Trump edges up the WH2024 betting – politicalbetting.com

Cicero said:

Leon said:

TimS said:

Leon said:

TimS said:

Sunil_Prasannan said:

Leon said:

Dura_Ace said:

Leon said:

Probably it would go nuclear if Crimea was seriously close to being overrun

I definitely think RF would threaten it if Crimea was in peril. Maybe a 'test' detonation over the Black Sea. That would be enough to cause utter chaos in the financial markets and Biden would be on WhatsApp to Z telling him to chill the fuck out.

Yes. That’s what I think. Crimea is the red line

I’ve just been reading Simon Sebag Montefiore’s The Romanovs and it is highly illustrative of the psychological importance of the South Ukrainian coast - especially Odessa - even more Crimea - to Russia’s self image

Catherine’s lover Potemkin was buried in the town
he founded. Kherson. The Russians removed his bones as they retreated

So why did Putin flatten Odessa's cathedral last week?

Because he’s a mobster.

And the idea Crimea would be some nuclear red line seems predicated on Putin and his goons having a deep emotional attachment to it as an ancient motherland (which it isn’t and never was, even under the Tsars), rather than simply some turf his crew picked up by a stroke of good luck in 2014.

In February 2022 I was all in on contingency planning to flee the country if things turned nuclear. I had a location analysis spreadsheet. Now I realise the Eastern Europeans and Baltics knew what they were taking about while the rest of us ignored them for decades. Russia’s just a bog standard bully that cowers when people stand up to it. Look at the reaction to Wagner’s mutiny.

You are absolutely and cluelessly wrong about Crimea. Read some history

It’s up there with historical British possessions
like Ireland or the United States. Or French Algeria. Somewhere they have a long history of owning or coveting, but always in reality a colony.

That’s better than your first attempt. Let’s remind ourselves what you said

Crimea is “simply some turf Putin’s crew picked up by a stroke of good luck in 2014”

But you’re still not quite there. Many of these southern Ukrainian/Crimean towns were tiny villages or uninhabited swampland. Russians literally built them from nothing

Eg Kherson, Odesa

Catherine seized Crimea from the ottomans, Potemkin built it up. It’s been Russian since the late 18th century. It was Russian in the USSR until kruschev handed it to the ukes for reasons of internal politics

Catherine called Crimea “Russia’s piece of paradise”

There is a serious emotional attachment to Crimea, in Russia. They won’t give it up now without a massive fight, or they will drop a tactical nuke on some island and scare everyone into a truce as world economies collapse in panic

Except that it is a national myth. Potemkin did not build villages in the wilderness, he built fake villages with fake peasants. The people in South Ukraine were and are Ukrainian. The primary population of Crimea, until 1942 were Crimean Tatars. Stalin murdered them on an industrial scale. Crimea was allocated to the UkrSSR in 1954, because it was largely depopulated. It wasn´t some absurd Russian gesture of good will.

So the regime may manufacture some propaganda, but the Russian claim is as stupid as a British claim on, say, Tuscany or the Dordogne would be.

No. “Potemkin” villages are themselves a myth

Read more

And the idea Russia didn’t build Odesa is infantile. Look at it

And the Ukrainians do look and sound awfully Russian. That’s the tragedy of the whole thing

Putin has turned a natural brother into a mortal enemy

Morris_Dancer said:

King Cole, I believe there's a settlement in the west of China which has a strange frequency of blue eyes and blonde hair, a leftover genetic legacy of Alexander the Great's empire.

Indeed. Isn’t there something similar In Afghanistan and/or Kashmir?

Miklosvar said:

Alphabet_Soup said:

boulay said:

Leon said:

RochdalePioneers said:

SouthamObserver said:

Sandpit said:

Leon said:

Romanians are completely different to Ukrainians. The difference is remarkable

You go from a land of slim pale blonde people - extremely lovely women - to fat dark tattoooed people - women “not quite so striking” - in 100km

What explains this? The Romanians are darker than the Italians; the Ukrainians are whiter than the icelandics

It’s the same landscape, same climate, same everything. Except for the people

EU Membership. Romaina has been totally hollowed out by freedom of movement. Its population is down over 20% in the past two decades, as anyone with aspiration has moved West.

I doubt EU membership means all the tall blonde people have left Romania. My guess is that whereas Ukraine was populated largely from the north and west, Romania’s population was built a lot more from the south and east.

Ukraine is viking. Romania is latin. Thats why they look different - they are.

