genuine but they have to be faced down now.

The smart thing to do would be to offer am alternative Russian leader a massive carrot for a peace deal.

Economics wouldn't be enough. Russian pride would need to be assuaged. So, there'd need to be something emotional/ cultural/ national on top as well.

Not sure what that would be but I've always liked the idea of the restoration of a constitutional Tsar.

Pro_Rata said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

MarqueeMark said:

Leon said:

AlistairM said:

Got to love the Ukrainian MoD Twitter:

So, russkies, you really think you can compensate for your impotence on the battlefield with missile strikes on peaceful cities? You just don’t get it do you - your terrorist strikes only make us stronger. We are coming after you.
https://twitter.com/DefenceU/status/1579388767336648706

They’ve lost the moral high ground tho

There are Ukrainian govt officials on Twitter complaining about “Russian terror attacks on civilians”

Er, what was the Kerch bridge?! Civilians died. It was probably a truck bomb, possibly by suicide. It was a terror attack on Russia by that definition

Russia claims three civilians died.

And stop repeating their line of it being a truck bomb. It wasn't - and you have nothing other than Russian propaganda to say so. Unless you want to look a complete twerp/Russian useful idiot, use the evidence of your eyes. This would have had to be a truck bomb bigger than that the IRA used to level Manchester city centre. Go and look at images of that and other truck bombings. There is mess EVERYWHERE. The sections of bridge were ridiculously clean. Even the white lines still on the sunken sections. The only debris visible was what fell off the burning bridge above.

It embarrasses Russia that its prestigious bridge - Putin's bridge - protected by 20 different systems, was badly damaged by the Ukrainians (with or without help). It embarrasses you that you spout the Russian attempts at face-saving talking points.

Yes the bridge was almost certainly blown up from below and is clearly a military target as it is one of the key routes for supplying the Russian military occupiers in Crimea and Kherson. Bravo to Ukraine.
I think we have gone beyond the phase of being scared of Putin's escalation. He has become the number one danger to European and world peace and his nuclear threats simply underline that fact. Appeasing him now will only keep the danger in place. We are in a very dangerous situation but I think we now need to allow the Ukrainians to defeat Russia and have Putin deposed. His nuclear threats may or may not be genuine but they have to be faced down now.

To reiterate Marquee's point on truck bombs:

https://youtu.be/HUl2ye6sPG8

The day the IRA bombed Manchester, causing £1bn of improvements!

MarqueeMark said:

IshmaelZ said:

pigeon said:

LostPassword said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

IshmaelZ said:

RochdalePioneers said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

pigeon said:

Scott_xP said:

This is a very bad idea, in an energy crisis. There's a European war on, costing many tens of billions in energy support, plus weaponry and aid to Ukraine. Govt can say everyone must do their bit, including people who like fields.
https://twitter.com/iainmartin1/status/1579373371095412736
https://twitter.com/horton_official/status/1579351658056011776

Good God almighty, what a bunch of fucking spazmos we have reigning over us in ignominy. Notwithstanding the fact that, as is made clear by the linked article, solar tends to go on not particularly productive land, it isn't even as if it renders it totally unusable for agriculture. Solar farms often double as sheep pasture.

It doesn't take much imagination to see what's more likely to be behind this. The same as the reason why the Tories practically banned onshore wind years ago. Nimbies wetting their knickers about their precious views and their fucking house prices.

No, I do not think it is Nimbies against solar farms on agricultural land. The Farming Lobby perhaps?

It isn't even that. Farmers need revenue for their land and this is revenue. They aren't putting solar farms on fields that are otherwise producing crops / animals. What this is about is wazzock Tories who dislike "woke" which includes environmentalism which apparently means that despite the VERY real danger of brownouts this winter that we should further restrict our ability to produce power.

I did call them wazzocks didn't I? Complete and total fucking wazzocks. "We want to cut the red tape on planning" / "no no, you famers can't put solar panels up, we need more red tape on planning to stop you making productive use of your land".

Fuckers. And there are still a hardcore intending to vote for them.

You sound a bit angry and ill-informed. Solar panels are being put on perfectly cracking pasture land. Why do you think it has been counted as farmland for literally millennia if it is incapable of producing crops or animals?

If its perfectly good and productive pasture land that's more productive than farming solar energy then the farmers will get more money for that, so won't install the panels.

If the farmers are installing the panels, they presumably don't think that land is productive.

Who should we listen to on what land is productive and what isn't? Bureaucrats in Whitehall, or farmers making their own choice via their own expertise?

This is the same issue with biofuels though. You have demand for energy competing with demand for food, and the land can only give so much.

Solar and biofuels strike me as two rather different propositions. Solar farms go on quite low grade land, which remains of some utility for grazing even once the panels are installed. AIUI, biofuel production eats up fields that could otherwise be used for food crops. One activity is a great deal more problematic than the other.

Bollocks, mate, and self-contradictory. Either this land is low grade, or it is so high grade that it can support solar and grazing simultaneously. Which is it?

In fact, solar farms are observably put on high grade pasture. There are in theory some set ups where you can put the solar on stilts and graze underneath it, but it is never in practice done - panels are at ground level and securely fenced off. It's also a quart in a pint pot sort of concept - grass and solar panels compete for the same sunshine, and can't both have it.

The position of solar panels are computer modelled to maximise the capture of sunlight. As you would expect. Anywhere that can still create photosynthesis is a lose for the computer model....

Sheep wander quite happily around solar farms and graze between and under the panels. It makes sense to suppose that the land would support a lot more sheep if the panels weren't in the way, but at the end of the day the electricity generation has to happen by some means and the solar farms provide a useful contribution.

All forms of electricity production have their disadvantages and someone always whines about them accordingly. They'd be whining a lot more if there were no electricity.

@nicupopescu
Three cruise missiles launched on Ukraine this morning from Russian ships in the Black Sea crossed Moldova's airspace.

I instructed that Russia's ambassador be summoned to provide an explanation.

https://twitter.com/nicupopescu/status/1579392919785857026

Nigelb said:

Sandpit said:

LostPassword said:

TimS said:

LostPassword said:

Belarus is inching closer to direct involvement in the war. The pressure from Putin on them to join in must be intense.

Faytuks News Δ
@Faytuks
BREAKING: Russia and Belarus agreed to deploy a joint "regional group of troops" - BelTa

https://mobile.twitter.com/Faytuks/status/1579395361378291712

Belarus may well be the first domino to fall.

Yes, it might. Whether before or after another attempt to invade Ukraine from Belarus, I don't know. I would think that's a more likely development than nuclear weapons though.

If troops and missiles start coming from Belarus, then a Ukranian attack on that country directly will be fair game. And Lukashenko doesn’t have nukes.

#BREAKING Lukashenko accuses Ukraine of preparing an attack on Belarus
https://twitter.com/AFP/status/1579397683416289280

So this is the next step - getting his lapdog involved.

High stakes. The Belarusian government is hardly a rock of stability right now. And any protests could spread to Russia.

Despite the @bankofengland’s intervention this morning, the yields on long-dated UK govt bonds continue to rise.
Here’s the 20yr bond: now up above 4.7% - the highest rate since the Bank’s intervention… https://twitter.com/EdConwaySky/status/1579403447925112832/photo/1

numbertwelve said:

Nigelb said:

Sandpit said:

LostPassword said:

TimS said:

LostPassword said:

Belarus is inching closer to direct involvement in the war. The pressure from Putin on them to join in must be intense.

