This would be great for the Tories but for GE2019 CON don’t knows – politicalbetting.com

Sandpit said:

williamglenn said:

Sandpit said:

Malmesbury said:

Sandpit said:

Cyclefree said:

I have been in near constant pain in my right leg since before Easter which has sometimes caused me complete immobility. Driving has been difficult. Physio only provided temporary alleviation. I was referred for an X-ray which finally happened last week.

This morning I have tried contacting my surgery to get an appointment with the GP to find out the results. After 35 minutes on the phone I finally get through. X-results still not back but I have a GP appointment in mid-June. So I just have to pray that the results will be back by then so that I can get an idea of what the problem is and, maybe, even start the process of waiting to get treatment.

Stoicism and/or opiate addiction. That seems the choice on offer from the NHS these days.

Meanwhile I have decided to tackle some brutal overgrown brambles in the back garden, with just my arms, gloves and secateurs. Plus a lot of sweat - it is pretty hot here. It's like doing battle with Edward Scissorhands. Heist knows how I go about getting the roots out though the mattock my other half gave me as a birthday present (I married the last romantic in Cumbria) may help.

I really need a strong gardener to assist. You'd have thought in such an area there would be plenty of gardening companies to assist - from some simple design ideas to doing the harder jobs & general maintenance etc.,. But no. It is an obvious gap in the market and should I get through my current vale of tears I may look into setting one up. There are lots of keen gardeners around but also a lot of older folks so you'd have thought there'd be the need.

Meanwhile here's something I made earlier.

img src="https://us.v-cdn.net/5020679/uploads/editor/ke/mzdi6cgz5cu9.jpeg" alt="" />
img src="https://us.v-cdn.net/5020679/uploads/editor/oc/zpcxrz5vd9g0.jpeg" alt="" />
img src="https://us.v-cdn.net/5020679/uploads/editor/72/hutl9gqjg6e4.jpeg" alt="" />

First of all, lovely bush.

Has anyone who loves the NHS ever lived in another country? It’s totally bonkers to have to wait months for scans and results, and must be costing the country billions in time off work.

The comment I had from a private consultant was the mistake the NHS makes in cases like this (I had something not dissimilar) is not doing all the possible scans and tests up front. Then sending them through the to the various consultants.

I had an X ray, MRI and nerve conduction study in 2 days. Privately. They apologised for not doing them on the same day.

Perhaps the single biggest value for money in the NHS, would be training up more radiologists to keep that expensive capital equipment running as long as possible. In an ideal world, like where I live, most MRI and CT scanners operate on a drop-in basis. You get a referral from the doc, and go stand in line for a few minutes.

How are they owned and operated? Is imaging run as a separate service?

Privately operated, either inside the larger hospitals, or run as a separate service for the smaller clinics to refer patients. Last time I had a CT, I think I paid £50 and my insurance paid £200.

It’s a scandal that the NHS runs expensive pieces of capital equipment for eight hours a day, five days a week. A commercial operator runs them for 16 hours a day, seven days a week, and does maintainance overnight. Because of course they do.

It seems like an unnecessary bottleneck in the NHS at the moment. People can wait months for a basic scan that could easily be performed by a private operator without compromising the patient's experience of the NHS model in any way.

Nigel_Foremain said:

Sandpit said:

NickPalmer said:

JosiasJessop said:

NickPalmer said:

O/T - did we discuss the Macron interview yesterday?

https://www.theguardian.com/world/video/2023/may/31/putin-may-not-face-war-crimes-trial-if-ukraine-war-ends-in-a-negotiation-macron-says-video

The point that to end a war one may have to negotiate with people one doesn't like is less striking than the suggestion that if Ukraine doesn't succeed in this year's expected offensive, the West will need to rethink the nature of support. His comments are qualified (and translation may be an issue too) and certainly not pro-Putin but probably the clearest hint we've seen so far that a continuing military deadlock may lead to some pressure on Ukraine to negotiate for something less than total victory. Conversely the war hysteria of Russian nationalists seems to have subsided into trying to keep their current gains rather than advancing further.

You missed a few words off the end; it should be: "... into trying to keep their current gains rather than advancing further for the time being."

*Any* peace deal - whether on today's lines, on 2014's, or pre-2014 - has to ensure that Russia will not just rebuild and try again in a few years - as they have before.

And the major issue is that, absent a Russian defeat, I see no way of ensuring that. Why trust Putin and his cronies, especially if they can sell a big territorial 'win' to their populace?

Godwinning myself, It's like trying to 'negotiate' with Hitler or Stalin back in the late 1930s.

Yes, we shouldn't trust him at all, but as others have said the potential for revanchism is going to be there anyway. Guaranteeing current lines (or whatever the lines end up as after the supposed coming offensive) is one way that the West really can actually make the peace work - accepting Ukraine into NATO and stationing some US troops there would make a fresh Russian incursion without WW3 almost impossible, and the eastern oblasts can be like the West Bank, effectively incorporated and the subject of negotiations at some distant future date. Putin wouldn't like his new NATO border, nor would nationalist zealots on either side fancy anything short of total victory, but they shouldn't get to decide that the war just goes on indefinitely.

The Ukranians are in no mood to agree anything that sees Putin taking Ukranian land. The best-case scenario is the post-2014 border, with many pushing for the 1991 border and willing to fight for it.

It seems very unfair, but I can't see it ending without some sort of compromise such as Nick suggests. Perhaps a demilitarised zone with a UN mandate that recognises the ultimate sovereignty of Ukraine would be how I would expect it to end. Sanctions should then continue against Russia for as long as possible while there is no regime change.

The Ukranians have no intention of compromising. They’ll agree to a buffer zone, so long as it’s entirely in what’s now Russia. So long as the NATO countries stand by their promise to defend Ukraine, there will be Ukranians willing to fight for the survival of their country.

HYUFD said:

Casino_Royale said:

Sean_F said:

HYUFD said:

148grss said:

Leon said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

148grss said:

Nigel_Foremain said:

Leon said:

Nigel_Foremain said:

This is one to annoy that diminishing coterie of Brexit-is-shite-deniers that still protest it was a good idea despite the complete lack of evidence that it has done us any favours. No doubt their closed minds will find some reason to doubt his analysis lol.

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/money/other/brexit-will-be-known-as-historic-economic-error-says-former-us-treasury-secretary/ar-AA1bZanx?ocid=entnewsntp&cvid=67be5e6d2933443fae6d36505a808ac6&ei=18

Irish independence was a major economic error, of historic proportions. They were poorer as a result, and remained poorer for decades

Do they regret it now? Do they want to revert? No. They did it for reasons OTHER than economics

What a ridiculous comparison @Leon. Do you have ANY idea what British rule in Ireland meant? Did the EU preside over a potato famine? Did the EU send troops into the UK. Did the EU insist on having it's aristocrats run major institutions?

Don't be so fucking ridiculous. You have more cred when you talk about alien invasions.

The Great Hunger removed a third of the island of Ireland's population, through death or migration. The population has never recovered. The island was occupied by soldiers, up to the modern era, who committed war crimes, even if the UK refuses to accept them. That is not the same as voting to join an economic consortium of countries that evolved into a more political consortium of countries, and the comparison is sickening.

Some British people have a remarkable blind spot about Ireland. The Irish are far more forgiving towards us than we have any right to expect.

We freed up a heck of a lot of parking on the West Coast, and encouraged them to diversify their agriculture away from the potato. How is this bad?

The Empire forced an entirely different method of land ownership, landlordism and free marketeerism that literally destroyed Irish civil society because 1/3rd of the island either died or had to migrate during the Great Hunger. And that's just one thing, relatively recently historically speaking! The language was made illegal, by penalty of death, Catholicisim was essentially criminalised, early "race science" was basically invented in part to justify the subjugation of the Irish (as well as slavery). Wealth, land and labour was extracted and what was given back was landlords and death. And the UK did not diversify their agriculture away from the potato - it was the over charging of farmers by English landowners that made potatoes the only profitable / substantive crop, and the method of land reform introduced reduced the incentive to improve the land with better crops / infrastructure (because landlords would use it as an argument to raise rents / find new tenants).

I really recommend the podcast Behind The Bastards and their episodes on that period of history.

And once the British left most of Ireland (after an early terror campaign by the IRA including murdering British soldiers and government officials and burning down homes of Anglo Irish nobility) Catholicism dominated Irish society in such a way that divorce, abortion and homosexuality remained illegal in the Republic of Ireland long after they had been legalised in mainland GB.

My mother reckons that being a Protestant in 1940's and 1950's Dublin was much better than being a Catholic, because the Catholic Church was indifferent to you, being convinced that you were going to hell, anyway. They took a lot of interest in the Catholics however, and that was not good news for the Catholics.

I was somewhat shocked to read that de Valera essentially aspired to run Ireland as a Catholic theocracy.

After the Vatican city itself, the Republic of Ireland was probably the most Catholic nation in Europe in the 20th century, certainly until the Soviet block fell

Close call with Franco's Spain. Especially considering the number of Opus Dei members who were ministers at various times.

Nigel_Foremain said:

Sandpit said:

Nigel_Foremain said:

Sandpit said:

NickPalmer said:

JosiasJessop said:

NickPalmer said:

O/T - did we discuss the Macron interview yesterday?

https://www.theguardian.com/world/video/2023/may/31/putin-may-not-face-war-crimes-trial-if-ukraine-war-ends-in-a-negotiation-macron-says-video

The point that to end a war one may have to negotiate with people one doesn't like is less striking than the suggestion that if Ukraine doesn't succeed in this year's expected offensive, the West will need to rethink the nature of support. His comments are qualified (and translation may be an issue too) and certainly not pro-Putin but probably the clearest hint we've seen so far that a continuing military deadlock may lead to some pressure on Ukraine to negotiate for something less than total victory. Conversely the war hysteria of Russian nationalists seems to have subsided into trying to keep their current gains rather than advancing further.

You missed a few words off the end; it should be: "... into trying to keep their current gains rather than advancing further for the time being."

*Any* peace deal - whether on today's lines, on 2014's, or pre-2014 - has to ensure that Russia will not just rebuild and try again in a few years - as they have before.

And the major issue is that, absent a Russian defeat, I see no way of ensuring that. Why trust Putin and his cronies, especially if they can sell a big territorial 'win' to their populace?

Godwinning myself, It's like trying to 'negotiate' with Hitler or Stalin back in the late 1930s.

Yes, we shouldn't trust him at all, but as others have said the potential for revanchism is going to be there anyway. Guaranteeing current lines (or whatever the lines end up as after the supposed coming offensive) is one way that the West really can actually make the peace work - accepting Ukraine into NATO and stationing some US troops there would make a fresh Russian incursion without WW3 almost impossible, and the eastern oblasts can be like the West Bank, effectively incorporated and the subject of negotiations at some distant future date. Putin wouldn't like his new NATO border, nor would nationalist zealots on either side fancy anything short of total victory, but they shouldn't get to decide that the war just goes on indefinitely.

The Ukranians are in no mood to agree anything that sees Putin taking Ukranian land. The best-case scenario is the post-2014 border, with many pushing for the 1991 border and willing to fight for it.

It seems very unfair, but I can't see it ending without some sort of compromise such as Nick suggests. Perhaps a demilitarised zone with a UN mandate that recognises the ultimate sovereignty of Ukraine would be how I would expect it to end. Sanctions should then continue against Russia for as long as possible while there is no regime change.

The Ukranians have no intention of compromising. They’ll agree to a buffer zone, so long as it’s entirely in what’s now Russia. So long as the NATO countries stand by their promise to defend Ukraine, there will be Ukranians willing to fight for the survival of their country.