But they don’t just look Latin. They look extremely Latin. Like calabrians or Maltese or even westernised Tunisians

I do love a bit of amateur ethnography

I suppose it’s like the UK where you have distinct looks in each country. The Welsh are all four foot tall with dark hair and darker eyes, the Scots are blue skinned with wild red hair and the English are tall, athletic, flaxen haired with blue eyes, “angels not angles” no less.

The Welsh have two distinct ethnographic extremes: the 'Iberian' look (swarthy, dark curly hair, brown eyes) and the 'Celtic' look (pale, ruddy-faced, ginger hair and blue eyes). Of course, most of us are somewhere in between, having poached our ancestors from faraway places like (in my case) Shropshire and Cheshire.

Poaching your own ancestors sounds more an Irish sort of thing.

Fighting talk. We're P-Celts, they're Q-Celts.

I meant to add, btw, that the answer to that age-old question 'Why am I the first Kinnock in a thousand generations to go to university?" is because the Vikings didn't have universities.

ydoethur said:

I don’t actually think Starmer is a centrist from conviction. He seems to have actually quite left wing instincts, more so than say, Wilson or Callaghan.

What he does have is pragmatism. He’s willing to compromise with the electorate to win power.

Blair and Brown were willing to do that too - the snag was they then never tried to make meaningful reforms with the opportunity they had. They spent so long rebranding and not frightening the horses that Brown in particular wasn’t willing to make radical changes. Meanwhile Blair, frustrated, took it out in misguided foreign policy ventures.

Unfortunately even if Starmer should prove not to have their timidity, it seems unlikely he will have a similar opportunity.

I think Blair actually believed it.

He was (and is) effectively a Christian Democrat, and pretty unique within the Labour movement.

Cicero said:

Leon said:

TimS said:

Leon said:

TimS said:

Sunil_Prasannan said:

Leon said:

Dura_Ace said:

Leon said:

Probably it would go nuclear if Crimea was seriously close to being overrun

I definitely think RF would threaten it if Crimea was in peril. Maybe a 'test' detonation over the Black Sea. That would be enough to cause utter chaos in the financial markets and Biden would be on WhatsApp to Z telling him to chill the fuck out.

Yes. That’s what I think. Crimea is the red line

I’ve just been reading Simon Sebag Montefiore’s The Romanovs and it is highly illustrative of the psychological importance of the South Ukrainian coast - especially Odessa - even more Crimea - to Russia’s self image

Catherine’s lover Potemkin was buried in the town
he founded. Kherson. The Russians removed his bones as they retreated

So why did Putin flatten Odessa's cathedral last week?

Because he’s a mobster.

And the idea Crimea would be some nuclear red line seems predicated on Putin and his goons having a deep emotional attachment to it as an ancient motherland (which it isn’t and never was, even under the Tsars), rather than simply some turf his crew picked up by a stroke of good luck in 2014.

In February 2022 I was all in on contingency planning to flee the country if things turned nuclear. I had a location analysis spreadsheet. Now I realise the Eastern Europeans and Baltics knew what they were taking about while the rest of us ignored them for decades. Russia’s just a bog standard bully that cowers when people stand up to it. Look at the reaction to Wagner’s mutiny.

You are absolutely and cluelessly wrong about Crimea. Read some history

It’s up there with historical British possessions
like Ireland or the United States. Or French Algeria. Somewhere they have a long history of owning or coveting, but always in reality a colony.

That’s better than your first attempt. Let’s remind ourselves what you said

Crimea is “simply some turf Putin’s crew picked up by a stroke of good luck in 2014”

But you’re still not quite there. Many of these southern Ukrainian/Crimean towns were tiny villages or uninhabited swampland. Russians literally built them from nothing

Eg Kherson, Odesa

Catherine seized Crimea from the ottomans, Potemkin built it up. It’s been Russian since the late 18th century. It was Russian in the USSR until kruschev handed it to the ukes for reasons of internal politics

Catherine called Crimea “Russia’s piece of paradise”

There is a serious emotional attachment to Crimea, in Russia. They won’t give it up now without a massive fight, or they will drop a tactical nuke on some island and scare everyone into a truce as world economies collapse in panic

Except that it is a national myth. Potemkin did not build villages in the wilderness, he built fake villages with fake peasants. The people in South Ukraine were and are Ukrainian. The primary population of Crimea, until 1942 were Crimean Tatars. Stalin murdered them on an industrial scale. Crimea was allocated to the UkrSSR in 1954, because it was largely depopulated. It wasn´t some absurd Russian gesture of good will.