Faytuks News Δ
@Faytuks
BREAKING: Russia and Belarus agreed to deploy a joint "regional group of troops" - BelTa

https://mobile.twitter.com/Faytuks/status/1579395361378291712

Belarus may well be the first domino to fall.

Yes, it might. Whether before or after another attempt to invade Ukraine from Belarus, I don't know. I would think that's a more likely development than nuclear weapons though.

If troops and missiles start coming from Belarus, then a Ukranian attack on that country directly will be fair game. And Lukashenko doesn’t have nukes.

#BREAKING Lukashenko accuses Ukraine of preparing an attack on Belarus
https://twitter.com/AFP/status/1579397683416289280

So this is the next step - getting his lapdog involved.

High stakes. The Belarusian government is hardly a rock of stability right now. And any protests could spread to Russia.

I wonder what proportion of the Belaris armed forces would actually join the fight.
Tactically useful for the Kremlin though if this ties up a part of the UAF in the North defending the Belarus border.

Casino_Royale said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

MarqueeMark said:

Leon said:

AlistairM said:

Got to love the Ukrainian MoD Twitter:

So, russkies, you really think you can compensate for your impotence on the battlefield with missile strikes on peaceful cities? You just don’t get it do you - your terrorist strikes only make us stronger. We are coming after you.
https://twitter.com/DefenceU/status/1579388767336648706

They’ve lost the moral high ground tho

There are Ukrainian govt officials on Twitter complaining about “Russian terror attacks on civilians”

Er, what was the Kerch bridge?! Civilians died. It was probably a truck bomb, possibly by suicide. It was a terror attack on Russia by that definition

Russia claims three civilians died.

And stop repeating their line of it being a truck bomb. It wasn't - and you have nothing other than Russian propaganda to say so. Unless you want to look a complete twerp/Russian useful idiot, use the evidence of your eyes. This would have had to be a truck bomb bigger than that the IRA used to level Manchester city centre. Go and look at images of that and other truck bombings. There is mess EVERYWHERE. The sections of bridge were ridiculously clean. Even the white lines still on the sunken sections. The only debris visible was what fell off the burning bridge above.

It embarrasses Russia that its prestigious bridge - Putin's bridge - protected by 20 different systems, was badly damaged by the Ukrainians (with or without help). It embarrasses you that you spout the Russian attempts at face-saving talking points.

Yes the bridge was almost certainly blown up from below and is clearly a military target as it is one of the key routes for supplying the Russian military occupiers in Crimea and Kherson. Bravo to Ukraine.
I think we have gone beyond the phase of being scared of Putin's escalation. He has become the number one danger to European and world peace and his nuclear threats simply underline that fact. Appeasing him now will only keep the danger in place. We are in a very dangerous situation but I think we now need to allow the Ukrainians to defeat Russia and have Putin deposed. His nuclear threats may or may not be genuine but they have to be faced down now.

The smart thing to do would be to offer am alternative Russian leader a massive carrot for a peace deal.

Economics wouldn't be enough. Russian pride would need to be assuaged. So, there'd need to be something emotional/ cultural/ national on top as well.

Not sure what that would be but I've always liked the idea of the restoration of a constitutional Tsar.

You're suggesting we send them Andrew ?

MarqueeMark said:

Leon said:

MarqueeMark said:

Leon said:

AlistairM said:

Got to love the Ukrainian MoD Twitter:

So, russkies, you really think you can compensate for your impotence on the battlefield with missile strikes on peaceful cities? You just don’t get it do you - your terrorist strikes only make us stronger. We are coming after you.
https://twitter.com/DefenceU/status/1579388767336648706

They’ve lost the moral high ground tho

There are Ukrainian govt officials on Twitter complaining about “Russian terror attacks on civilians”

Er, what was the Kerch bridge?! Civilians died. It was probably a truck bomb, possibly by suicide. It was a terror attack on Russia by that definition

Russia claims three civilians died.

And stop repeating their line of it being a truck bomb. It wasn't - and you have nothing other than Russian propaganda to say so. Unless you want to look a complete twerp/Russian useful idiot, use the evidence of your eyes. This would have had to be a truck bomb bigger than that the IRA used to level Manchester city centre. Go and look at images of that and other truck bombings. There is mess EVERYWHERE. The sections of bridge were ridiculously clean. Even the white lines still on the sunken sections. The only debris visible was what fell off the burning bridge above.

It embarrasses Russia that its prestigious bridge - Putin's bridge - protected by 20 different systems, was badly damaged by the Ukrainians (with or without help). It embarrasses you that you spout the Russian attempts at face-saving talking points.

You’ve all gone completely mad. The idea it was a truck bomb is not some crazy Russian lie. It’s regarded as the most likely explanation, but we just don’t know. Here’s the FT today. Is it in the pay of Putin?

Hahahahahahahaha.

These new Ukrainian smart truck bombs come with a built in Henry, that hoovers up after itself, eh?

Why the hell you keep pushing a stupidly implausible line is odd.

"Putin Stooge" should be your next pb.com incarnation.

I wouldn't rule out some other explanation but I don't see why the idea of a truck bomb is implausible. You can't compare the debris from a bomb in a city centre to a bomb on a largely empty bridge.

Leon said:

ydoethur said:

Leon said:

AlistairM said:

Leon said:

AlistairM said:

Got to love the Ukrainian MoD Twitter:

So, russkies, you really think you can compensate for your impotence on the battlefield with missile strikes on peaceful cities? You just don’t get it do you - your terrorist strikes only make us stronger. We are coming after you.
https://twitter.com/DefenceU/status/1579388767336648706

They’ve lost the moral high ground tho

There are Ukrainian govt officials on Twitter complaining about “Russian terror attacks on civilians”

Er, what was the Kerch bridge?! Civilians died. It was probably a truck bomb, possibly by suicide. It was a terror attack on Russia by that definition

The Ukrainian attack was precisely targeted. The attacks by Russia were random and indiscriminate.

If you take a step back, you will hear how insane this sounds

Why? What was strategic about a toddlers' playground?

Was Darya Dugina, killed by a Ukrainian car bomb in Moscow, a strategic target?

Putin is the evil aggressor here, but both sides are now fighting a dirty horrible war. Which is escalating exactly as some of us predicted

Ukraine will now take further revenge. Etc. This quite likely ends in nukes

I don't think Ukraine will "take revenge". I think they will continue with the process of the shaping the battlefield in the South and East until they can commit the next breakthrough and take some more of their territory back. Until they are done.

One thing that I think is notable about Ukraine's war is the discipline of the forces, and their dedication to the overall plan rather than rushes of blood to the head.

One for @Leon

https://twitter.com/galactic_trader/status/1579336741282275330?s=61&t=8-OS4QvvoJmVGzz4ay6UIg

Malmesbury said:

Leon said:

Driver said:

Leon said:

MarqueeMark said:

Leon said:

AlistairM said:

Got to love the Ukrainian MoD Twitter:

So, russkies, you really think you can compensate for your impotence on the battlefield with missile strikes on peaceful cities? You just don’t get it do you - your terrorist strikes only make us stronger. We are coming after you.
https://twitter.com/DefenceU/status/1579388767336648706

They’ve lost the moral high ground tho

There are Ukrainian govt officials on Twitter complaining about “Russian terror attacks on civilians”

Er, what was the Kerch bridge?! Civilians died. It was probably a truck bomb, possibly by suicide. It was a terror attack on Russia by that definition

Russia claims three civilians died.