I regret to say that they may have no choice. They have achieved an amazing defence of their country, but they will only be able to push the Russian fascists back so long as there are weapons flowing from the West. That is not guaranteed for ever.

The Budapest Memorandum compels the UK and USA to defend the terriorial integrity of Ukraine.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest_Memorandum

The real scandal, is why there wasn’t a much more robust response to Russia’s land grab in 2014.

To give more of a global 2023 context, what does the West abandoning Ukraine say to China about Taiwan?

HYUFD said:

Sunak takes the Tories back to 1997 levels of 165 MPs with Nowcast after the sub 50 seats Truss was heading for. Smaller Starmer majority than Blair got though at 134
Nowcast Model + Interactive Map (31/05):

LAB: 392 (+190) - 44.3%
CON: 165 (-200) - 28.7%
LDM: 35 (+24) - 10.8%
SNP: 34 (-14) - 3.4%
PLC: 4 (=) - 0.5%
GRN: 1 (=) - 5.6%
RFM: 0 (=) - 5.1%
Others: 0 (=) - 1.4%

LAB Majority of 134.
https://twitter.com/ElectionMapsUK/status/1664209807572598785?s=20

Reckon that could be it, give or take. Will Mogg lose his seat on this type of result?

Nigel_Foremain said:

Sandpit said:

Nigel_Foremain said:

Sandpit said:

NickPalmer said:

JosiasJessop said:

NickPalmer said:

O/T - did we discuss the Macron interview yesterday?

https://www.theguardian.com/world/video/2023/may/31/putin-may-not-face-war-crimes-trial-if-ukraine-war-ends-in-a-negotiation-macron-says-video

The point that to end a war one may have to negotiate with people one doesn't like is less striking than the suggestion that if Ukraine doesn't succeed in this year's expected offensive, the West will need to rethink the nature of support. His comments are qualified (and translation may be an issue too) and certainly not pro-Putin but probably the clearest hint we've seen so far that a continuing military deadlock may lead to some pressure on Ukraine to negotiate for something less than total victory. Conversely the war hysteria of Russian nationalists seems to have subsided into trying to keep their current gains rather than advancing further.

You missed a few words off the end; it should be: "... into trying to keep their current gains rather than advancing further for the time being."

*Any* peace deal - whether on today's lines, on 2014's, or pre-2014 - has to ensure that Russia will not just rebuild and try again in a few years - as they have before.

And the major issue is that, absent a Russian defeat, I see no way of ensuring that. Why trust Putin and his cronies, especially if they can sell a big territorial 'win' to their populace?

Godwinning myself, It's like trying to 'negotiate' with Hitler or Stalin back in the late 1930s.

Yes, we shouldn't trust him at all, but as others have said the potential for revanchism is going to be there anyway. Guaranteeing current lines (or whatever the lines end up as after the supposed coming offensive) is one way that the West really can actually make the peace work - accepting Ukraine into NATO and stationing some US troops there would make a fresh Russian incursion without WW3 almost impossible, and the eastern oblasts can be like the West Bank, effectively incorporated and the subject of negotiations at some distant future date. Putin wouldn't like his new NATO border, nor would nationalist zealots on either side fancy anything short of total victory, but they shouldn't get to decide that the war just goes on indefinitely.

The Ukranians are in no mood to agree anything that sees Putin taking Ukranian land. The best-case scenario is the post-2014 border, with many pushing for the 1991 border and willing to fight for it.

It seems very unfair, but I can't see it ending without some sort of compromise such as Nick suggests. Perhaps a demilitarised zone with a UN mandate that recognises the ultimate sovereignty of Ukraine would be how I would expect it to end. Sanctions should then continue against Russia for as long as possible while there is no regime change.

The Ukranians have no intention of compromising. They’ll agree to a buffer zone, so long as it’s entirely in what’s now Russia. So long as the NATO countries stand by their promise to defend Ukraine, there will be Ukranians willing to fight for the survival of their country.

I regret to say that they may have no choice. They have achieved an amazing defence of their country, but they will only be able to push the Russian fascists back so long as there are weapons flowing from the West. That is not guaranteed for ever.

But they only need that supply of weapons until the Russians are defeated, or decide to retreat (ala Afghanistan). It's not surprising that pro-Russian shills are desperately calling out for negotiations now based on the current lines; they're aware that the Ukrainians have a significant offensive force being developed, whilst they have little to counter that.

Now, it's perfectly possible that the Ukrainian offensive will be a busted flush. But importantly, it appears that the Ukrainians are willing to risk the lives of many of their people in order to regain their land. Calling for negotiations now is just asking Ukraine to be defeated by fascism. If Ukraine decides for negotiations themselves; fair enough.

More, Nick's thinking is mind-bendingly stupid if you want wider peace. Such territorial land grabs are a great risk for world peace; if Russia is seen as having 'gained' in Ukraine (*), then it just encourages other countries to perform similar adventures. In terms of world peace, a Russian 'defeat' is vital. We should have pushed back on Russia much harder after Crimea; not appeased them.

(*) It's not a zero-sum game; Russia may play a gain in territory as a 'win' (as they did in Crimea in 2014); but the damage to their economy, their military, and their reputation is massive.

Nigel_Foremain said:

Sandpit said:

Nigel_Foremain said:

Sandpit said:

NickPalmer said:

JosiasJessop said:

NickPalmer said:

O/T - did we discuss the Macron interview yesterday?

https://www.theguardian.com/world/video/2023/may/31/putin-may-not-face-war-crimes-trial-if-ukraine-war-ends-in-a-negotiation-macron-says-video

The point that to end a war one may have to negotiate with people one doesn't like is less striking than the suggestion that if Ukraine doesn't succeed in this year's expected offensive, the West will need to rethink the nature of support. His comments are qualified (and translation may be an issue too) and certainly not pro-Putin but probably the clearest hint we've seen so far that a continuing military deadlock may lead to some pressure on Ukraine to negotiate for something less than total victory. Conversely the war hysteria of Russian nationalists seems to have subsided into trying to keep their current gains rather than advancing further.

You missed a few words off the end; it should be: "... into trying to keep their current gains rather than advancing further for the time being."

*Any* peace deal - whether on today's lines, on 2014's, or pre-2014 - has to ensure that Russia will not just rebuild and try again in a few years - as they have before.

And the major issue is that, absent a Russian defeat, I see no way of ensuring that. Why trust Putin and his cronies, especially if they can sell a big territorial 'win' to their populace?

Godwinning myself, It's like trying to 'negotiate' with Hitler or Stalin back in the late 1930s.

Yes, we shouldn't trust him at all, but as others have said the potential for revanchism is going to be there anyway. Guaranteeing current lines (or whatever the lines end up as after the supposed coming offensive) is one way that the West really can actually make the peace work - accepting Ukraine into NATO and stationing some US troops there would make a fresh Russian incursion without WW3 almost impossible, and the eastern oblasts can be like the West Bank, effectively incorporated and the subject of negotiations at some distant future date. Putin wouldn't like his new NATO border, nor would nationalist zealots on either side fancy anything short of total victory, but they shouldn't get to decide that the war just goes on indefinitely.

The Ukranians are in no mood to agree anything that sees Putin taking Ukranian land. The best-case scenario is the post-2014 border, with many pushing for the 1991 border and willing to fight for it.

It seems very unfair, but I can't see it ending without some sort of compromise such as Nick suggests. Perhaps a demilitarised zone with a UN mandate that recognises the ultimate sovereignty of Ukraine would be how I would expect it to end. Sanctions should then continue against Russia for as long as possible while there is no regime change.

The Ukranians have no intention of compromising. They’ll agree to a buffer zone, so long as it’s entirely in what’s now Russia. So long as the NATO countries stand by their promise to defend Ukraine, there will be Ukranians willing to fight for the survival of their country.

I regret to say that they may have no choice. They have achieved an amazing defence of their country, but they will only be able to push the Russian fascists back so long as there are weapons flowing from the West. That is not guaranteed for ever.

Russia does not have an unlimited capacity to throw men and materiel into Ukraine.

HYUFD said:

Sunak takes the Tories back to 1997 levels of 165 MPs with Nowcast after the sub 50 seats Truss was heading for. Smaller Starmer majority than Blair got though at 134
Nowcast Model + Interactive Map (31/05):

LAB: 392 (+190) - 44.3%
CON: 165 (-200) - 28.7%
LDM: 35 (+24) - 10.8%
SNP: 34 (-14) - 3.4%
PLC: 4 (=) - 0.5%
GRN: 1 (=) - 5.6%
RFM: 0 (=) - 5.1%
Others: 0 (=) - 1.4%

LAB Majority of 134.
https://twitter.com/ElectionMapsUK/status/1664209807572598785?s=20

Assumes poor old Bridgen won't keep his seat for Reform, or Refuse or Reclaim or whatever they are.

I do wonder if the Greens can pull out another seat (Bristol West presumably).

In February 2022, CNN polled Ukraine.

The results are absolutely striking.

rcs1000 said:

Nigel_Foremain said:

Sandpit said:

Nigel_Foremain said:

Sandpit said:

NickPalmer said:

JosiasJessop said:

NickPalmer said:

O/T - did we discuss the Macron interview yesterday?

https://www.theguardian.com/world/video/2023/may/31/putin-may-not-face-war-crimes-trial-if-ukraine-war-ends-in-a-negotiation-macron-says-video

The point that to end a war one may have to negotiate with people one doesn't like is less striking than the suggestion that if Ukraine doesn't succeed in this year's expected offensive, the West will need to rethink the nature of support. His comments are qualified (and translation may be an issue too) and certainly not pro-Putin but probably the clearest hint we've seen so far that a continuing military deadlock may lead to some pressure on Ukraine to negotiate for something less than total victory. Conversely the war hysteria of Russian nationalists seems to have subsided into trying to keep their current gains rather than advancing further.

You missed a few words off the end; it should be: "... into trying to keep their current gains rather than advancing further for the time being."

*Any* peace deal - whether on today's lines, on 2014's, or pre-2014 - has to ensure that Russia will not just rebuild and try again in a few years - as they have before.

And the major issue is that, absent a Russian defeat, I see no way of ensuring that. Why trust Putin and his cronies, especially if they can sell a big territorial 'win' to their populace?

Godwinning myself, It's like trying to 'negotiate' with Hitler or Stalin back in the late 1930s.

Yes, we shouldn't trust him at all, but as others have said the potential for revanchism is going to be there anyway. Guaranteeing current lines (or whatever the lines end up as after the supposed coming offensive) is one way that the West really can actually make the peace work - accepting Ukraine into NATO and stationing some US troops there would make a fresh Russian incursion without WW3 almost impossible, and the eastern oblasts can be like the West Bank, effectively incorporated and the subject of negotiations at some distant future date. Putin wouldn't like his new NATO border, nor would nationalist zealots on either side fancy anything short of total victory, but they shouldn't get to decide that the war just goes on indefinitely.

The Ukranians are in no mood to agree anything that sees Putin taking Ukranian land. The best-case scenario is the post-2014 border, with many pushing for the 1991 border and willing to fight for it.

It seems very unfair, but I can't see it ending without some sort of compromise such as Nick suggests. Perhaps a demilitarised zone with a UN mandate that recognises the ultimate sovereignty of Ukraine would be how I would expect it to end. Sanctions should then continue against Russia for as long as possible while there is no regime change.

The Ukranians have no intention of compromising. They’ll agree to a buffer zone, so long as it’s entirely in what’s now Russia. So long as the NATO countries stand by their promise to defend Ukraine, there will be Ukranians willing to fight for the survival of their country.