So the regime may manufacture some propaganda, but the Russian claim is as stupid as a British claim on, say, Tuscany or the Dordogne would be.

The next claim would be the Baltic, Poland, Germany- They will not stop with Crimea, nor Vohlynia, nor Saxony... They must be stopped here and now.

Exactly usual Leon fantasist bollox.

Leon said:

Cicero said:

Leon said:

TimS said:

Leon said:

TimS said:

Sunil_Prasannan said:

Leon said:

Dura_Ace said:

Leon said:

Probably it would go nuclear if Crimea was seriously close to being overrun

I definitely think RF would threaten it if Crimea was in peril. Maybe a 'test' detonation over the Black Sea. That would be enough to cause utter chaos in the financial markets and Biden would be on WhatsApp to Z telling him to chill the fuck out.

Yes. That’s what I think. Crimea is the red line

I’ve just been reading Simon Sebag Montefiore’s The Romanovs and it is highly illustrative of the psychological importance of the South Ukrainian coast - especially Odessa - even more Crimea - to Russia’s self image

Catherine’s lover Potemkin was buried in the town
he founded. Kherson. The Russians removed his bones as they retreated

So why did Putin flatten Odessa's cathedral last week?

Because he’s a mobster.

And the idea Crimea would be some nuclear red line seems predicated on Putin and his goons having a deep emotional attachment to it as an ancient motherland (which it isn’t and never was, even under the Tsars), rather than simply some turf his crew picked up by a stroke of good luck in 2014.

In February 2022 I was all in on contingency planning to flee the country if things turned nuclear. I had a location analysis spreadsheet. Now I realise the Eastern Europeans and Baltics knew what they were taking about while the rest of us ignored them for decades. Russia’s just a bog standard bully that cowers when people stand up to it. Look at the reaction to Wagner’s mutiny.

You are absolutely and cluelessly wrong about Crimea. Read some history

It’s up there with historical British possessions
like Ireland or the United States. Or French Algeria. Somewhere they have a long history of owning or coveting, but always in reality a colony.

That’s better than your first attempt. Let’s remind ourselves what you said

Crimea is “simply some turf Putin’s crew picked up by a stroke of good luck in 2014”

But you’re still not quite there. Many of these southern Ukrainian/Crimean towns were tiny villages or uninhabited swampland. Russians literally built them from nothing

Eg Kherson, Odesa

Catherine seized Crimea from the ottomans, Potemkin built it up. It’s been Russian since the late 18th century. It was Russian in the USSR until kruschev handed it to the ukes for reasons of internal politics

Catherine called Crimea “Russia’s piece of paradise”

There is a serious emotional attachment to Crimea, in Russia. They won’t give it up now without a massive fight, or they will drop a tactical nuke on some island and scare everyone into a truce as world economies collapse in panic

Except that it is a national myth. Potemkin did not build villages in the wilderness, he built fake villages with fake peasants. The people in South Ukraine were and are Ukrainian. The primary population of Crimea, until 1942 were Crimean Tatars. Stalin murdered them on an industrial scale. Crimea was allocated to the UkrSSR in 1954, because it was largely depopulated. It wasn´t some absurd Russian gesture of good will.

So the regime may manufacture some propaganda, but the Russian claim is as stupid as a British claim on, say, Tuscany or the Dordogne would be.

No. “Potemkin” villages are themselves a myth

Read more

And the idea Russia didn’t build Odesa is infantile. Look at it

And the Ukrainians do look and sound awfully Russian. That’s the tragedy of the whole thing

Putin has turned a natural brother into a mortal enemy

By the same token you could say the British built Dublin (therefore it’s ours), we also built New Delhi, Philadelphia, Boston, Harare, the French built Algiers, Austria built Trieste and so on. But yes, Russia does seem to have a (conveniently) irredentist mindset. It needs to be driven out of them.

TimS said:

Leon said:

Cicero said:

Leon said:

TimS said:

Leon said:

TimS said:

Sunil_Prasannan said:

Leon said:

Dura_Ace said:

Leon said:

Probably it would go nuclear if Crimea was seriously close to being overrun

I definitely think RF would threaten it if Crimea was in peril. Maybe a 'test' detonation over the Black Sea. That would be enough to cause utter chaos in the financial markets and Biden would be on WhatsApp to Z telling him to chill the fuck out.