And stop repeating their line of it being a truck bomb. It wasn't - and you have nothing other than Russian propaganda to say so. Unless you want to look a complete twerp/Russian useful idiot, use the evidence of your eyes. This would have had to be a truck bomb bigger than that the IRA used to level Manchester city centre. Go and look at images of that and other truck bombings. There is mess EVERYWHERE. The sections of bridge were ridiculously clean. Even the white lines still on the sunken sections. The only debris visible was what fell off the burning bridge above.

It embarrasses Russia that its prestigious bridge - Putin's bridge - protected by 20 different systems, was badly damaged by the Ukrainians (with or without help). It embarrasses you that you spout the Russian attempts at face-saving talking points.

You’ve all gone completely mad. The idea it was a truck bomb is not some crazy Russian lie. It’s regarded as the most likely explanation, but we just don’t know. Here’s the FT today. Is it in the pay of Putin?

Since when did you accept "regarded as the most likely explanation"? You certainly didn't over the origins of Covid!

So let me get this right. In PB Universe, Putin is paying off the editor of the Financial Times?

The FT publishes some strange stuff - not biased, but just not researched.

The BBC consulted an expert, who pointed out that it didn’t look like a truck bombing, the explosion doesn’t seem to come from the truck and destroying a bridge from above is very hard.

Explosions are lazy - the blast would go up and sideways. Whereas explosives below would “jump” the bridge sections into the air - when they crash down again, they break.

Such attacks on bridges go back before WWII.

Sky did the same, the Sky expert was fairly clear that the explosion must have come from underneath based on the evidence.

Which matches the images too.

The FT article is pretty lazy. The notion it came from underneath is basically dismissed as "Ukraine don't have capabilities to do that".

A Special Forces or similar operation from underneath looks like the most likely cause.

Benpointer said:

SandyRentool said:

Solar farms. Bloody ridiculous. Look ugly and gobble up land that could either be cultivated or rewilded.

Firstly, if we really want solar, then put it on every suitable roof, above carparks, in other urban settings - where people use electricity.

Secondly, in the UK solar generates power during minimum demand periods. In countries where the power spike comes from A/C on hot summer days, fair enough, but in the UK we need the power on cold, dark January evenings. Unless you couple the solar with a storage vector (batteries or hydrogen) then you are backing the wrong horse. Wind and tidal are the better renewable options for this country.

As an aside, I have noticed a few houses round our way getting panels installed in the last few weeks. Presumably the payback now looks much better than this time last year, but does anyone have up to date figures?

Quick calc:

Supply and install costs for 4kW of panels c.£6,000

Ours generate over 4,000 kWh per year on average. We currently save 34p for every kWh we generate and use. I reckon we use over half of that but it depends on your heating and hot water, and your electricity use profile.

We are assumed to feed in 50% of what we generate (the feed in is not actually metered) and get paid 5.99p for each kWh.

We also get a feed in tariff but those are no longer available to new installs.

So, assume you use half the energy you generate. A similar new install to ours would be saving: 2,000 * £0.34 + 2,000 * £0.599 per annum. So about £800 per year.

That's an 8 year payback excluding interest if energy prices remain the same.

Consider solar combined with air source heat pump. Think air conditioning that can run in reverse to heat

A relative did his loft conversion with this - even on some cloudy days, it produces enough on the solar to run the air source heating in the loft. I’m looking at doing the same.

That plus the natural tendency for lofts to get all the heat in the house…

You need to have too spec insulation for this to be practical, though.

Nigelb said:

Sandpit said:

LostPassword said:

TimS said:

LostPassword said:

Belarus is inching closer to direct involvement in the war. The pressure from Putin on them to join in must be intense.

Faytuks News Δ
@Faytuks
BREAKING: Russia and Belarus agreed to deploy a joint "regional group of troops" - BelTa

https://mobile.twitter.com/Faytuks/status/1579395361378291712

Belarus may well be the first domino to fall.

Yes, it might. Whether before or after another attempt to invade Ukraine from Belarus, I don't know. I would think that's a more likely development than nuclear weapons though.

If troops and missiles start coming from Belarus, then a Ukranian attack on that country directly will be fair game. And Lukashenko doesn’t have nukes.

#BREAKING Lukashenko accuses Ukraine of preparing an attack on Belarus
https://twitter.com/AFP/status/1579397683416289280

Very plausible !!

The problem with "Better red than dead" is that you will just end up both.

LostPassword said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

LostPassword said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

MarqueeMark said:

Leon said:

AlistairM said:

Got to love the Ukrainian MoD Twitter:

So, russkies, you really think you can compensate for your impotence on the battlefield with missile strikes on peaceful cities? You just don’t get it do you - your terrorist strikes only make us stronger. We are coming after you.
https://twitter.com/DefenceU/status/1579388767336648706

They’ve lost the moral high ground tho

There are Ukrainian govt officials on Twitter complaining about “Russian terror attacks on civilians”

Er, what was the Kerch bridge?! Civilians died. It was probably a truck bomb, possibly by suicide. It was a terror attack on Russia by that definition

Russia claims three civilians died.

And stop repeating their line of it being a truck bomb. It wasn't - and you have nothing other than Russian propaganda to say so. Unless you want to look a complete twerp/Russian useful idiot, use the evidence of your eyes. This would have had to be a truck bomb bigger than that the IRA used to level Manchester city centre. Go and look at images of that and other truck bombings. There is mess EVERYWHERE. The sections of bridge were ridiculously clean. Even the white lines still on the sunken sections. The only debris visible was what fell off the burning bridge above.

It embarrasses Russia that its prestigious bridge - Putin's bridge - protected by 20 different systems, was badly damaged by the Ukrainians (with or without help). It embarrasses you that you spout the Russian attempts at face-saving talking points.

Yes the bridge was almost certainly blown up from below and is clearly a military target as it is one of the key routes for supplying the Russian military occupiers in Crimea and Kherson. Bravo to Ukraine.
I think we have gone beyond the phase of being scared of Putin's escalation. He has become the number one danger to European and world peace and his nuclear threats simply underline that fact. Appeasing him now will only keep the danger in place. We are in a very dangerous situation but I think we now need to allow the Ukrainians to defeat Russia and have Putin deposed. His nuclear threats may or may not be genuine but they have to be faced down now.

I don't think we can have deposing Putin as a war aim, because there's no way to achieve that which doesn't genuinely risk nuclear war.

What we can do is something like the First Gulf War. Push Russia back to its own borders and contain it within those, with certain stringent conditions for normalising relations - and those may involve war criminals facing justice.

It doesn't need to be a war aim. If Russia is defeated then Putin will almost certainly be gone.

I don't agree. Putin has spent a lot of time and effort protecting his position from any coup attempt. Some of these, such as the dispersion of military power, have been to the detriment of the performance of Russia's military in the war.

His chances of survival are no worse than Saddam Hussein's in 1991.

I agree and possibility is he turns this into a round of further repression and essentially completes the transformation of Russia back into totalitarian dictatorship.

There are a couple of factors in play here which help him do so:

1. China and India will, sans-nuke, still want to deal with Russia, so he can keep his economy afloat;

2. Other members of the establishment in Russia may not want Putin to fall just yet, even if he loses the war: he is a useful strongman. A weaker replacement leader could struggle to hold the RF together and could indeed preside over a collapse. That suits them even less than Putin in charge.