I regret to say that they may have no choice. They have achieved an amazing defence of their country, but they will only be able to push the Russian fascists back so long as there are weapons flowing from the West. That is not guaranteed for ever.

Russia does not have an unlimited capacity to throw men and materiel into Ukraine.

There are already reports of severe labour shortages in certain sectors in Russia. It's not just young men (and not just the young...) being sent to the front; there's also been a significant brain drain amongst the mobile.

I fear Putin and the top bods in Russia just think back to the Great Patriotic War, when they could mobilise millions of men to fight the war. The issue with that is that Russia's economy has changed. Back then, Russia's agricultural workforce was massive (as it was in many countries - see (1). This meant policies of semi-starvation, plus millions of tons of food from the west, freed up vast numbers of agricultural workers to fight or work in the factories.

Modern economies employ far fewer people in agricultural endeavours, and many, many more in semi- and highly-skilled parts of the economy. These are hard to train and replace, and the interrelated nature of technology means that production shortfalls can have large effects elsewhere in the economy.

TLDR; Russia doesn't have that many men to throw into battle, relatively speaking.

In all seriousness, (1) is a fascinating chart. Look at how few people the UK employed in agriculture in 1930 compared to our competitors.

(1); https://www.statista.com/statistics/1005657/share-working-population-agriculture-europe-1930-1980/

Westie said:

Minutes before the deadline for handing over Johnson's messages, diaries, and notebooks to the inquiry, Sunak says the government is still "carefully considering next steps".

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/rishi-sunak-government-boris-johnson-prime-minister-volodymyr-zelensky-b1085055.html

What’s going on here then, it’s obviously something that makes Sunak look bad.

That said, there does need to be some sort of an agreement that casual messages won’t end up published. The point of the inquiry is to learn lessons, not to castigate individuals. Publishing messages will mean that the next emergency leaves government totally flat-footed, as they all primarily consider how they come across to the inquiry.

Stuartinromford said:

HYUFD said:

Casino_Royale said:

Sean_F said:

HYUFD said:

148grss said:

Leon said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

148grss said:

Nigel_Foremain said:

Leon said:

Nigel_Foremain said:

This is one to annoy that diminishing coterie of Brexit-is-shite-deniers that still protest it was a good idea despite the complete lack of evidence that it has done us any favours. No doubt their closed minds will find some reason to doubt his analysis lol.

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/money/other/brexit-will-be-known-as-historic-economic-error-says-former-us-treasury-secretary/ar-AA1bZanx?ocid=entnewsntp&cvid=67be5e6d2933443fae6d36505a808ac6&ei=18

Irish independence was a major economic error, of historic proportions. They were poorer as a result, and remained poorer for decades

Do they regret it now? Do they want to revert? No. They did it for reasons OTHER than economics

What a ridiculous comparison @Leon. Do you have ANY idea what British rule in Ireland meant? Did the EU preside over a potato famine? Did the EU send troops into the UK. Did the EU insist on having it's aristocrats run major institutions?

Don't be so fucking ridiculous. You have more cred when you talk about alien invasions.

The Great Hunger removed a third of the island of Ireland's population, through death or migration. The population has never recovered. The island was occupied by soldiers, up to the modern era, who committed war crimes, even if the UK refuses to accept them. That is not the same as voting to join an economic consortium of countries that evolved into a more political consortium of countries, and the comparison is sickening.

Some British people have a remarkable blind spot about Ireland. The Irish are far more forgiving towards us than we have any right to expect.

We freed up a heck of a lot of parking on the West Coast, and encouraged them to diversify their agriculture away from the potato. How is this bad?

The Empire forced an entirely different method of land ownership, landlordism and free marketeerism that literally destroyed Irish civil society because 1/3rd of the island either died or had to migrate during the Great Hunger. And that's just one thing, relatively recently historically speaking! The language was made illegal, by penalty of death, Catholicisim was essentially criminalised, early "race science" was basically invented in part to justify the subjugation of the Irish (as well as slavery). Wealth, land and labour was extracted and what was given back was landlords and death. And the UK did not diversify their agriculture away from the potato - it was the over charging of farmers by English landowners that made potatoes the only profitable / substantive crop, and the method of land reform introduced reduced the incentive to improve the land with better crops / infrastructure (because landlords would use it as an argument to raise rents / find new tenants).

I really recommend the podcast Behind The Bastards and their episodes on that period of history.

And once the British left most of Ireland (after an early terror campaign by the IRA including murdering British soldiers and government officials and burning down homes of Anglo Irish nobility) Catholicism dominated Irish society in such a way that divorce, abortion and homosexuality remained illegal in the Republic of Ireland long after they had been legalised in mainland GB.

My mother reckons that being a Protestant in 1940's and 1950's Dublin was much better than being a Catholic, because the Catholic Church was indifferent to you, being convinced that you were going to hell, anyway. They took a lot of interest in the Catholics however, and that was not good news for the Catholics.

I was somewhat shocked to read that de Valera essentially aspired to run Ireland as a Catholic theocracy.

After the Vatican city itself, the Republic of Ireland was probably the most Catholic nation in Europe in the 20th century, certainly until the Soviet block fell

Close call with Franco's Spain. Especially considering the number of Opus Dei members who were ministers at various times.

Opus Dei ministers were, comparitively speaking, the liberals among Franco's ministers. Their main concern was getting the economy functioning again.

JosiasJessop said:

rcs1000 said:

Nigel_Foremain said:

Sandpit said:

Nigel_Foremain said:

Sandpit said:

NickPalmer said:

JosiasJessop said:

NickPalmer said:

O/T - did we discuss the Macron interview yesterday?

https://www.theguardian.com/world/video/2023/may/31/putin-may-not-face-war-crimes-trial-if-ukraine-war-ends-in-a-negotiation-macron-says-video

The point that to end a war one may have to negotiate with people one doesn't like is less striking than the suggestion that if Ukraine doesn't succeed in this year's expected offensive, the West will need to rethink the nature of support. His comments are qualified (and translation may be an issue too) and certainly not pro-Putin but probably the clearest hint we've seen so far that a continuing military deadlock may lead to some pressure on Ukraine to negotiate for something less than total victory. Conversely the war hysteria of Russian nationalists seems to have subsided into trying to keep their current gains rather than advancing further.

You missed a few words off the end; it should be: "... into trying to keep their current gains rather than advancing further for the time being."

*Any* peace deal - whether on today's lines, on 2014's, or pre-2014 - has to ensure that Russia will not just rebuild and try again in a few years - as they have before.

And the major issue is that, absent a Russian defeat, I see no way of ensuring that. Why trust Putin and his cronies, especially if they can sell a big territorial 'win' to their populace?

Godwinning myself, It's like trying to 'negotiate' with Hitler or Stalin back in the late 1930s.

Yes, we shouldn't trust him at all, but as others have said the potential for revanchism is going to be there anyway. Guaranteeing current lines (or whatever the lines end up as after the supposed coming offensive) is one way that the West really can actually make the peace work - accepting Ukraine into NATO and stationing some US troops there would make a fresh Russian incursion without WW3 almost impossible, and the eastern oblasts can be like the West Bank, effectively incorporated and the subject of negotiations at some distant future date. Putin wouldn't like his new NATO border, nor would nationalist zealots on either side fancy anything short of total victory, but they shouldn't get to decide that the war just goes on indefinitely.

The Ukranians are in no mood to agree anything that sees Putin taking Ukranian land. The best-case scenario is the post-2014 border, with many pushing for the 1991 border and willing to fight for it.

It seems very unfair, but I can't see it ending without some sort of compromise such as Nick suggests. Perhaps a demilitarised zone with a UN mandate that recognises the ultimate sovereignty of Ukraine would be how I would expect it to end. Sanctions should then continue against Russia for as long as possible while there is no regime change.

The Ukranians have no intention of compromising. They’ll agree to a buffer zone, so long as it’s entirely in what’s now Russia. So long as the NATO countries stand by their promise to defend Ukraine, there will be Ukranians willing to fight for the survival of their country.

I regret to say that they may have no choice. They have achieved an amazing defence of their country, but they will only be able to push the Russian fascists back so long as there are weapons flowing from the West. That is not guaranteed for ever.

Russia does not have an unlimited capacity to throw men and materiel into Ukraine.

There are already reports of severe labour shortages in certain sectors in Russia. It's not just young men (and not just the young...) being sent to the front; there's also been a significant brain drain amongst the mobile.

I fear Putin and the top bods in Russia just think back to the Great Patriotic War, when they could mobilise millions of men to fight the war. The issue with that is that Russia's economy has changed. Back then, Russia's agricultural workforce was massive (as it was in many countries - see (1). This meant policies of semi-starvation, plus millions of tons of food from the west, freed up vast numbers of agricultural workers to fight or work in the factories.

Modern economies employ far fewer people in agricultural endeavours, and many, many more in semi- and highly-skilled parts of the economy. These are hard to train and replace, and the interrelated nature of technology means that production shortfalls can have large effects elsewhere in the economy.

TLDR; Russia doesn't have that many men to throw into battle, relatively speaking.

In all seriousness, (1) is a fascinating chart. Look at how few people the UK employed in agriculture in 1930 compared to our competitors.

(1); https://www.statista.com/statistics/1005657/share-working-population-agriculture-europe-1930-1980/

The other thing that Putin forgets (or more likely chooses to ignore) is the vast flow of materiel from the UK, and then the USA, delivered on UK merchant and allied ships to the USSR. The "USSR won WWII" is a myth - the allies won - with Allied materiel and USSR/Allied manpower. Only a fool believes his own propaganda.

Astonishing . No 10 is refusing to hand over the information requested by its own Covid Inquiry . So in effect this ends up in legal action in which they intend to use the Human Rights Act as defence , the same act many Tories want to get rid of .

Utter vomit inducing hypocrisy and this looks appalling to most of the public .

# Cover-up

FF43 said:

Nigel_Foremain said:

Sandpit said:

Nigel_Foremain said:

Sandpit said:

NickPalmer said:

JosiasJessop said:

NickPalmer said:

O/T - did we discuss the Macron interview yesterday?

https://www.theguardian.com/world/video/2023/may/31/putin-may-not-face-war-crimes-trial-if-ukraine-war-ends-in-a-negotiation-macron-says-video

The point that to end a war one may have to negotiate with people one doesn't like is less striking than the suggestion that if Ukraine doesn't succeed in this year's expected offensive, the West will need to rethink the nature of support. His comments are qualified (and translation may be an issue too) and certainly not pro-Putin but probably the clearest hint we've seen so far that a continuing military deadlock may lead to some pressure on Ukraine to negotiate for something less than total victory. Conversely the war hysteria of Russian nationalists seems to have subsided into trying to keep their current gains rather than advancing further.

You missed a few words off the end; it should be: "... into trying to keep their current gains rather than advancing further for the time being."

*Any* peace deal - whether on today's lines, on 2014's, or pre-2014 - has to ensure that Russia will not just rebuild and try again in a few years - as they have before.

And the major issue is that, absent a Russian defeat, I see no way of ensuring that. Why trust Putin and his cronies, especially if they can sell a big territorial 'win' to their populace?

Godwinning myself, It's like trying to 'negotiate' with Hitler or Stalin back in the late 1930s.

Yes, we shouldn't trust him at all, but as others have said the potential for revanchism is going to be there anyway. Guaranteeing current lines (or whatever the lines end up as after the supposed coming offensive) is one way that the West really can actually make the peace work - accepting Ukraine into NATO and stationing some US troops there would make a fresh Russian incursion without WW3 almost impossible, and the eastern oblasts can be like the West Bank, effectively incorporated and the subject of negotiations at some distant future date. Putin wouldn't like his new NATO border, nor would nationalist zealots on either side fancy anything short of total victory, but they shouldn't get to decide that the war just goes on indefinitely.