Yes. That’s what I think. Crimea is the red line

I’ve just been reading Simon Sebag Montefiore’s The Romanovs and it is highly illustrative of the psychological importance of the South Ukrainian coast - especially Odessa - even more Crimea - to Russia’s self image

Catherine’s lover Potemkin was buried in the town
he founded. Kherson. The Russians removed his bones as they retreated

So why did Putin flatten Odessa's cathedral last week?

Because he’s a mobster.

And the idea Crimea would be some nuclear red line seems predicated on Putin and his goons having a deep emotional attachment to it as an ancient motherland (which it isn’t and never was, even under the Tsars), rather than simply some turf his crew picked up by a stroke of good luck in 2014.

In February 2022 I was all in on contingency planning to flee the country if things turned nuclear. I had a location analysis spreadsheet. Now I realise the Eastern Europeans and Baltics knew what they were taking about while the rest of us ignored them for decades. Russia’s just a bog standard bully that cowers when people stand up to it. Look at the reaction to Wagner’s mutiny.

You are absolutely and cluelessly wrong about Crimea. Read some history

It’s up there with historical British possessions
like Ireland or the United States. Or French Algeria. Somewhere they have a long history of owning or coveting, but always in reality a colony.

That’s better than your first attempt. Let’s remind ourselves what you said

Crimea is “simply some turf Putin’s crew picked up by a stroke of good luck in 2014”

But you’re still not quite there. Many of these southern Ukrainian/Crimean towns were tiny villages or uninhabited swampland. Russians literally built them from nothing

Eg Kherson, Odesa

Catherine seized Crimea from the ottomans, Potemkin built it up. It’s been Russian since the late 18th century. It was Russian in the USSR until kruschev handed it to the ukes for reasons of internal politics

Catherine called Crimea “Russia’s piece of paradise”

There is a serious emotional attachment to Crimea, in Russia. They won’t give it up now without a massive fight, or they will drop a tactical nuke on some island and scare everyone into a truce as world economies collapse in panic

Except that it is a national myth. Potemkin did not build villages in the wilderness, he built fake villages with fake peasants. The people in South Ukraine were and are Ukrainian. The primary population of Crimea, until 1942 were Crimean Tatars. Stalin murdered them on an industrial scale. Crimea was allocated to the UkrSSR in 1954, because it was largely depopulated. It wasn´t some absurd Russian gesture of good will.

So the regime may manufacture some propaganda, but the Russian claim is as stupid as a British claim on, say, Tuscany or the Dordogne would be.

No. “Potemkin” villages are themselves a myth

Read more

And the idea Russia didn’t build Odesa is infantile. Look at it

And the Ukrainians do look and sound awfully Russian. That’s the tragedy of the whole thing

Putin has turned a natural brother into a mortal enemy

By the same token you could say the British built Dublin (therefore it’s ours), we also built New Delhi, Philadelphia, Boston, Harare, the French built Algiers, Austria built Trieste and so on. But yes, Russia does seem to have a (conveniently) irredentist mindset. It needs to be driven out of them.

I think the best comparison for Crimea - in a British context - is Northern Ireland

Seized by Britain centuries ago. But then also settled by Britain, built up by Britain, and with at least half the population feeling highly British (but the other half very much not)

Then add sunshine and beaches and vines and make it more covetable

Leon - Crimea is roughly the size of Wales. Or in relative terms to the Russian federation, it's what the Isle of Wight is to Great Britain.

'Why Richard, it profit a man nothing to give his soul for the whole world. . . but for Wales/Crimea!'

Did Russian hearts bleed after 1991 when Crimea was part of an independent Ukraine? Do you really think they would risk the collapse of the entire Russian federation for a small territory where people like to go on holiday? I don't buy it. And it is NOT historically Russian. Up to the 1950s it was inhabited by Crimean Tatars.

Nigelb said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

edmundintokyo said:

OK so I did this on the thread yesterday but a lot of the legal wonks seem to think Trump is going to get convicted in DC, for serious crimes, next year? Then I guess he appeals?

Meanwhile 45% of Republicans say they wouldn't vote for him if he was convicted of a felony
https://www.ipsos.com/en-us/reutersipsos-survey-despite-indictments-trump-leads-primary-field-desantis-loses-support I guess some of them would go back to the tribe, but nevertheless, it seems like a bad basis to run for election.

Equally, as far as the primary polling goes, it looks like Trump is going to control most of the delegates at the GOP convention. So he gets to choose whether to run himself, or substitute someone else.