There is a scenario where Putin withdraws from Ukraine, fires his generals and blames them for all of Russia’s ills. Purges the government. Draws a line on the Ukraine border and arms it to the teeth. Calls the 4 regions he claims to have annexed “occupied territories” and continues to sabre rattle and fire off nuclear threats at the west. A new Cold War emerges with Putin continuing to threaten to invade Ukraine again on a semi-regular basis.

MarqueeMark said:

TimS said:

numbertwelve said:

Nigelb said:

Sandpit said:

LostPassword said:

TimS said:

LostPassword said:

Belarus is inching closer to direct involvement in the war. The pressure from Putin on them to join in must be intense.

Faytuks News Δ
@Faytuks
BREAKING: Russia and Belarus agreed to deploy a joint "regional group of troops" - BelTa

https://mobile.twitter.com/Faytuks/status/1579395361378291712

Belarus may well be the first domino to fall.

Yes, it might. Whether before or after another attempt to invade Ukraine from Belarus, I don't know. I would think that's a more likely development than nuclear weapons though.

If troops and missiles start coming from Belarus, then a Ukranian attack on that country directly will be fair game. And Lukashenko doesn’t have nukes.

#BREAKING Lukashenko accuses Ukraine of preparing an attack on Belarus
https://twitter.com/AFP/status/1579397683416289280

So this is the next step - getting his lapdog involved.

High stakes. The Belarusian government is hardly a rock of stability right now. And any protests could spread to Russia.

I wonder what proportion of the Belarus armed forces would actually join the fight.
Tactically useful for the Kremlin though if this ties up a part of the UAF in the North defending the Belarus border.

Supposedly, a third of Ukrainians forces have been held in reserve for this very eventuality.

The likeliest outcome is the Belarussian armed forces would split, causing a messy civil war in Belarus that would have Russian troops stuck in the middle. Likely there would be a huge increase on the partisan actions that have already impacted on the railroads bringing supplies to the front.

Hard to see how Lukashenko hangs on to power. The actual result of the 2020 Presidential elections gets implemented, Russia is "politely" asked to remove its remaining forces from the country.

And then Belarus upgrades its EU Eastern Partnership Initiative to full EU membership (never on the cards with Lukshenko in power) and just to add the sprinkles on the cherry on the top of the cake, applies to join NATO too.

Yes, that will all pan out exactly like you say. Which, weirdly enough, conforms entirely with your dearest wishes. Comical

numbertwelve said:

LostPassword said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

LostPassword said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

MarqueeMark said:

Leon said:

AlistairM said:

Got to love the Ukrainian MoD Twitter:

So, russkies, you really think you can compensate for your impotence on the battlefield with missile strikes on peaceful cities? You just don’t get it do you - your terrorist strikes only make us stronger. We are coming after you.
https://twitter.com/DefenceU/status/1579388767336648706

They’ve lost the moral high ground tho

There are Ukrainian govt officials on Twitter complaining about “Russian terror attacks on civilians”

Er, what was the Kerch bridge?! Civilians died. It was probably a truck bomb, possibly by suicide. It was a terror attack on Russia by that definition

Russia claims three civilians died.

And stop repeating their line of it being a truck bomb. It wasn't - and you have nothing other than Russian propaganda to say so. Unless you want to look a complete twerp/Russian useful idiot, use the evidence of your eyes. This would have had to be a truck bomb bigger than that the IRA used to level Manchester city centre. Go and look at images of that and other truck bombings. There is mess EVERYWHERE. The sections of bridge were ridiculously clean. Even the white lines still on the sunken sections. The only debris visible was what fell off the burning bridge above.

It embarrasses Russia that its prestigious bridge - Putin's bridge - protected by 20 different systems, was badly damaged by the Ukrainians (with or without help). It embarrasses you that you spout the Russian attempts at face-saving talking points.

Yes the bridge was almost certainly blown up from below and is clearly a military target as it is one of the key routes for supplying the Russian military occupiers in Crimea and Kherson. Bravo to Ukraine.
I think we have gone beyond the phase of being scared of Putin's escalation. He has become the number one danger to European and world peace and his nuclear threats simply underline that fact. Appeasing him now will only keep the danger in place. We are in a very dangerous situation but I think we now need to allow the Ukrainians to defeat Russia and have Putin deposed. His nuclear threats may or may not be genuine but they have to be faced down now.

I don't think we can have deposing Putin as a war aim, because there's no way to achieve that which doesn't genuinely risk nuclear war.

What we can do is something like the First Gulf War. Push Russia back to its own borders and contain it within those, with certain stringent conditions for normalising relations - and those may involve war criminals facing justice.

It doesn't need to be a war aim. If Russia is defeated then Putin will almost certainly be gone.

I don't agree. Putin has spent a lot of time and effort protecting his position from any coup attempt. Some of these, such as the dispersion of military power, have been to the detriment of the performance of Russia's military in the war.

His chances of survival are no worse than Saddam Hussein's in 1991.

I agree and possibility is he turns this into a round of further repression and essentially completes the transformation of Russia back into totalitarian dictatorship.

There are a couple of factors in play here which help him do so:

1. China and India will, sans-nuke, still want to deal with Russia, so he can keep his economy afloat;

2. Other members of the establishment in Russia may not want Putin to fall just yet, even if he loses the war: he is a useful strongman. A weaker replacement leader could struggle to hold the RF together and could indeed preside over a collapse. That suits them even less than Putin in charge.

There is a scenario where Putin withdraws from Ukraine, fires his generals and blames them for all of Russia’s ills. Purges the government. Draws a line on the Ukraine border and arms it to the teeth. Calls the 4 regions he claims to have annexed “occupied territories” and continues to sabre rattle and fire off nuclear threats at the west. A new Cold War emerges with Putin continuing to threaten to invade Ukraine again on a semi-regular basis.

Correction, 5 territories. There are 5 regions Russia has "annexed" that are to be liberated.

RochdalePioneers said:

So why didn't I realise Tesla Supercharger fees include VAT? That makes a big difference to business trips....

So does petrol and diesel so it's passu.

I like it that during a discussion of our impending global nuclear disaster, we also have a subsidiary conversation - about the problem of sheep wandering around solar farms

The excellent Perun covered the Belarus angle a couple of months ago:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sFmugMGl4Uo

Well worth a listen IMO. Also note that allegedly Belarus has been giving ammunition and tanks to Russia since then, so they are probably no in a worse state than they were.

Leon said:

MarqueeMark said:

TimS said:

numbertwelve said:

Nigelb said:

Sandpit said:

LostPassword said:

TimS said:

LostPassword said:

Belarus is inching closer to direct involvement in the war. The pressure from Putin on them to join in must be intense.

Faytuks News Δ
@Faytuks
BREAKING: Russia and Belarus agreed to deploy a joint "regional group of troops" - BelTa

https://mobile.twitter.com/Faytuks/status/1579395361378291712

Belarus may well be the first domino to fall.

Yes, it might. Whether before or after another attempt to invade Ukraine from Belarus, I don't know. I would think that's a more likely development than nuclear weapons though.

If troops and missiles start coming from Belarus, then a Ukranian attack on that country directly will be fair game. And Lukashenko doesn’t have nukes.