The Ukranians are in no mood to agree anything that sees Putin taking Ukranian land. The best-case scenario is the post-2014 border, with many pushing for the 1991 border and willing to fight for it.

It seems very unfair, but I can't see it ending without some sort of compromise such as Nick suggests. Perhaps a demilitarised zone with a UN mandate that recognises the ultimate sovereignty of Ukraine would be how I would expect it to end. Sanctions should then continue against Russia for as long as possible while there is no regime change.

The Ukranians have no intention of compromising. They’ll agree to a buffer zone, so long as it’s entirely in what’s now Russia. So long as the NATO countries stand by their promise to defend Ukraine, there will be Ukranians willing to fight for the survival of their country.

I regret to say that they may have no choice. They have achieved an amazing defence of their country, but they will only be able to push the Russian fascists back so long as there are weapons flowing from the West. That is not guaranteed for ever.

Ukraine will I think have a choice. Just having a choice is huge achievement by Ukraine, but it might be a grim choice. I also think Ukraine has a good chance of imposing a cost on Russia for its occupation that Russia ultimately will be unwilling to pay.

Problem is, Ukraine might be ruined in the process. Challenge is Ukraine getting a settlement it can live with and then go onto be a successful country.

Ukraine has $1trn of international goodwill heading its way, once the war is over. Some of which may have been confiscated from a bunch of Russian oligarchs.

Russia has $1trn of sanctions, that are going to remain in place for years after the formal war ends.

Which country would you want to live in, as a resident of a border town?

Sandpit said:

williamglenn said:

Sandpit said:

Malmesbury said:

Sandpit said:

Cyclefree said:

I have been in near constant pain in my right leg since before Easter which has sometimes caused me complete immobility. Driving has been difficult. Physio only provided temporary alleviation. I was referred for an X-ray which finally happened last week.

This morning I have tried contacting my surgery to get an appointment with the GP to find out the results. After 35 minutes on the phone I finally get through. X-results still not back but I have a GP appointment in mid-June. So I just have to pray that the results will be back by then so that I can get an idea of what the problem is and, maybe, even start the process of waiting to get treatment.

Stoicism and/or opiate addiction. That seems the choice on offer from the NHS these days.

Meanwhile I have decided to tackle some brutal overgrown brambles in the back garden, with just my arms, gloves and secateurs. Plus a lot of sweat - it is pretty hot here. It's like doing battle with Edward Scissorhands. Heist knows how I go about getting the roots out though the mattock my other half gave me as a birthday present (I married the last romantic in Cumbria) may help.

I really need a strong gardener to assist. You'd have thought in such an area there would be plenty of gardening companies to assist - from some simple design ideas to doing the harder jobs & general maintenance etc.,. But no. It is an obvious gap in the market and should I get through my current vale of tears I may look into setting one up. There are lots of keen gardeners around but also a lot of older folks so you'd have thought there'd be the need.

Meanwhile here's something I made earlier.

img src="https://us.v-cdn.net/5020679/uploads/editor/ke/mzdi6cgz5cu9.jpeg" alt="" />
img src="https://us.v-cdn.net/5020679/uploads/editor/oc/zpcxrz5vd9g0.jpeg" alt="" />
img src="https://us.v-cdn.net/5020679/uploads/editor/72/hutl9gqjg6e4.jpeg" alt="" />

First of all, lovely bush.

Has anyone who loves the NHS ever lived in another country? It’s totally bonkers to have to wait months for scans and results, and must be costing the country billions in time off work.

The comment I had from a private consultant was the mistake the NHS makes in cases like this (I had something not dissimilar) is not doing all the possible scans and tests up front. Then sending them through the to the various consultants.

I had an X ray, MRI and nerve conduction study in 2 days. Privately. They apologised for not doing them on the same day.

Perhaps the single biggest value for money in the NHS, would be training up more radiologists to keep that expensive capital equipment running as long as possible. In an ideal world, like where I live, most MRI and CT scanners operate on a drop-in basis. You get a referral from the doc, and go stand in line for a few minutes.

How are they owned and operated? Is imaging run as a separate service?

Privately operated, either inside the larger hospitals, or run as a separate service for the smaller clinics to refer patients. Last time I had a CT, I think I paid £50 and my insurance paid £200.

It’s a scandal that the NHS runs expensive pieces of capital equipment for eight hours a day, five days a week. A commercial operator runs them for 16 hours a day, seven days a week, and does maintainance overnight. Because of course they do.

Love to know where you get that idea from. Most of the equipment is used all hours staff are available.

Mrs Eek had an MRI scan on Easter Sunday afternoon.

Westie said:

rcs1000 said:

In February 2022, CNN polled Ukraine.

The results are absolutely striking.

What a stupid poll question.

Agreed.
"Russia should fuck off back to their own country." Agree/Strongly Agree - would be better.

eek said:

Sandpit said:

williamglenn said:

Sandpit said:

Malmesbury said:

Sandpit said:

Cyclefree said:

I have been in near constant pain in my right leg since before Easter which has sometimes caused me complete immobility. Driving has been difficult. Physio only provided temporary alleviation. I was referred for an X-ray which finally happened last week.

This morning I have tried contacting my surgery to get an appointment with the GP to find out the results. After 35 minutes on the phone I finally get through. X-results still not back but I have a GP appointment in mid-June. So I just have to pray that the results will be back by then so that I can get an idea of what the problem is and, maybe, even start the process of waiting to get treatment.

Stoicism and/or opiate addiction. That seems the choice on offer from the NHS these days.

Meanwhile I have decided to tackle some brutal overgrown brambles in the back garden, with just my arms, gloves and secateurs. Plus a lot of sweat - it is pretty hot here. It's like doing battle with Edward Scissorhands. Heist knows how I go about getting the roots out though the mattock my other half gave me as a birthday present (I married the last romantic in Cumbria) may help.

I really need a strong gardener to assist. You'd have thought in such an area there would be plenty of gardening companies to assist - from some simple design ideas to doing the harder jobs & general maintenance etc.,. But no. It is an obvious gap in the market and should I get through my current vale of tears I may look into setting one up. There are lots of keen gardeners around but also a lot of older folks so you'd have thought there'd be the need.

Meanwhile here's something I made earlier.

img src="https://us.v-cdn.net/5020679/uploads/editor/ke/mzdi6cgz5cu9.jpeg" alt="" />
img src="https://us.v-cdn.net/5020679/uploads/editor/oc/zpcxrz5vd9g0.jpeg" alt="" />
img src="https://us.v-cdn.net/5020679/uploads/editor/72/hutl9gqjg6e4.jpeg" alt="" />

First of all, lovely bush.

Has anyone who loves the NHS ever lived in another country? It’s totally bonkers to have to wait months for scans and results, and must be costing the country billions in time off work.

The comment I had from a private consultant was the mistake the NHS makes in cases like this (I had something not dissimilar) is not doing all the possible scans and tests up front. Then sending them through the to the various consultants.

I had an X ray, MRI and nerve conduction study in 2 days. Privately. They apologised for not doing them on the same day.

Perhaps the single biggest value for money in the NHS, would be training up more radiologists to keep that expensive capital equipment running as long as possible. In an ideal world, like where I live, most MRI and CT scanners operate on a drop-in basis. You get a referral from the doc, and go stand in line for a few minutes.

How are they owned and operated? Is imaging run as a separate service?

Privately operated, either inside the larger hospitals, or run as a separate service for the smaller clinics to refer patients. Last time I had a CT, I think I paid £50 and my insurance paid £200.

It’s a scandal that the NHS runs expensive pieces of capital equipment for eight hours a day, five days a week. A commercial operator runs them for 16 hours a day, seven days a week, and does maintainance overnight. Because of course they do.

Love to know where you get that idea from. Most of the equipment is used all hours staff are available.

Mrs Eek had an MRI scan on Easter Sunday afternoon.

Good to hear that some NHS facilities are finally entering the 21st century. AIUI staffing is the primary issue, not enough radiologists.

FeersumEnjineeya said:

rcs1000 said:

Nigel_Foremain said:

Sandpit said:

Nigel_Foremain said:

Sandpit said:

NickPalmer said:

JosiasJessop said:

NickPalmer said:

O/T - did we discuss the Macron interview yesterday?

https://www.theguardian.com/world/video/2023/may/31/putin-may-not-face-war-crimes-trial-if-ukraine-war-ends-in-a-negotiation-macron-says-video

The point that to end a war one may have to negotiate with people one doesn't like is less striking than the suggestion that if Ukraine doesn't succeed in this year's expected offensive, the West will need to rethink the nature of support. His comments are qualified (and translation may be an issue too) and certainly not pro-Putin but probably the clearest hint we've seen so far that a continuing military deadlock may lead to some pressure on Ukraine to negotiate for something less than total victory. Conversely the war hysteria of Russian nationalists seems to have subsided into trying to keep their current gains rather than advancing further.

You missed a few words off the end; it should be: "... into trying to keep their current gains rather than advancing further for the time being."

*Any* peace deal - whether on today's lines, on 2014's, or pre-2014 - has to ensure that Russia will not just rebuild and try again in a few years - as they have before.

And the major issue is that, absent a Russian defeat, I see no way of ensuring that. Why trust Putin and his cronies, especially if they can sell a big territorial 'win' to their populace?

Godwinning myself, It's like trying to 'negotiate' with Hitler or Stalin back in the late 1930s.

Yes, we shouldn't trust him at all, but as others have said the potential for revanchism is going to be there anyway. Guaranteeing current lines (or whatever the lines end up as after the supposed coming offensive) is one way that the West really can actually make the peace work - accepting Ukraine into NATO and stationing some US troops there would make a fresh Russian incursion without WW3 almost impossible, and the eastern oblasts can be like the West Bank, effectively incorporated and the subject of negotiations at some distant future date. Putin wouldn't like his new NATO border, nor would nationalist zealots on either side fancy anything short of total victory, but they shouldn't get to decide that the war just goes on indefinitely.

The Ukranians are in no mood to agree anything that sees Putin taking Ukranian land. The best-case scenario is the post-2014 border, with many pushing for the 1991 border and willing to fight for it.

It seems very unfair, but I can't see it ending without some sort of compromise such as Nick suggests. Perhaps a demilitarised zone with a UN mandate that recognises the ultimate sovereignty of Ukraine would be how I would expect it to end. Sanctions should then continue against Russia for as long as possible while there is no regime change.

The Ukranians have no intention of compromising. They’ll agree to a buffer zone, so long as it’s entirely in what’s now Russia. So long as the NATO countries stand by their promise to defend Ukraine, there will be Ukranians willing to fight for the survival of their country.

I regret to say that they may have no choice. They have achieved an amazing defence of their country, but they will only be able to push the Russian fascists back so long as there are weapons flowing from the West. That is not guaranteed for ever.

Russia does not have an unlimited capacity to throw men and materiel into Ukraine.

But it does have something Ukraine doesn't have and isn't likely to get: a large stockpile of tactical nuclear weapons. For some reason, there seems to be a widespread belief that Putin wouldn't be mad enough to use them. I'm not so sure. He's not exactly got form for rational decision-making.

Russia have threatened their use many times, and every time we've done what they've argued against - whether it's supply of HIMARS, long-range missiles, or tanks - they haven't gone nuclear.