Even if he somehow does beat Biden under these conditions, it's not clear that he can pardon himself.

The move to make if he's not a complete and utter delusional moron would be to put up someone more popular as GOP nominee.

Is he a complete and utter delusional moron? I don't think it's clear either way. It's worth thinking about who he might choose.

Surely in this scenario, there is no-one more popular than Trump, else they would already be nominee. And if Trump were to make way for someone less popular than himself, there is no guarantee he can deliver his base, who, let's not forget, have just declined to vote for this substitute in order to vote for Trump himself.

So who might Trump choose? Someone who has not attacked him personally during the primary campaign, and who has agreed to pardon him. Anyone but DeSantis, so far.

Actually, DeSantis has already publicly stated he would pardon Trump. And been attacked by Trumpists for contemplating the possibility of Trump being found guilty.

DeSantis is the (wrong) answer to the question, "who can tap into GOP resentment enough to have a chance of beating Trump". If Trump gets to pick his question is "who is loyal and can beat Biden". Depending on the balance of those things he could pick Ivanka, or one of several other GOP governors with high approval ratings.

edmundintokyo said:

Nigelb said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

edmundintokyo said:

OK so I did this on the thread yesterday but a lot of the legal wonks seem to think Trump is going to get convicted in DC, for serious crimes, next year? Then I guess he appeals?

Meanwhile 45% of Republicans say they wouldn't vote for him if he was convicted of a felony
https://www.ipsos.com/en-us/reutersipsos-survey-despite-indictments-trump-leads-primary-field-desantis-loses-support I guess some of them would go back to the tribe, but nevertheless, it seems like a bad basis to run for election.

Equally, as far as the primary polling goes, it looks like Trump is going to control most of the delegates at the GOP convention. So he gets to choose whether to run himself, or substitute someone else.

Even if he somehow does beat Biden under these conditions, it's not clear that he can pardon himself.

The move to make if he's not a complete and utter delusional moron would be to put up someone more popular as GOP nominee.

Is he a complete and utter delusional moron? I don't think it's clear either way. It's worth thinking about who he might choose.

Surely in this scenario, there is no-one more popular than Trump, else they would already be nominee. And if Trump were to make way for someone less popular than himself, there is no guarantee he can deliver his base, who, let's not forget, have just declined to vote for this substitute in order to vote for Trump himself.

So who might Trump choose? Someone who has not attacked him personally during the primary campaign, and who has agreed to pardon him. Anyone but DeSantis, so far.

Actually, DeSantis has already publicly stated he would pardon Trump. And been attacked by Trumpists for contemplating the possibility of Trump being found guilty.

DeSantis is the (wrong) answer to the question, "who can tap into GOP resentment enough to have a chance of beating Trump". If Trump gets to pick his question is "who is loyal and can beat Biden". Depending on the balance of those things he could pick Ivanka, or one of several other GOP governors with high approval ratings.

People have been asking "where is Melania?" but a better candidate for dogs not barking is Ivanka, although perhaps that is to allow the GOP a free run at Hunter Biden without Ivanka's husband muddying the waters.

nico679 said:

I think Khan should have delayed the extension of Ulez by 6 months but the scheme does need to come in .

The problem at the moment is people falling for the Tory scare mongering and being too lazy to just find out if they’re effected .

Of course the Tories who have nothing to offer will jump on anything . It might make things a little difficult for Labour in certain target seats. I don’t see how though if you’re a Labour supporter you’re going to suddenly say I’ll vote Tory over this .

If he delayed it by about 5-7 years it would become pointless as it would effect almost nobody, and the emissions problem will largely have gone away. This is already a solved problem, it's just taking a bit of time for older vehicles to work through the vehicle population. The youngest non-compliant vehicles are about 7 years old, they will mostly have gone by 12-14 years old.

There should be a general legal principle that if something is constructed or sold which complies with current legislation (as all these cars did), it can't be banned or restricted in favour of a product meeting newer standards for a period of say double the item's median working life. Possibly with a clause allowing such restrictions provided that the government compensates owners with 100% of the new price (not the current value) to allow the fixing of cases where the government has really stuffed up the regulations - but with a big financial disincentive to deter governments from doing this without a really good reason.

So much of the problem with this country is the obsession with instant results - thus ten years ago we couldn't build the new nuclear power stations we need because they would only just be finished now. The emission standards are the mirror image of this issue - we've got to impose lots of expensive restrictions now, because despite air quality having steadily improved for the last 50 years, we can't wait another 5 whilst the process carries on.