#BREAKING Lukashenko accuses Ukraine of preparing an attack on Belarus
https://twitter.com/AFP/status/1579397683416289280

So this is the next step - getting his lapdog involved.

High stakes. The Belarusian government is hardly a rock of stability right now. And any protests could spread to Russia.

I wonder what proportion of the Belarus armed forces would actually join the fight.
Tactically useful for the Kremlin though if this ties up a part of the UAF in the North defending the Belarus border.

Supposedly, a third of Ukrainians forces have been held in reserve for this very eventuality.

The likeliest outcome is the Belarussian armed forces would split, causing a messy civil war in Belarus that would have Russian troops stuck in the middle. Likely there would be a huge increase on the partisan actions that have already impacted on the railroads bringing supplies to the front.

Hard to see how Lukashenko hangs on to power. The actual result of the 2020 Presidential elections gets implemented, Russia is "politely" asked to remove its remaining forces from the country.

And then Belarus upgrades its EU Eastern Partnership Initiative to full EU membership (never on the cards with Lukshenko in power) and just to add the sprinkles on the cherry on the top of the cake, applies to join NATO too.

Yes, that will all pan out exactly like you say. Which, weirdly enough, conforms entirely with your dearest wishes. Comical

It is based on what has gone before.

But then, I wouldn't expect you to extrapolate on what has gone on before with, say, truck bombing outcomes...

Malmesbury said:

JosiasJessop said:

The problem with "Better red than dead" is that you will just end up both.

“We seem to be very near the bleak choice between War and Shame. My feeling is that we shall choose Shame, and then have War thrown in a little later on even more adverse terms than at present.”

Who said that?

Scary dashcam footage of this morning strike on Dnipro.

Target appears to be Ukrainian Telecom branch for monitoring and technical support for Dnipropetrovsk Region.
https://twitter.com/tinso_ww/status/1579407427480743936

Pulpstar said:

RochdalePioneers said:

So why didn't I realise Tesla Supercharger fees include VAT? That makes a big difference to business trips....

So does petrol and diesel so it's passu.

I know. Was being dumb. Means that operating savings over my previous Outlander PHEV are even bigger than I thought.

rkrkrk said:

Dare I hope at some point they might make an obviously right decision first time?

A fluke, perhaps

Interesting.
Further evidence, perhaps, of how the Truss admin is toning down or reversing efforts to take on what it saw as institutional obstacles to its reforms.
They’ve belatedly recognised, I’m told, that they NEED these institutions to bolster their credibility…
https://twitter.com/EdConwaySky/status/1579413691698905089
https://twitter.com/georgewparker/status/1579400786215596033

We have to ask, what is the point of Truss/Kwasi now?

If their only claim to fame was disrupting the establishment, they completely blew their wad in a single day and have been trying to recover ever since.

Tory MPs know what needs to be done...

williamglenn said:

MarqueeMark said:

Leon said:

MarqueeMark said:

Leon said:

AlistairM said:

Got to love the Ukrainian MoD Twitter:

So, russkies, you really think you can compensate for your impotence on the battlefield with missile strikes on peaceful cities? You just don’t get it do you - your terrorist strikes only make us stronger. We are coming after you.
https://twitter.com/DefenceU/status/1579388767336648706

They’ve lost the moral high ground tho

There are Ukrainian govt officials on Twitter complaining about “Russian terror attacks on civilians”

Er, what was the Kerch bridge?! Civilians died. It was probably a truck bomb, possibly by suicide. It was a terror attack on Russia by that definition

Russia claims three civilians died.

And stop repeating their line of it being a truck bomb. It wasn't - and you have nothing other than Russian propaganda to say so. Unless you want to look a complete twerp/Russian useful idiot, use the evidence of your eyes. This would have had to be a truck bomb bigger than that the IRA used to level Manchester city centre. Go and look at images of that and other truck bombings. There is mess EVERYWHERE. The sections of bridge were ridiculously clean. Even the white lines still on the sunken sections. The only debris visible was what fell off the burning bridge above.

It embarrasses Russia that its prestigious bridge - Putin's bridge - protected by 20 different systems, was badly damaged by the Ukrainians (with or without help). It embarrasses you that you spout the Russian attempts at face-saving talking points.

You’ve all gone completely mad. The idea it was a truck bomb is not some crazy Russian lie. It’s regarded as the most likely explanation, but we just don’t know. Here’s the FT today. Is it in the pay of Putin?

Hahahahahahahaha.

These new Ukrainian smart truck bombs come with a built in Henry, that hoovers up after itself, eh?

Why the hell you keep pushing a stupidly implausible line is odd.

"Putin Stooge" should be your next pb.com incarnation.

I wouldn't rule out some other explanation but I don't see why the idea of a truck bomb is implausible. You can't compare the debris from a bomb in a city centre to a bomb on a largely empty bridge.

Its implausible for a few technical reasons. Bridges are designed to withstand explosions above them, eg in case of accidents etc

Plus explosions tend to rise in their damage, so a lot of the explosive power from an explosion above is 'wasted'.

To bring down a bridge using an explosion above is incredibly difficult.

An explosion underneath OTOH is much 'better'. Bridges aren't as designed to withstand explosions from below, and the explosive power going up is precisely what you want if you want to bring down the bridge.

mwadams said:

numbertwelve said:

LostPassword said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

LostPassword said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

MarqueeMark said:

Leon said:

AlistairM said:

Got to love the Ukrainian MoD Twitter:

So, russkies, you really think you can compensate for your impotence on the battlefield with missile strikes on peaceful cities? You just don’t get it do you - your terrorist strikes only make us stronger. We are coming after you.
https://twitter.com/DefenceU/status/1579388767336648706

They’ve lost the moral high ground tho

There are Ukrainian govt officials on Twitter complaining about “Russian terror attacks on civilians”

Er, what was the Kerch bridge?! Civilians died. It was probably a truck bomb, possibly by suicide. It was a terror attack on Russia by that definition

Russia claims three civilians died.

And stop repeating their line of it being a truck bomb. It wasn't - and you have nothing other than Russian propaganda to say so. Unless you want to look a complete twerp/Russian useful idiot, use the evidence of your eyes. This would have had to be a truck bomb bigger than that the IRA used to level Manchester city centre. Go and look at images of that and other truck bombings. There is mess EVERYWHERE. The sections of bridge were ridiculously clean. Even the white lines still on the sunken sections. The only debris visible was what fell off the burning bridge above.

It embarrasses Russia that its prestigious bridge - Putin's bridge - protected by 20 different systems, was badly damaged by the Ukrainians (with or without help). It embarrasses you that you spout the Russian attempts at face-saving talking points.

Yes the bridge was almost certainly blown up from below and is clearly a military target as it is one of the key routes for supplying the Russian military occupiers in Crimea and Kherson. Bravo to Ukraine.
I think we have gone beyond the phase of being scared of Putin's escalation. He has become the number one danger to European and world peace and his nuclear threats simply underline that fact. Appeasing him now will only keep the danger in place. We are in a very dangerous situation but I think we now need to allow the Ukrainians to defeat Russia and have Putin deposed. His nuclear threats may or may not be genuine but they have to be faced down now.

I don't think we can have deposing Putin as a war aim, because there's no way to achieve that which doesn't genuinely risk nuclear war.

What we can do is something like the First Gulf War. Push Russia back to its own borders and contain it within those, with certain stringent conditions for normalising relations - and those may involve war criminals facing justice.