And there's a reason for that: use of nuclear weapons would mean the end of everything for them. Even if other countries did not respond with nuclear weapons in response, they would lose friends. Even China would find it hard to maintain their on-the-fence stance. Russia under its current regime (and that means not just Putin) would not be able to find a way back.

But also think where your view leads: what other stuff are you willing to let a rogue nuclear power do just because they wave their nukes about as a replacement for their tiny dicks?

(If Russia were to use a nuclear weapon in a tactical manner, I don't think we'd respond with nukes. We - meaning the west - would further tighten sanctions, prevent shipping into Russia, and bombard anything Russian inside Ukraine.)

How much of a first innings lead will England have tonight?

TheScreamingEagles said:

How much of a first innings lead will England have tonight?

It’s going to be close!

JosiasJessop said:

FeersumEnjineeya said:

rcs1000 said:

Nigel_Foremain said:

Sandpit said:

Nigel_Foremain said:

Sandpit said:

NickPalmer said:

JosiasJessop said:

NickPalmer said:

O/T - did we discuss the Macron interview yesterday?

https://www.theguardian.com/world/video/2023/may/31/putin-may-not-face-war-crimes-trial-if-ukraine-war-ends-in-a-negotiation-macron-says-video

The point that to end a war one may have to negotiate with people one doesn't like is less striking than the suggestion that if Ukraine doesn't succeed in this year's expected offensive, the West will need to rethink the nature of support. His comments are qualified (and translation may be an issue too) and certainly not pro-Putin but probably the clearest hint we've seen so far that a continuing military deadlock may lead to some pressure on Ukraine to negotiate for something less than total victory. Conversely the war hysteria of Russian nationalists seems to have subsided into trying to keep their current gains rather than advancing further.

You missed a few words off the end; it should be: "... into trying to keep their current gains rather than advancing further for the time being."

*Any* peace deal - whether on today's lines, on 2014's, or pre-2014 - has to ensure that Russia will not just rebuild and try again in a few years - as they have before.

And the major issue is that, absent a Russian defeat, I see no way of ensuring that. Why trust Putin and his cronies, especially if they can sell a big territorial 'win' to their populace?

Godwinning myself, It's like trying to 'negotiate' with Hitler or Stalin back in the late 1930s.

Yes, we shouldn't trust him at all, but as others have said the potential for revanchism is going to be there anyway. Guaranteeing current lines (or whatever the lines end up as after the supposed coming offensive) is one way that the West really can actually make the peace work - accepting Ukraine into NATO and stationing some US troops there would make a fresh Russian incursion without WW3 almost impossible, and the eastern oblasts can be like the West Bank, effectively incorporated and the subject of negotiations at some distant future date. Putin wouldn't like his new NATO border, nor would nationalist zealots on either side fancy anything short of total victory, but they shouldn't get to decide that the war just goes on indefinitely.

The Ukranians are in no mood to agree anything that sees Putin taking Ukranian land. The best-case scenario is the post-2014 border, with many pushing for the 1991 border and willing to fight for it.

It seems very unfair, but I can't see it ending without some sort of compromise such as Nick suggests. Perhaps a demilitarised zone with a UN mandate that recognises the ultimate sovereignty of Ukraine would be how I would expect it to end. Sanctions should then continue against Russia for as long as possible while there is no regime change.

The Ukranians have no intention of compromising. They’ll agree to a buffer zone, so long as it’s entirely in what’s now Russia. So long as the NATO countries stand by their promise to defend Ukraine, there will be Ukranians willing to fight for the survival of their country.

I regret to say that they may have no choice. They have achieved an amazing defence of their country, but they will only be able to push the Russian fascists back so long as there are weapons flowing from the West. That is not guaranteed for ever.

Russia does not have an unlimited capacity to throw men and materiel into Ukraine.

But it does have something Ukraine doesn't have and isn't likely to get: a large stockpile of tactical nuclear weapons. For some reason, there seems to be a widespread belief that Putin wouldn't be mad enough to use them. I'm not so sure. He's not exactly got form for rational decision-making.

Russia have threatened their use many times, and every time we've done what they've argued against - whether it's supply of HIMARS, long-range missiles, or tanks - they haven't gone nuclear.

And there's a reason for that: use of nuclear weapons would mean the end of everything for them. Even if other countries did not respond with nuclear weapons in response, they would lose friends. Even China would find it hard to maintain their on-the-fence stance. Russia under its current regime (and that means not just Putin) would not be able to find a way back.

But also think where your view leads: what other stuff are you willing to let a rogue nuclear power do just because they wave their nukes about as a replacement for their tiny dicks?

(If Russia were to use a nuclear weapon in a tactical manner, I don't think we'd respond with nukes. We - meaning the west - would further tighten sanctions, prevent shipping into Russia, and bombard anything Russian inside Ukraine.)

Yes, I think the plan is that something small and tactical from the Russians, would be met by an overwhelming conventional attack by NATO nations. Just to let them know that the West is holding back, and prepared to match any escalation. Do it again, and Moscow gets turned into glass.

I was thinking about going to watch the test match on Sunday but it looks like it may not last that long.

Ireland need to be given more opportunities to play test cricket, instead of just 7 in about 7 years.

Stuartinromford said:

HYUFD said:

Casino_Royale said:

Sean_F said:

HYUFD said:

148grss said:

Leon said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

148grss said:

Nigel_Foremain said:

Leon said:

Nigel_Foremain said:

This is one to annoy that diminishing coterie of Brexit-is-shite-deniers that still protest it was a good idea despite the complete lack of evidence that it has done us any favours. No doubt their closed minds will find some reason to doubt his analysis lol.

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/money/other/brexit-will-be-known-as-historic-economic-error-says-former-us-treasury-secretary/ar-AA1bZanx?ocid=entnewsntp&cvid=67be5e6d2933443fae6d36505a808ac6&ei=18

Irish independence was a major economic error, of historic proportions. They were poorer as a result, and remained poorer for decades

Do they regret it now? Do they want to revert? No. They did it for reasons OTHER than economics

What a ridiculous comparison @Leon. Do you have ANY idea what British rule in Ireland meant? Did the EU preside over a potato famine? Did the EU send troops into the UK. Did the EU insist on having it's aristocrats run major institutions?

Don't be so fucking ridiculous. You have more cred when you talk about alien invasions.

The Great Hunger removed a third of the island of Ireland's population, through death or migration. The population has never recovered. The island was occupied by soldiers, up to the modern era, who committed war crimes, even if the UK refuses to accept them. That is not the same as voting to join an economic consortium of countries that evolved into a more political consortium of countries, and the comparison is sickening.

Some British people have a remarkable blind spot about Ireland. The Irish are far more forgiving towards us than we have any right to expect.

We freed up a heck of a lot of parking on the West Coast, and encouraged them to diversify their agriculture away from the potato. How is this bad?

The Empire forced an entirely different method of land ownership, landlordism and free marketeerism that literally destroyed Irish civil society because 1/3rd of the island either died or had to migrate during the Great Hunger. And that's just one thing, relatively recently historically speaking! The language was made illegal, by penalty of death, Catholicisim was essentially criminalised, early "race science" was basically invented in part to justify the subjugation of the Irish (as well as slavery). Wealth, land and labour was extracted and what was given back was landlords and death. And the UK did not diversify their agriculture away from the potato - it was the over charging of farmers by English landowners that made potatoes the only profitable / substantive crop, and the method of land reform introduced reduced the incentive to improve the land with better crops / infrastructure (because landlords would use it as an argument to raise rents / find new tenants).

I really recommend the podcast Behind The Bastards and their episodes on that period of history.

And once the British left most of Ireland (after an early terror campaign by the IRA including murdering British soldiers and government officials and burning down homes of Anglo Irish nobility) Catholicism dominated Irish society in such a way that divorce, abortion and homosexuality remained illegal in the Republic of Ireland long after they had been legalised in mainland GB.

My mother reckons that being a Protestant in 1940's and 1950's Dublin was much better than being a Catholic, because the Catholic Church was indifferent to you, being convinced that you were going to hell, anyway. They took a lot of interest in the Catholics however, and that was not good news for the Catholics.

I was somewhat shocked to read that de Valera essentially aspired to run Ireland as a Catholic theocracy.

After the Vatican city itself, the Republic of Ireland was probably the most Catholic nation in Europe in the 20th century, certainly until the Soviet block fell

Close call with Franco's Spain. Especially considering the number of Opus Dei members who were ministers at various times.

Italy might want to put in a claim also. Oh, and Portugal. France has quite a few too. I believe Malta has the highest number of practicing Catholics per capita in Europe.

Do I sense a little bit of Catholic-phobia in this discussion? A prejudice that basically says: "oh yes, well the paddies are a bit backward 'cos they are all condom-phobic left footers, innit"

JosiasJessop said:

FeersumEnjineeya said:

rcs1000 said:

Nigel_Foremain said:

Sandpit said:

Nigel_Foremain said:

Sandpit said:

NickPalmer said:

JosiasJessop said:

NickPalmer said:

O/T - did we discuss the Macron interview yesterday?

https://www.theguardian.com/world/video/2023/may/31/putin-may-not-face-war-crimes-trial-if-ukraine-war-ends-in-a-negotiation-macron-says-video

The point that to end a war one may have to negotiate with people one doesn't like is less striking than the suggestion that if Ukraine doesn't succeed in this year's expected offensive, the West will need to rethink the nature of support. His comments are qualified (and translation may be an issue too) and certainly not pro-Putin but probably the clearest hint we've seen so far that a continuing military deadlock may lead to some pressure on Ukraine to negotiate for something less than total victory. Conversely the war hysteria of Russian nationalists seems to have subsided into trying to keep their current gains rather than advancing further.

You missed a few words off the end; it should be: "... into trying to keep their current gains rather than advancing further for the time being."

*Any* peace deal - whether on today's lines, on 2014's, or pre-2014 - has to ensure that Russia will not just rebuild and try again in a few years - as they have before.

And the major issue is that, absent a Russian defeat, I see no way of ensuring that. Why trust Putin and his cronies, especially if they can sell a big territorial 'win' to their populace?

Godwinning myself, It's like trying to 'negotiate' with Hitler or Stalin back in the late 1930s.

Yes, we shouldn't trust him at all, but as others have said the potential for revanchism is going to be there anyway. Guaranteeing current lines (or whatever the lines end up as after the supposed coming offensive) is one way that the West really can actually make the peace work - accepting Ukraine into NATO and stationing some US troops there would make a fresh Russian incursion without WW3 almost impossible, and the eastern oblasts can be like the West Bank, effectively incorporated and the subject of negotiations at some distant future date. Putin wouldn't like his new NATO border, nor would nationalist zealots on either side fancy anything short of total victory, but they shouldn't get to decide that the war just goes on indefinitely.

The Ukranians are in no mood to agree anything that sees Putin taking Ukranian land. The best-case scenario is the post-2014 border, with many pushing for the 1991 border and willing to fight for it.

It seems very unfair, but I can't see it ending without some sort of compromise such as Nick suggests. Perhaps a demilitarised zone with a UN mandate that recognises the ultimate sovereignty of Ukraine would be how I would expect it to end. Sanctions should then continue against Russia for as long as possible while there is no regime change.

The Ukranians have no intention of compromising. They’ll agree to a buffer zone, so long as it’s entirely in what’s now Russia. So long as the NATO countries stand by their promise to defend Ukraine, there will be Ukranians willing to fight for the survival of their country.

I regret to say that they may have no choice. They have achieved an amazing defence of their country, but they will only be able to push the Russian fascists back so long as there are weapons flowing from the West. That is not guaranteed for ever.

Russia does not have an unlimited capacity to throw men and materiel into Ukraine.