It doesn't need to be a war aim. If Russia is defeated then Putin will almost certainly be gone.

I don't agree. Putin has spent a lot of time and effort protecting his position from any coup attempt. Some of these, such as the dispersion of military power, have been to the detriment of the performance of Russia's military in the war.

His chances of survival are no worse than Saddam Hussein's in 1991.

I agree and possibility is he turns this into a round of further repression and essentially completes the transformation of Russia back into totalitarian dictatorship.

There are a couple of factors in play here which help him do so:

1. China and India will, sans-nuke, still want to deal with Russia, so he can keep his economy afloat;

2. Other members of the establishment in Russia may not want Putin to fall just yet, even if he loses the war: he is a useful strongman. A weaker replacement leader could struggle to hold the RF together and could indeed preside over a collapse. That suits them even less than Putin in charge.

There is a scenario where Putin withdraws from Ukraine, fires his generals and blames them for all of Russia’s ills. Purges the government. Draws a line on the Ukraine border and arms it to the teeth. Calls the 4 regions he claims to have annexed “occupied territories” and continues to sabre rattle and fire off nuclear threats at the west. A new Cold War emerges with Putin continuing to threaten to invade Ukraine again on a semi-regular basis.

In one way, it is in Putin's interest for the Ukraine war to be over quickly (even at the expense of the territory gained since 2014 - something his already preparing to blame on the incompetence of [purged ex-]Generals); his forces can be redirected to internal repression, holding the rest of the RF together. The more power he wastes in Ukraine, the more likely the whole thing collapses around him.

Yes, although I suspect he cannot see that right now.

Bart’s post above (re Crimea) is of course correct though I am afraid Bart I suspect that a line will be drawn there. Putin is not going to withdraw from Crimea without being beaten out, and if he withdraws from the remainder of Ukraine I suspect that that will be the point where hostilities stop - for now. We will be in a situation where both sides claim territory of the other as their own - and there will be established one of the most militarised and dangerous borders in the world. A new Berlin.

Scott_xP said:

Interesting.
Further evidence, perhaps, of how the Truss admin is toning down or reversing efforts to take on what it saw as institutional obstacles to its reforms.
They’ve belatedly recognised, I’m told, that they NEED these institutions to bolster their credibility…
https://twitter.com/EdConwaySky/status/1579413691698905089
https://twitter.com/georgewparker/status/1579400786215596033

We have to ask, what is the point of Truss/Kwasi now?

If their only claim to fame was disrupting the establishment, they completely blew their wad in a single day and have been trying to recover ever since.

Tory MPs know what needs to be done...

Lets say you're right, if Truss and Kwasi have 'learnt that lesson' and now fall then they could be replaced by Badenoch or similar who think that Truss's mistake was to not disrupt the establishment enough.

I recall a story someone I know likes to tell about a mistake early in their career they made that cost their employer £1 million. They informed their boss about the mistake and offered their resignation, the boss declined the resignation saying "why would I want you to resign, I've just spent £1 million training you".

numbertwelve said:

mwadams said:

numbertwelve said:

LostPassword said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

LostPassword said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

MarqueeMark said:

Leon said:

AlistairM said:

Got to love the Ukrainian MoD Twitter:

So, russkies, you really think you can compensate for your impotence on the battlefield with missile strikes on peaceful cities? You just don’t get it do you - your terrorist strikes only make us stronger. We are coming after you.
https://twitter.com/DefenceU/status/1579388767336648706

They’ve lost the moral high ground tho

There are Ukrainian govt officials on Twitter complaining about “Russian terror attacks on civilians”

Er, what was the Kerch bridge?! Civilians died. It was probably a truck bomb, possibly by suicide. It was a terror attack on Russia by that definition

Russia claims three civilians died.

And stop repeating their line of it being a truck bomb. It wasn't - and you have nothing other than Russian propaganda to say so. Unless you want to look a complete twerp/Russian useful idiot, use the evidence of your eyes. This would have had to be a truck bomb bigger than that the IRA used to level Manchester city centre. Go and look at images of that and other truck bombings. There is mess EVERYWHERE. The sections of bridge were ridiculously clean. Even the white lines still on the sunken sections. The only debris visible was what fell off the burning bridge above.

It embarrasses Russia that its prestigious bridge - Putin's bridge - protected by 20 different systems, was badly damaged by the Ukrainians (with or without help). It embarrasses you that you spout the Russian attempts at face-saving talking points.

Yes the bridge was almost certainly blown up from below and is clearly a military target as it is one of the key routes for supplying the Russian military occupiers in Crimea and Kherson. Bravo to Ukraine.
I think we have gone beyond the phase of being scared of Putin's escalation. He has become the number one danger to European and world peace and his nuclear threats simply underline that fact. Appeasing him now will only keep the danger in place. We are in a very dangerous situation but I think we now need to allow the Ukrainians to defeat Russia and have Putin deposed. His nuclear threats may or may not be genuine but they have to be faced down now.

I don't think we can have deposing Putin as a war aim, because there's no way to achieve that which doesn't genuinely risk nuclear war.

What we can do is something like the First Gulf War. Push Russia back to its own borders and contain it within those, with certain stringent conditions for normalising relations - and those may involve war criminals facing justice.

It doesn't need to be a war aim. If Russia is defeated then Putin will almost certainly be gone.

I don't agree. Putin has spent a lot of time and effort protecting his position from any coup attempt. Some of these, such as the dispersion of military power, have been to the detriment of the performance of Russia's military in the war.

His chances of survival are no worse than Saddam Hussein's in 1991.

I agree and possibility is he turns this into a round of further repression and essentially completes the transformation of Russia back into totalitarian dictatorship.

There are a couple of factors in play here which help him do so:

1. China and India will, sans-nuke, still want to deal with Russia, so he can keep his economy afloat;

2. Other members of the establishment in Russia may not want Putin to fall just yet, even if he loses the war: he is a useful strongman. A weaker replacement leader could struggle to hold the RF together and could indeed preside over a collapse. That suits them even less than Putin in charge.

There is a scenario where Putin withdraws from Ukraine, fires his generals and blames them for all of Russia’s ills. Purges the government. Draws a line on the Ukraine border and arms it to the teeth. Calls the 4 regions he claims to have annexed “occupied territories” and continues to sabre rattle and fire off nuclear threats at the west. A new Cold War emerges with Putin continuing to threaten to invade Ukraine again on a semi-regular basis.

In one way, it is in Putin's interest for the Ukraine war to be over quickly (even at the expense of the territory gained since 2014 - something his already preparing to blame on the incompetence of [purged ex-]Generals); his forces can be redirected to internal repression, holding the rest of the RF together. The more power he wastes in Ukraine, the more likely the whole thing collapses around him.

Yes, although I suspect he cannot see that right now.

Bart’s post above (re Crimea) is of course correct though I am afraid Bart I suspect that a line will be drawn there. Putin is not going to withdraw from Crimea without being beaten out, and if he withdraws from the remainder of Ukraine I suspect that that will be the point where hostilities stop - for now. We will be in a situation where both sides claim territory of the other as their own - and there will be established one of the most militarised and dangerous borders in the world. A new Berlin.

Yes, Russia will keep losing the war (assuming support for Ukraine is maintained) but the general outlook is distinctly choppy. How do we get from here to a situation where these 2 countries co-exist peacefully as opposed to it becoming a permaconflict of the most dangerous type, ie between neighbours? Absent a lot of luck and a strong following wind I don't think we can.

JosiasJessop said:

The excellent Perun covered the Belarus angle a couple of months ago:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sFmugMGl4Uo

Well worth a listen IMO. Also note that allegedly Belarus has been giving ammunition and tanks to Russia since then, so they are probably no in a worse state than they were.

That is superb.

Quite a serious attack, overall


“I am in Kyiv with my family and kids. The most massive RU missile attack on Ukraine: 83 missiles, 43 downed. Strikes on Kyiv, downtown and infrastructure; many other cities. Many dead and wounded. No electricity and water now.-- Russia is a terrorist state. Ukraine will prevail”

https://twitter.com/yermolenko_v/status/1579413621721174016?s=46&t=x6GMCEjoGv867eD4dwDu4A

Who schedules a state slashing budget for Hallowe’en 🧟‍♀️

kinabalu said:

numbertwelve said:

mwadams said:

numbertwelve said:

LostPassword said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

LostPassword said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

MarqueeMark said:

Leon said:

AlistairM said:

Got to love the Ukrainian MoD Twitter:

So, russkies, you really think you can compensate for your impotence on the battlefield with missile strikes on peaceful cities? You just don’t get it do you - your terrorist strikes only make us stronger. We are coming after you.
https://twitter.com/DefenceU/status/1579388767336648706

They’ve lost the moral high ground tho

There are Ukrainian govt officials on Twitter complaining about “Russian terror attacks on civilians”

Er, what was the Kerch bridge?! Civilians died. It was probably a truck bomb, possibly by suicide. It was a terror attack on Russia by that definition

Russia claims three civilians died.

And stop repeating their line of it being a truck bomb. It wasn't - and you have nothing other than Russian propaganda to say so. Unless you want to look a complete twerp/Russian useful idiot, use the evidence of your eyes. This would have had to be a truck bomb bigger than that the IRA used to level Manchester city centre. Go and look at images of that and other truck bombings. There is mess EVERYWHERE. The sections of bridge were ridiculously clean. Even the white lines still on the sunken sections. The only debris visible was what fell off the burning bridge above.

It embarrasses Russia that its prestigious bridge - Putin's bridge - protected by 20 different systems, was badly damaged by the Ukrainians (with or without help). It embarrasses you that you spout the Russian attempts at face-saving talking points.

Yes the bridge was almost certainly blown up from below and is clearly a military target as it is one of the key routes for supplying the Russian military occupiers in Crimea and Kherson. Bravo to Ukraine.
I think we have gone beyond the phase of being scared of Putin's escalation. He has become the number one danger to European and world peace and his nuclear threats simply underline that fact. Appeasing him now will only keep the danger in place. We are in a very dangerous situation but I think we now need to allow the Ukrainians to defeat Russia and have Putin deposed. His nuclear threats may or may not be genuine but they have to be faced down now.

I don't think we can have deposing Putin as a war aim, because there's no way to achieve that which doesn't genuinely risk nuclear war.

What we can do is something like the First Gulf War. Push Russia back to its own borders and contain it within those, with certain stringent conditions for normalising relations - and those may involve war criminals facing justice.

It doesn't need to be a war aim. If Russia is defeated then Putin will almost certainly be gone.

I don't agree. Putin has spent a lot of time and effort protecting his position from any coup attempt. Some of these, such as the dispersion of military power, have been to the detriment of the performance of Russia's military in the war.

His chances of survival are no worse than Saddam Hussein's in 1991.

I agree and possibility is he turns this into a round of further repression and essentially completes the transformation of Russia back into totalitarian dictatorship.

There are a couple of factors in play here which help him do so:

1. China and India will, sans-nuke, still want to deal with Russia, so he can keep his economy afloat;

2. Other members of the establishment in Russia may not want Putin to fall just yet, even if he loses the war: he is a useful strongman. A weaker replacement leader could struggle to hold the RF together and could indeed preside over a collapse. That suits them even less than Putin in charge.

There is a scenario where Putin withdraws from Ukraine, fires his generals and blames them for all of Russia’s ills. Purges the government. Draws a line on the Ukraine border and arms it to the teeth. Calls the 4 regions he claims to have annexed “occupied territories” and continues to sabre rattle and fire off nuclear threats at the west. A new Cold War emerges with Putin continuing to threaten to invade Ukraine again on a semi-regular basis.

In one way, it is in Putin's interest for the Ukraine war to be over quickly (even at the expense of the territory gained since 2014 - something his already preparing to blame on the incompetence of [purged ex-]Generals); his forces can be redirected to internal repression, holding the rest of the RF together. The more power he wastes in Ukraine, the more likely the whole thing collapses around him.

Yes, although I suspect he cannot see that right now.

Bart’s post above (re Crimea) is of course correct though I am afraid Bart I suspect that a line will be drawn there. Putin is not going to withdraw from Crimea without being beaten out, and if he withdraws from the remainder of Ukraine I suspect that that will be the point where hostilities stop - for now. We will be in a situation where both sides claim territory of the other as their own - and there will be established one of the most militarised and dangerous borders in the world. A new Berlin.

Yes, Russia will keep losing the war (assuming support for Ukraine is maintained) but the general outlook is distinctly choppy. How do we get from here to a situation where these 2 countries co-exist peacefully as opposed to it becoming a permaconflict of the most dangerous type, ie between neighbours? Absent a lot of luck and a strong following wind I don't think we can.

It'll be much like India-Pakistan I would think, or possibly the two Korea's. Russia won't resume hostilities under such circumstances, unless it thinks it has a chance of making more gains, which it won't because Ukraine's friends will make sure it's more powerful than Russia in conventional forces. Ukraine won't press its claims because the support of its friends will be contingent on it keeping the peace.

This, of course, assumes a frozen conflict rather than a total Ukrainian victory, which will be hard work but is not impossible.

MoonRabbit said:

Who schedules a state slashing budget for Hallowe’en 🧟‍♀️

Tory horror show, yes. State slashing budget, no. The Government doesn't have the votes to slash the state.

Leon said:

MarqueeMark said:

Leon said:

AlistairM said:

Got to love the Ukrainian MoD Twitter:

So, russkies, you really think you can compensate for your impotence on the battlefield with missile strikes on peaceful cities? You just don’t get it do you - your terrorist strikes only make us stronger. We are coming after you.
https://twitter.com/DefenceU/status/1579388767336648706

They’ve lost the moral high ground tho

There are Ukrainian govt officials on Twitter complaining about “Russian terror attacks on civilians”

Er, what was the Kerch bridge?! Civilians died. It was probably a truck bomb, possibly by suicide. It was a terror attack on Russia by that definition

Russia claims three civilians died.

And stop repeating their line of it being a truck bomb. It wasn't - and you have nothing other than Russian propaganda to say so. Unless you want to look a complete twerp/Russian useful idiot, use the evidence of your eyes. This would have had to be a truck bomb bigger than that the IRA used to level Manchester city centre. Go and look at images of that and other truck bombings. There is mess EVERYWHERE. The sections of bridge were ridiculously clean. Even the white lines still on the sunken sections. The only debris visible was what fell off the burning bridge above.

It embarrasses Russia that its prestigious bridge - Putin's bridge - protected by 20 different systems, was badly damaged by the Ukrainians (with or without help). It embarrasses you that you spout the Russian attempts at face-saving talking points.