But it does have something Ukraine doesn't have and isn't likely to get: a large stockpile of tactical nuclear weapons. For some reason, there seems to be a widespread belief that Putin wouldn't be mad enough to use them. I'm not so sure. He's not exactly got form for rational decision-making.

Russia have threatened their use many times, and every time we've done what they've argued against - whether it's supply of HIMARS, long-range missiles, or tanks - they haven't gone nuclear.

And there's a reason for that: use of nuclear weapons would mean the end of everything for them. Even if other countries did not respond with nuclear weapons in response, they would lose friends. Even China would find it hard to maintain their on-the-fence stance. Russia under its current regime (and that means not just Putin) would not be able to find a way back.

But also think where your view leads: what other stuff are you willing to let a rogue nuclear power do just because they wave their nukes about as a replacement for their tiny dicks?

(If Russia were to use a nuclear weapon in a tactical manner, I don't think we'd respond with nukes. We - meaning the west - would further tighten sanctions, prevent shipping into Russia, and bombard anything Russian inside Ukraine.)

You're over-interpreting my post. I'm certainly not suggesting that Russia should be allowed to get away with anything, and I think the Western approach in resisting Russia's invasion has been broadly correct. But pointing out that Putin has nuclear weapons and that there is a chance he may use them if desperate enough isn't a view; it is simply a fact, and one that should not be forgotten.

JosiasJessop said:

Off-topic:

Roger Waters with a rather interesting take on recent history:
https://twitter.com/HeidiBachram/status/1663967904470016000

His recent Rogan podcast was enlightening.

To paraphrase only slightly, “I’m not anti-Semitic, I just hate the Jews”

rcs1000 said:

FeersumEnjineeya said:

rcs1000 said:

rcs1000 said:

In February 2022, CNN polled Ukraine.

The results are absolutely striking.

Full disclosure, @Malmesbury pointed me to the poll.

It doesn't seem that striking to me, or at least not in the way you suggest. AIUI, even those people in the Donbas who wanted their region to become part of Russia mostly weren't bothered about the rest of Ukraine uniting with Russia. In fact, I find it hard to think of any region of any other country in which as many as 18% wanted their country to be absorbed by another, larger country.

I'm away from my computer right now, but will post the full poll later. There's nothing in there that suggests that significant numbers of Ukrainians - even in the East - want to join Russia

Here you go.

https://edition.cnn.com/interactive/2022/02/europe/russia-ukraine-crisis-poll-intl/index.html

Sandpit said:

JosiasJessop said:

Off-topic:

Roger Waters with a rather interesting take on recent history:
https://twitter.com/HeidiBachram/status/1663967904470016000

His recent Rogan podcast was enlightening.

To paraphrase only slightly, “I’m not anti-Semitic, I just hate the Jews”

It is very sad me to realise someone whom I consider to be one of the greatest musicians of all time is a raving idiot.

FeersumEnjineeya said:

JosiasJessop said:

FeersumEnjineeya said:

rcs1000 said:

Nigel_Foremain said:

Sandpit said:

Nigel_Foremain said:

Sandpit said:

NickPalmer said:

JosiasJessop said:

NickPalmer said:

O/T - did we discuss the Macron interview yesterday?

https://www.theguardian.com/world/video/2023/may/31/putin-may-not-face-war-crimes-trial-if-ukraine-war-ends-in-a-negotiation-macron-says-video

The point that to end a war one may have to negotiate with people one doesn't like is less striking than the suggestion that if Ukraine doesn't succeed in this year's expected offensive, the West will need to rethink the nature of support. His comments are qualified (and translation may be an issue too) and certainly not pro-Putin but probably the clearest hint we've seen so far that a continuing military deadlock may lead to some pressure on Ukraine to negotiate for something less than total victory. Conversely the war hysteria of Russian nationalists seems to have subsided into trying to keep their current gains rather than advancing further.

You missed a few words off the end; it should be: "... into trying to keep their current gains rather than advancing further for the time being."

*Any* peace deal - whether on today's lines, on 2014's, or pre-2014 - has to ensure that Russia will not just rebuild and try again in a few years - as they have before.

And the major issue is that, absent a Russian defeat, I see no way of ensuring that. Why trust Putin and his cronies, especially if they can sell a big territorial 'win' to their populace?

Godwinning myself, It's like trying to 'negotiate' with Hitler or Stalin back in the late 1930s.

Yes, we shouldn't trust him at all, but as others have said the potential for revanchism is going to be there anyway. Guaranteeing current lines (or whatever the lines end up as after the supposed coming offensive) is one way that the West really can actually make the peace work - accepting Ukraine into NATO and stationing some US troops there would make a fresh Russian incursion without WW3 almost impossible, and the eastern oblasts can be like the West Bank, effectively incorporated and the subject of negotiations at some distant future date. Putin wouldn't like his new NATO border, nor would nationalist zealots on either side fancy anything short of total victory, but they shouldn't get to decide that the war just goes on indefinitely.

The Ukranians are in no mood to agree anything that sees Putin taking Ukranian land. The best-case scenario is the post-2014 border, with many pushing for the 1991 border and willing to fight for it.

It seems very unfair, but I can't see it ending without some sort of compromise such as Nick suggests. Perhaps a demilitarised zone with a UN mandate that recognises the ultimate sovereignty of Ukraine would be how I would expect it to end. Sanctions should then continue against Russia for as long as possible while there is no regime change.

The Ukranians have no intention of compromising. They’ll agree to a buffer zone, so long as it’s entirely in what’s now Russia. So long as the NATO countries stand by their promise to defend Ukraine, there will be Ukranians willing to fight for the survival of their country.

I regret to say that they may have no choice. They have achieved an amazing defence of their country, but they will only be able to push the Russian fascists back so long as there are weapons flowing from the West. That is not guaranteed for ever.

Russia does not have an unlimited capacity to throw men and materiel into Ukraine.

But it does have something Ukraine doesn't have and isn't likely to get: a large stockpile of tactical nuclear weapons. For some reason, there seems to be a widespread belief that Putin wouldn't be mad enough to use them. I'm not so sure. He's not exactly got form for rational decision-making.

Russia have threatened their use many times, and every time we've done what they've argued against - whether it's supply of HIMARS, long-range missiles, or tanks - they haven't gone nuclear.

And there's a reason for that: use of nuclear weapons would mean the end of everything for them. Even if other countries did not respond with nuclear weapons in response, they would lose friends. Even China would find it hard to maintain their on-the-fence stance. Russia under its current regime (and that means not just Putin) would not be able to find a way back.

But also think where your view leads: what other stuff are you willing to let a rogue nuclear power do just because they wave their nukes about as a replacement for their tiny dicks?

(If Russia were to use a nuclear weapon in a tactical manner, I don't think we'd respond with nukes. We - meaning the west - would further tighten sanctions, prevent shipping into Russia, and bombard anything Russian inside Ukraine.)

You're over-interpreting my post. I'm certainly not suggesting that Russia should be allowed to get away with anything, and I think the Western approach in resisting Russia's invasion has been broadly correct. But pointing out that Putin has nuclear weapons and that there is a chance he may use them if desperate enough isn't a view; it is simply a fact, and one that should not be forgotten.

Fair enough, and apologies if I over-interepreted your comments.

However: whilst it should not be forgotten, what good does factoring their possession of nukes into our policy towards Ukraine do?

Malmesbury said:

FeersumEnjineeya said:

rcs1000 said:

rcs1000 said:

In February 2022, CNN polled Ukraine.

The results are absolutely striking.

Full disclosure, @Malmesbury pointed me to the poll.

It doesn't seem that striking to me, or at least not in the way you suggest. AIUI, even those people in the Donbas who wanted their region to become part of Russia mostly weren't bothered about the rest of Ukraine uniting with Russia. In fact, I find it hard to think of any region of any other country in which as many as 18% wanted their country to be absorbed by another, larger country.

It also asked a number of other questions - all of which pointed to

(a) A substantial approval throughout the country for the existence of Ukraine as a separate entity from Russia
(b) Very little enthusiasm for joining Russia in any region.

https://edition.cnn.com/interactive/2022/02/europe/russia-ukraine-crisis-poll-intl/index.html

According to the poll that RCS1000 posted, 18% of those in the Donbas region wanted Ukraine to unify with Russia. I find that a surprising large figure rather than a surprisingly small figure. That's the only point I was making.

FeersumEnjineeya said:

Malmesbury said:

FeersumEnjineeya said:

rcs1000 said:

rcs1000 said:

In February 2022, CNN polled Ukraine.

The results are absolutely striking.

Full disclosure, @Malmesbury pointed me to the poll.

It doesn't seem that striking to me, or at least not in the way you suggest. AIUI, even those people in the Donbas who wanted their region to become part of Russia mostly weren't bothered about the rest of Ukraine uniting with Russia. In fact, I find it hard to think of any region of any other country in which as many as 18% wanted their country to be absorbed by another, larger country.

It also asked a number of other questions - all of which pointed to

(a) A substantial approval throughout the country for the existence of Ukraine as a separate entity from Russia
(b) Very little enthusiasm for joining Russia in any region.

https://edition.cnn.com/interactive/2022/02/europe/russia-ukraine-crisis-poll-intl/index.html

According to the poll that RCS1000 posted, 18% of those in the Donbas region wanted Ukraine to unify with Russia. I find that a surprising large figure rather than a surprisingly small figure. That's the only point I was making.

'One country' is ambiguous. How many Ukrainians would be willing to annex Russia to stop them being a pain?

Sandpit said:

Good start with the bat from Crawley.

He's lucky to be in the team, given the number of ducks and low scores he's got this year in first-class cricket. I saw him get two in one day at Edgbaston about 5 weeks ago.

Nigel_Foremain said:

Stuartinromford said:

HYUFD said:

Casino_Royale said:

Sean_F said:

HYUFD said:

148grss said:

Leon said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

148grss said:

Nigel_Foremain said:

Leon said:

Nigel_Foremain said:

This is one to annoy that diminishing coterie of Brexit-is-shite-deniers that still protest it was a good idea despite the complete lack of evidence that it has done us any favours. No doubt their closed minds will find some reason to doubt his analysis lol.

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/money/other/brexit-will-be-known-as-historic-economic-error-says-former-us-treasury-secretary/ar-AA1bZanx?ocid=entnewsntp&cvid=67be5e6d2933443fae6d36505a808ac6&ei=18

Irish independence was a major economic error, of historic proportions. They were poorer as a result, and remained poorer for decades

Do they regret it now? Do they want to revert? No. They did it for reasons OTHER than economics

What a ridiculous comparison @Leon. Do you have ANY idea what British rule in Ireland meant? Did the EU preside over a potato famine? Did the EU send troops into the UK. Did the EU insist on having it's aristocrats run major institutions?

Don't be so fucking ridiculous. You have more cred when you talk about alien invasions.

The Great Hunger removed a third of the island of Ireland's population, through death or migration. The population has never recovered. The island was occupied by soldiers, up to the modern era, who committed war crimes, even if the UK refuses to accept them. That is not the same as voting to join an economic consortium of countries that evolved into a more political consortium of countries, and the comparison is sickening.

Some British people have a remarkable blind spot about Ireland. The Irish are far more forgiving towards us than we have any right to expect.

We freed up a heck of a lot of parking on the West Coast, and encouraged them to diversify their agriculture away from the potato. How is this bad?

The Empire forced an entirely different method of land ownership, landlordism and free marketeerism that literally destroyed Irish civil society because 1/3rd of the island either died or had to migrate during the Great Hunger. And that's just one thing, relatively recently historically speaking! The language was made illegal, by penalty of death, Catholicisim was essentially criminalised, early "race science" was basically invented in part to justify the subjugation of the Irish (as well as slavery). Wealth, land and labour was extracted and what was given back was landlords and death. And the UK did not diversify their agriculture away from the potato - it was the over charging of farmers by English landowners that made potatoes the only profitable / substantive crop, and the method of land reform introduced reduced the incentive to improve the land with better crops / infrastructure (because landlords would use it as an argument to raise rents / find new tenants).

I really recommend the podcast Behind The Bastards and their episodes on that period of history.

And once the British left most of Ireland (after an early terror campaign by the IRA including murdering British soldiers and government officials and burning down homes of Anglo Irish nobility) Catholicism dominated Irish society in such a way that divorce, abortion and homosexuality remained illegal in the Republic of Ireland long after they had been legalised in mainland GB.

My mother reckons that being a Protestant in 1940's and 1950's Dublin was much better than being a Catholic, because the Catholic Church was indifferent to you, being convinced that you were going to hell, anyway. They took a lot of interest in the Catholics however, and that was not good news for the Catholics.

I was somewhat shocked to read that de Valera essentially aspired to run Ireland as a Catholic theocracy.

After the Vatican city itself, the Republic of Ireland was probably the most Catholic nation in Europe in the 20th century, certainly until the Soviet block fell

Close call with Franco's Spain. Especially considering the number of Opus Dei members who were ministers at various times.

Italy might want to put in a claim also. Oh, and Portugal. France has quite a few too. I believe Malta has the highest number of practicing Catholics per capita in Europe.

Do I sense a little bit of Catholic-phobia in this discussion? A prejudice that basically says: "oh yes, well the paddies are a bit backward 'cos they are all condom-phobic left footers, innit"

Sigh.

After Dev got in charge, he and his chums set out to massively increase the political and social power of the Catholic Church in Ireland.

The Catholic Church was made a part of the State, and both in effect and in practise had considerable immunity under the law.

This began to erode from the late seventies - and today we see the Catholic Church in Ireland vastly reduced in power from what it was.

ydoethur said:

FeersumEnjineeya said:

Malmesbury said:

FeersumEnjineeya said:

rcs1000 said:

rcs1000 said:

In February 2022, CNN polled Ukraine.

The results are absolutely striking.

Full disclosure, @Malmesbury pointed me to the poll.

It doesn't seem that striking to me, or at least not in the way you suggest. AIUI, even those people in the Donbas who wanted their region to become part of Russia mostly weren't bothered about the rest of Ukraine uniting with Russia. In fact, I find it hard to think of any region of any other country in which as many as 18% wanted their country to be absorbed by another, larger country.

It also asked a number of other questions - all of which pointed to

(a) A substantial approval throughout the country for the existence of Ukraine as a separate entity from Russia
(b) Very little enthusiasm for joining Russia in any region.

https://edition.cnn.com/interactive/2022/02/europe/russia-ukraine-crisis-poll-intl/index.html

According to the poll that RCS1000 posted, 18% of those in the Donbas region wanted Ukraine to unify with Russia. I find that a surprising large figure rather than a surprisingly small figure. That's the only point I was making.

'One country' is ambiguous. How many Ukrainians would be willing to annex Russia to stop them being a pain?

Ah, would you like to join my "Slightly Greater Ukraine Club"?

You get a free T-Shirt depicting the border between Ukraine and the Republic of China.

Malmesbury said:

ydoethur said:

FeersumEnjineeya said:

Malmesbury said:

FeersumEnjineeya said:

rcs1000 said:

rcs1000 said:

In February 2022, CNN polled Ukraine.

The results are absolutely striking.

Full disclosure, @Malmesbury pointed me to the poll.

It doesn't seem that striking to me, or at least not in the way you suggest. AIUI, even those people in the Donbas who wanted their region to become part of Russia mostly weren't bothered about the rest of Ukraine uniting with Russia. In fact, I find it hard to think of any region of any other country in which as many as 18% wanted their country to be absorbed by another, larger country.

It also asked a number of other questions - all of which pointed to

(a) A substantial approval throughout the country for the existence of Ukraine as a separate entity from Russia
(b) Very little enthusiasm for joining Russia in any region.

https://edition.cnn.com/interactive/2022/02/europe/russia-ukraine-crisis-poll-intl/index.html

According to the poll that RCS1000 posted, 18% of those in the Donbas region wanted Ukraine to unify with Russia. I find that a surprising large figure rather than a surprisingly small figure. That's the only point I was making.

'One country' is ambiguous. How many Ukrainians would be willing to annex Russia to stop them being a pain?

Ah, would you like to join my "Slightly Greater Ukraine Club"?

You get a free T-Shirt depicting the border between Ukraine and the Republic of China.

Does it say 'Russians, Ural going to be punished?'

FeersumEnjineeya said:

JosiasJessop said:

FeersumEnjineeya said:

JosiasJessop said:

FeersumEnjineeya said:

rcs1000 said:

Nigel_Foremain said:

Sandpit said:

Nigel_Foremain said:

Sandpit said:

NickPalmer said:

JosiasJessop said:

NickPalmer said:

O/T - did we discuss the Macron interview yesterday?

https://www.theguardian.com/world/video/2023/may/31/putin-may-not-face-war-crimes-trial-if-ukraine-war-ends-in-a-negotiation-macron-says-video

The point that to end a war one may have to negotiate with people one doesn't like is less striking than the suggestion that if Ukraine doesn't succeed in this year's expected offensive, the West will need to rethink the nature of support. His comments are qualified (and translation may be an issue too) and certainly not pro-Putin but probably the clearest hint we've seen so far that a continuing military deadlock may lead to some pressure on Ukraine to negotiate for something less than total victory. Conversely the war hysteria of Russian nationalists seems to have subsided into trying to keep their current gains rather than advancing further.

You missed a few words off the end; it should be: "... into trying to keep their current gains rather than advancing further for the time being."

*Any* peace deal - whether on today's lines, on 2014's, or pre-2014 - has to ensure that Russia will not just rebuild and try again in a few years - as they have before.

And the major issue is that, absent a Russian defeat, I see no way of ensuring that. Why trust Putin and his cronies, especially if they can sell a big territorial 'win' to their populace?

Godwinning myself, It's like trying to 'negotiate' with Hitler or Stalin back in the late 1930s.

Yes, we shouldn't trust him at all, but as others have said the potential for revanchism is going to be there anyway. Guaranteeing current lines (or whatever the lines end up as after the supposed coming offensive) is one way that the West really can actually make the peace work - accepting Ukraine into NATO and stationing some US troops there would make a fresh Russian incursion without WW3 almost impossible, and the eastern oblasts can be like the West Bank, effectively incorporated and the subject of negotiations at some distant future date. Putin wouldn't like his new NATO border, nor would nationalist zealots on either side fancy anything short of total victory, but they shouldn't get to decide that the war just goes on indefinitely.

The Ukranians are in no mood to agree anything that sees Putin taking Ukranian land. The best-case scenario is the post-2014 border, with many pushing for the 1991 border and willing to fight for it.

It seems very unfair, but I can't see it ending without some sort of compromise such as Nick suggests. Perhaps a demilitarised zone with a UN mandate that recognises the ultimate sovereignty of Ukraine would be how I would expect it to end. Sanctions should then continue against Russia for as long as possible while there is no regime change.

The Ukranians have no intention of compromising. They’ll agree to a buffer zone, so long as it’s entirely in what’s now Russia. So long as the NATO countries stand by their promise to defend Ukraine, there will be Ukranians willing to fight for the survival of their country.

I regret to say that they may have no choice. They have achieved an amazing defence of their country, but they will only be able to push the Russian fascists back so long as there are weapons flowing from the West. That is not guaranteed for ever.

Russia does not have an unlimited capacity to throw men and materiel into Ukraine.

But it does have something Ukraine doesn't have and isn't likely to get: a large stockpile of tactical nuclear weapons. For some reason, there seems to be a widespread belief that Putin wouldn't be mad enough to use them. I'm not so sure. He's not exactly got form for rational decision-making.

Russia have threatened their use many times, and every time we've done what they've argued against - whether it's supply of HIMARS, long-range missiles, or tanks - they haven't gone nuclear.

And there's a reason for that: use of nuclear weapons would mean the end of everything for them. Even if other countries did not respond with nuclear weapons in response, they would lose friends. Even China would find it hard to maintain their on-the-fence stance. Russia under its current regime (and that means not just Putin) would not be able to find a way back.

But also think where your view leads: what other stuff are you willing to let a rogue nuclear power do just because they wave their nukes about as a replacement for their tiny dicks?

(If Russia were to use a nuclear weapon in a tactical manner, I don't think we'd respond with nukes. We - meaning the west - would further tighten sanctions, prevent shipping into Russia, and bombard anything Russian inside Ukraine.)

You're over-interpreting my post. I'm certainly not suggesting that Russia should be allowed to get away with anything, and I think the Western approach in resisting Russia's invasion has been broadly correct. But pointing out that Putin has nuclear weapons and that there is a chance he may use them if desperate enough isn't a view; it is simply a fact, and one that should not be forgotten.

Fair enough, and apologies if I over-interepreted your comments.

However: whilst it should not be forgotten, what good does factoring their possession of nukes into our policy towards Ukraine do?

It dictates that the West needs to give Ukraine just enough help to resist the Russian occupation and grind Russia down rather than imposing such defeats on the Russians that Putin might feel that recourse to nuclear weapons is his only remaining option.

Assume that despite our caution, Putin wakes up tomorrow with the conviction that recourse to nuclear weapons is his only remaining option. How do you see him securing victory?

Nigel_Foremain said:

Sandpit said:

JosiasJessop said:

Off-topic:

Roger Waters with a rather interesting take on recent history:
https://twitter.com/HeidiBachram/status/1663967904470016000

His recent Rogan podcast was enlightening.

To paraphrase only slightly, “I’m not anti-Semitic, I just hate the Jews”

It is very sad me to realise someone whom I consider to be one of the greatest musicians of all time is a raving idiot.

And on Joe 'Jews are into money' Rogan's show to boot.

This is going to leave a lot of Republicans seriously conflicted.
(My guess, FWIW, is that the fools will go with the pro gun argument.)

Could Hunter Biden be the next poster child for Second Amendment rights?
The president’s son is under investigation for potentially breaking the law banning drug users from owning guns – but the law’s constitutionality faces growing challenges.
https://www.politico.com/news/2023/06/01/hunter-biden-supreme-court-second-amendment-00099544
The president’s son is the target of a Justice Department investigation scrutinizing his purchase of a gun in 2018 — a time when he has said he was regularly using crack cocaine. Federal law bans drug users from owning guns.

But the constitutionality of that law — like many other provisions restricting gun ownership — is newly in question after a precedent-rocking decision the Supreme Court handed down almost a year ago.

His lawyers have already told Justice Department officials that, if their client is charged with the gun crime, they will challenge the law under the Second Amendment, according to a person familiar with the private discussions granted anonymity because they are not authorized to speak publicly. That could turn a case that is already fraught with political consequences into a high-profile showdown over the right to bear arms...

Malmesbury said:

ydoethur said:

Malmesbury said:

ydoethur said:

FeersumEnjineeya said:

Malmesbury said:

FeersumEnjineeya said:

rcs1000 said:

rcs1000 said:

In February 2022, CNN polled Ukraine.

The results are absolutely striking.

Full disclosure, @Malmesbury pointed me to the poll.