You’ve all gone completely mad. The idea it was a truck bomb is not some crazy Russian lie. It’s regarded as the most likely explanation, but we just don’t know. Here’s the FT today. Is it in the pay of Putin?

The Russians found a remote controlled boat washed up on the beach in Sevastopol only a few weeks ago. Circumstantial evidence suggests that it contained some kind of explosive device & was Ukranian in origin, although the Russian military haven’t given any details.

https://www.navalnews.com/naval-news/2022/09/ukraines-new-weapon-to-strike-russian-navy-in-sevastopol/

So although a truck bomb is a plausible cause, it’s not the only possibility & a floating drone laden with explosives is definitely another option.

Barristers have accepted a 15% pay rise.

Rail workers, NHS staff, etc. will have noticed.

MarqueeMark said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Scott_xP said:

Interesting.
Further evidence, perhaps, of how the Truss admin is toning down or reversing efforts to take on what it saw as institutional obstacles to its reforms.
They’ve belatedly recognised, I’m told, that they NEED these institutions to bolster their credibility…
https://twitter.com/EdConwaySky/status/1579413691698905089
https://twitter.com/georgewparker/status/1579400786215596033

We have to ask, what is the point of Truss/Kwasi now?

If their only claim to fame was disrupting the establishment, they completely blew their wad in a single day and have been trying to recover ever since.

Tory MPs know what needs to be done...

Lets say you're right, if Truss and Kwasi have 'learnt that lesson' and now fall then they could be replaced by Badenoch or similar who think that Truss's mistake was to not disrupt the establishment enough.

I recall a story someone I know likes to tell about a mistake early in their career they made that cost their employer £1 million. They informed their boss about the mistake and offered their resignation, the boss declined the resignation saying "why would I want you to resign, I've just spent £1 million training you".

The MPS will see a Truss/Kwarteng government that has two modes:

1. A basic instinct to propose something the voters and the markets think is bat-shit crazy

2. To back down from the bat-shit crazy (the Russian expression is I think "to regroup").

Which Tory MPs outside the Cabinet in their right mind would want that to carry on for two more years???

Those who respect that Truss has just won the leadership election?

Those who fear that she could be replaced by someone who doesn't back down from the bat-shit crazy?

Those who think the next election is lost anyway, but their own seat is safe, and want Truss to carry the can for defeat?

Those who don't think the stuff is bat shit crazy?

Those who want to keep their heads down and further their career by being loyal?

Quite an array possibly.

Nigelb said:

Jonathan said:

Leon
Elon

Better watch out for new posters Noel, Leno, and Lone...

Or homophone Onel.

BartholomewRoberts said:

numbertwelve said:

mwadams said:

numbertwelve said:

LostPassword said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

LostPassword said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

MarqueeMark said:

Leon said:

AlistairM said:

Got to love the Ukrainian MoD Twitter:

So, russkies, you really think you can compensate for your impotence on the battlefield with missile strikes on peaceful cities? You just don’t get it do you - your terrorist strikes only make us stronger. We are coming after you.
https://twitter.com/DefenceU/status/1579388767336648706

They’ve lost the moral high ground tho

There are Ukrainian govt officials on Twitter complaining about “Russian terror attacks on civilians”

Er, what was the Kerch bridge?! Civilians died. It was probably a truck bomb, possibly by suicide. It was a terror attack on Russia by that definition

Russia claims three civilians died.

And stop repeating their line of it being a truck bomb. It wasn't - and you have nothing other than Russian propaganda to say so. Unless you want to look a complete twerp/Russian useful idiot, use the evidence of your eyes. This would have had to be a truck bomb bigger than that the IRA used to level Manchester city centre. Go and look at images of that and other truck bombings. There is mess EVERYWHERE. The sections of bridge were ridiculously clean. Even the white lines still on the sunken sections. The only debris visible was what fell off the burning bridge above.

It embarrasses Russia that its prestigious bridge - Putin's bridge - protected by 20 different systems, was badly damaged by the Ukrainians (with or without help). It embarrasses you that you spout the Russian attempts at face-saving talking points.

Yes the bridge was almost certainly blown up from below and is clearly a military target as it is one of the key routes for supplying the Russian military occupiers in Crimea and Kherson. Bravo to Ukraine.
I think we have gone beyond the phase of being scared of Putin's escalation. He has become the number one danger to European and world peace and his nuclear threats simply underline that fact. Appeasing him now will only keep the danger in place. We are in a very dangerous situation but I think we now need to allow the Ukrainians to defeat Russia and have Putin deposed. His nuclear threats may or may not be genuine but they have to be faced down now.

I don't think we can have deposing Putin as a war aim, because there's no way to achieve that which doesn't genuinely risk nuclear war.

What we can do is something like the First Gulf War. Push Russia back to its own borders and contain it within those, with certain stringent conditions for normalising relations - and those may involve war criminals facing justice.

It doesn't need to be a war aim. If Russia is defeated then Putin will almost certainly be gone.

I don't agree. Putin has spent a lot of time and effort protecting his position from any coup attempt. Some of these, such as the dispersion of military power, have been to the detriment of the performance of Russia's military in the war.

His chances of survival are no worse than Saddam Hussein's in 1991.

I agree and possibility is he turns this into a round of further repression and essentially completes the transformation of Russia back into totalitarian dictatorship.

There are a couple of factors in play here which help him do so:

1. China and India will, sans-nuke, still want to deal with Russia, so he can keep his economy afloat;

2. Other members of the establishment in Russia may not want Putin to fall just yet, even if he loses the war: he is a useful strongman. A weaker replacement leader could struggle to hold the RF together and could indeed preside over a collapse. That suits them even less than Putin in charge.

There is a scenario where Putin withdraws from Ukraine, fires his generals and blames them for all of Russia’s ills. Purges the government. Draws a line on the Ukraine border and arms it to the teeth. Calls the 4 regions he claims to have annexed “occupied territories” and continues to sabre rattle and fire off nuclear threats at the west. A new Cold War emerges with Putin continuing to threaten to invade Ukraine again on a semi-regular basis.

In one way, it is in Putin's interest for the Ukraine war to be over quickly (even at the expense of the territory gained since 2014 - something his already preparing to blame on the incompetence of [purged ex-]Generals); his forces can be redirected to internal repression, holding the rest of the RF together. The more power he wastes in Ukraine, the more likely the whole thing collapses around him.

Yes, although I suspect he cannot see that right now.

Bart’s post above (re Crimea) is of course correct though I am afraid Bart I suspect that a line will be drawn there. Putin is not going to withdraw from Crimea without being beaten out, and if he withdraws from the remainder of Ukraine I suspect that that will be the point where hostilities stop - for now. We will be in a situation where both sides claim territory of the other as their own - and there will be established one of the most militarised and dangerous borders in the world. A new Berlin.

If Russia is driven out of Kherson then Crimea is 'next' on that front and will be very exposed, especially with the Kerch bridge damaged. With the Russian military decrepit and defeated, Ukraine would have an opportunity to press the advantage and press on from Kherson to Crimea.

Russia would have no land bridge left to Crimea, while Ukraine would, and a superior army that has defeated their enemies army on the field of battle, why not press their advantage?

Ukraine can't attack Crimea using clever flanking manoeuvres - it's accessible overland only via narrow passages that the Russian army can fortify - and, given that Ukraine has no navy, it seems reasonable to assume that its capacity to attempt an amphibious assault would also be somewhat limited.