It doesn't seem that striking to me, or at least not in the way you suggest. AIUI, even those people in the Donbas who wanted their region to become part of Russia mostly weren't bothered about the rest of Ukraine uniting with Russia. In fact, I find it hard to think of any region of any other country in which as many as 18% wanted their country to be absorbed by another, larger country.

It also asked a number of other questions - all of which pointed to

(a) A substantial approval throughout the country for the existence of Ukraine as a separate entity from Russia
(b) Very little enthusiasm for joining Russia in any region.

https://edition.cnn.com/interactive/2022/02/europe/russia-ukraine-crisis-poll-intl/index.html

According to the poll that RCS1000 posted, 18% of those in the Donbas region wanted Ukraine to unify with Russia. I find that a surprising large figure rather than a surprisingly small figure. That's the only point I was making.

'One country' is ambiguous. How many Ukrainians would be willing to annex Russia to stop them being a pain?

Ah, would you like to join my "Slightly Greater Ukraine Club"?

You get a free T-Shirt depicting the border between Ukraine and the Republic of China.

Does it say 'Russians, Ural going to be punished?'

It will.

The map will be rendered ob-solete.

Nigel_Foremain said:

Sandpit said:

JosiasJessop said:

Off-topic:

Roger Waters with a rather interesting take on recent history:
https://twitter.com/HeidiBachram/status/1663967904470016000

His recent Rogan podcast was enlightening.

To paraphrase only slightly, “I’m not anti-Semitic, I just hate the Jews”

It is very sad me to realise someone whom I consider to be one of the greatest musicians of all time is a raving idiot.

I think it often goes with the territory. I'm a fan of Santana, but he is as nutty as a fruit cake.

Cheapest First time buyers cities:

https://www.rightmove.co.uk/news/articles/property-news/cheapest-cities-first-time-buyers/

Mind you, between the SNP and Labour both Dundee and Aberdeen might get cheaper....

Cookie said:

JosiasJessop said:

Off-topic:

Roger Waters with a rather interesting take on recent history:
https://twitter.com/HeidiBachram/status/1663967904470016000

What a weirdo.
If I had views like that, I would be inclined to keep them to myself rather than broadcast them to the world.

It's a common symptom of Israel Derangement Syndrome though.

It has the weird side effect of shielding Israel from the criticism it ought to get from actual sensible people who don't want to sound like Barry from Four Lions.

kjh said:

Nigel_Foremain said:

Sandpit said:

JosiasJessop said:

Off-topic:

Roger Waters with a rather interesting take on recent history:
https://twitter.com/HeidiBachram/status/1663967904470016000

His recent Rogan podcast was enlightening.

To paraphrase only slightly, “I’m not anti-Semitic, I just hate the Jews”

It is very sad me to realise someone whom I consider to be one of the greatest musicians of all time is a raving idiot.

I think it often goes with the territory. I'm a fan of Santana, but he is as nutty as a fruit cake.

I believe so much so, that he has changed his name to Sultana

Nigelb said:

This is going to leave a lot of Republicans seriously conflicted.
(My guess, FWIW, is that the fools will go with the pro gun argument.)

Could Hunter Biden be the next poster child for Second Amendment rights?
The president’s son is under investigation for potentially breaking the law banning drug users from owning guns – but the law’s constitutionality faces growing challenges.
https://www.politico.com/news/2023/06/01/hunter-biden-supreme-court-second-amendment-00099544
The president’s son is the target of a Justice Department investigation scrutinizing his purchase of a gun in 2018 — a time when he has said he was regularly using crack cocaine. Federal law bans drug users from owning guns.

But the constitutionality of that law — like many other provisions restricting gun ownership — is newly in question after a precedent-rocking decision the Supreme Court handed down almost a year ago.

His lawyers have already told Justice Department officials that, if their client is charged with the gun crime, they will challenge the law under the Second Amendment, according to a person familiar with the private discussions granted anonymity because they are not authorized to speak publicly. That could turn a case that is already fraught with political consequences into a high-profile showdown over the right to bear arms...

America really is a foreign country.

Ghedebrav said:

Nigel_Foremain said:

ydoethur said:

Malmesbury said:

ydoethur said:

Malmesbury said:

ydoethur said:

FeersumEnjineeya said:

Malmesbury said:

FeersumEnjineeya said:

rcs1000 said:

rcs1000 said:

In February 2022, CNN polled Ukraine.

The results are absolutely striking.

Full disclosure, @Malmesbury pointed me to the poll.

It doesn't seem that striking to me, or at least not in the way you suggest. AIUI, even those people in the Donbas who wanted their region to become part of Russia mostly weren't bothered about the rest of Ukraine uniting with Russia. In fact, I find it hard to think of any region of any other country in which as many as 18% wanted their country to be absorbed by another, larger country.

It also asked a number of other questions - all of which pointed to

(a) A substantial approval throughout the country for the existence of Ukraine as a separate entity from Russia
(b) Very little enthusiasm for joining Russia in any region.

https://edition.cnn.com/interactive/2022/02/europe/russia-ukraine-crisis-poll-intl/index.html

According to the poll that RCS1000 posted, 18% of those in the Donbas region wanted Ukraine to unify with Russia. I find that a surprising large figure rather than a surprisingly small figure. That's the only point I was making.

'One country' is ambiguous. How many Ukrainians would be willing to annex Russia to stop them being a pain?

Ah, would you like to join my "Slightly Greater Ukraine Club"?

You get a free T-Shirt depicting the border between Ukraine and the Republic of China.

Does it say 'Russians, Ural going to be punished?'

It will.

The map will be rendered ob-solete.

Crimea a river

No need to be Volga.

When it comes to Putin, you can be Volga azov ten as you like.

MoonRabbit said:

148grss said:

Leon said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

148grss said:

Nigel_Foremain said:

Leon said:

Nigel_Foremain said:

This is one to annoy that diminishing coterie of Brexit-is-shite-deniers that still protest it was a good idea despite the complete lack of evidence that it has done us any favours. No doubt their closed minds will find some reason to doubt his analysis lol.

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/money/other/brexit-will-be-known-as-historic-economic-error-says-former-us-treasury-secretary/ar-AA1bZanx?ocid=entnewsntp&cvid=67be5e6d2933443fae6d36505a808ac6&ei=18

Irish independence was a major economic error, of historic proportions. They were poorer as a result, and remained poorer for decades

Do they regret it now? Do they want to revert? No. They did it for reasons OTHER than economics

What a ridiculous comparison @Leon. Do you have ANY idea what British rule in Ireland meant? Did the EU preside over a potato famine? Did the EU send troops into the UK. Did the EU insist on having it's aristocrats run major institutions?

Don't be so fucking ridiculous. You have more cred when you talk about alien invasions.

The Great Hunger removed a third of the island of Ireland's population, through death or migration. The population has never recovered. The island was occupied by soldiers, up to the modern era, who committed war crimes, even if the UK refuses to accept them. That is not the same as voting to join an economic consortium of countries that evolved into a more political consortium of countries, and the comparison is sickening.

Some British people have a remarkable blind spot about Ireland. The Irish are far more forgiving towards us than we have any right to expect.

We freed up a heck of a lot of parking on the West Coast, and encouraged them to diversify their agriculture away from the potato. How is this bad?

The Empire forced an entirely different method of land ownership, landlordism and free marketeerism that literally destroyed Irish civil society because 1/3rd of the island either died or had to migrate during the Great Hunger. And that's just one thing, relatively recently historically speaking! The language was made illegal, by penalty of death, Catholicisim was essentially criminalised, early "race science" was basically invented in part to justify the subjugation of the Irish (as well as slavery). Wealth, land and labour was extracted and what was given back was landlords and death. And the UK did not diversify their agriculture away from the potato - it was the over charging of farmers by English landowners that made potatoes the only profitable / substantive crop, and the method of land reform introduced reduced the incentive to improve the land with better crops / infrastructure (because landlords would use it as an argument to raise rents / find new tenants).

I really recommend the podcast Behind The Bastards and their episodes on that period of history.

When did British Rule of Ireland first begin?

Was it the hideous Oliver Cromwell’s fault, or before him?
Were the Romans interested in going there so it’s leftover from Roman occupation?
Was it the reformation?

The Romans traded with Ireland. There many or may not have been some very limited military expeditions there. There may or may not have been slave trading - selling your defeated opponents in tribal wars - with the Romans.

Nigel_Foremain said:

ydoethur said:

Malmesbury said:

ydoethur said:

Malmesbury said:

ydoethur said:

FeersumEnjineeya said:

Malmesbury said:

FeersumEnjineeya said:

rcs1000 said:

rcs1000 said:

In February 2022, CNN polled Ukraine.

The results are absolutely striking.

Full disclosure, @Malmesbury pointed me to the poll.

It doesn't seem that striking to me, or at least not in the way you suggest. AIUI, even those people in the Donbas who wanted their region to become part of Russia mostly weren't bothered about the rest of Ukraine uniting with Russia. In fact, I find it hard to think of any region of any other country in which as many as 18% wanted their country to be absorbed by another, larger country.

It also asked a number of other questions - all of which pointed to

(a) A substantial approval throughout the country for the existence of Ukraine as a separate entity from Russia
(b) Very little enthusiasm for joining Russia in any region.

https://edition.cnn.com/interactive/2022/02/europe/russia-ukraine-crisis-poll-intl/index.html

According to the poll that RCS1000 posted, 18% of those in the Donbas region wanted Ukraine to unify with Russia. I find that a surprising large figure rather than a surprisingly small figure. That's the only point I was making.

'One country' is ambiguous. How many Ukrainians would be willing to annex Russia to stop them being a pain?

Ah, would you like to join my "Slightly Greater Ukraine Club"?

You get a free T-Shirt depicting the border between Ukraine and the Republic of China.

Does it say 'Russians, Ural going to be punished?'

It will.

The map will be rendered ob-solete.

Crimea a river

Two cracking puns in the space of 2 minutes - bravo.

Ghedebrav said:

Nigel_Foremain said:

ydoethur said:

Malmesbury said:

ydoethur said:

Malmesbury said:

ydoethur said:

FeersumEnjineeya said:

Malmesbury said:

FeersumEnjineeya said:

rcs1000 said:

rcs1000 said:

In February 2022, CNN polled Ukraine.

The results are absolutely striking.

Full disclosure, @Malmesbury pointed me to the poll.

It doesn't seem that striking to me, or at least not in the way you suggest. AIUI, even those people in the Donbas who wanted their region to become part of Russia mostly weren't bothered about the rest of Ukraine uniting with Russia. In fact, I find it hard to think of any region of any other country in which as many as 18% wanted their country to be absorbed by another, larger country.

It also asked a number of other questions - all of which pointed to

(a) A substantial approval throughout the country for the existence of Ukraine as a separate entity from Russia
(b) Very little enthusiasm for joining Russia in any region.

https://edition.cnn.com/interactive/2022/02/europe/russia-ukraine-crisis-poll-intl/index.html

According to the poll that RCS1000 posted, 18% of those in the Donbas region wanted Ukraine to unify with Russia. I find that a surprising large figure rather than a surprisingly small figure. That's the only point I was making.

'One country' is ambiguous. How many Ukrainians would be willing to annex Russia to stop them being a pain?

Ah, would you like to join my "Slightly Greater Ukraine Club"?

You get a free T-Shirt depicting the border between Ukraine and the Republic of China.

Does it say 'Russians, Ural going to be punished?'

It will.

The map will be rendered ob-solete.

Crimea a river

No need to be Volga.

These puns really are a Steppes too far

@christopherhope
20s
BREAKING 💥

The Cabinet Office digs in and says it will take Covid-19 Inquiry to court over what WhatsApp messages it must disclose.