FrankBooth said:

Casino_Royale said:

There's no doubt in my mind that WW1 was a catastrophe for all concerned.

All the social changes that are believed to have come out of it, such as greater home rule for Ireland, votes for women, and greater rights for workers, were already in play before it started.

It really was the most tremendous waste. But, once Germany undertook the Schlieffen Plan, we had no choice but to fight because the alternative - France defeated and all the low countries dominated by them - would have been even worse.

Universal suffrage. And how quickly would those things have actually happened?

Probably by the 1930s. There was a clear path of development in that direction anyway, as the representation of the people acts in the last 35 years of the 19thC showed.

HYUFD said:

The problem for Republicans is Trump's first court case isn't until late March 2024 ie after Super Tuesday and the early Republican primaries and caucuses while his second case doesn't start until May. So depending on how long each case takes Trump could have won the nomination before the case concludes.

Yet a guilty verdict and jail sentence if he is convicted could be reached before the November general election and polls show even half of Republican voters would not vote for Trump again were he convicted

The problem for Republicans is they have surrendered their party and principles to a narcissistic toddler who wants to be a dictator.

Re the scheduling I'd expect Trumps lawyers to argue the court cases be postponed if he is the Republican nominee and can see courts going along with that.

Leon said:

Cicero said:

Leon said:

TimS said:

Leon said:

TimS said:

Sunil_Prasannan said:

Leon said:

Dura_Ace said:

Leon said:

Probably it would go nuclear if Crimea was seriously close to being overrun

I definitely think RF would threaten it if Crimea was in peril. Maybe a 'test' detonation over the Black Sea. That would be enough to cause utter chaos in the financial markets and Biden would be on WhatsApp to Z telling him to chill the fuck out.

Yes. That’s what I think. Crimea is the red line

I’ve just been reading Simon Sebag Montefiore’s The Romanovs and it is highly illustrative of the psychological importance of the South Ukrainian coast - especially Odessa - even more Crimea - to Russia’s self image

Catherine’s lover Potemkin was buried in the town
he founded. Kherson. The Russians removed his bones as they retreated

So why did Putin flatten Odessa's cathedral last week?

Because he’s a mobster.

And the idea Crimea would be some nuclear red line seems predicated on Putin and his goons having a deep emotional attachment to it as an ancient motherland (which it isn’t and never was, even under the Tsars), rather than simply some turf his crew picked up by a stroke of good luck in 2014.

In February 2022 I was all in on contingency planning to flee the country if things turned nuclear. I had a location analysis spreadsheet. Now I realise the Eastern Europeans and Baltics knew what they were taking about while the rest of us ignored them for decades. Russia’s just a bog standard bully that cowers when people stand up to it. Look at the reaction to Wagner’s mutiny.

You are absolutely and cluelessly wrong about Crimea. Read some history

It’s up there with historical British possessions
like Ireland or the United States. Or French Algeria. Somewhere they have a long history of owning or coveting, but always in reality a colony.

That’s better than your first attempt. Let’s remind ourselves what you said

Crimea is “simply some turf Putin’s crew picked up by a stroke of good luck in 2014”

But you’re still not quite there. Many of these southern Ukrainian/Crimean towns were tiny villages or uninhabited swampland. Russians literally built them from nothing

Eg Kherson, Odesa

Catherine seized Crimea from the ottomans, Potemkin built it up. It’s been Russian since the late 18th century. It was Russian in the USSR until kruschev handed it to the ukes for reasons of internal politics

Catherine called Crimea “Russia’s piece of paradise”

There is a serious emotional attachment to Crimea, in Russia. They won’t give it up now without a massive fight, or they will drop a tactical nuke on some island and scare everyone into a truce as world economies collapse in panic

Except that it is a national myth. Potemkin did not build villages in the wilderness, he built fake villages with fake peasants. The people in South Ukraine were and are Ukrainian. The primary population of Crimea, until 1942 were Crimean Tatars. Stalin murdered them on an industrial scale. Crimea was allocated to the UkrSSR in 1954, because it was largely depopulated. It wasn´t some absurd Russian gesture of good will.

So the regime may manufacture some propaganda, but the Russian claim is as stupid as a British claim on, say, Tuscany or the Dordogne would be.

No. “Potemkin” villages are themselves a myth

Read more

And the idea Russia didn’t build Odesa is infantile. Look at it

And the Ukrainians do look and sound awfully Russian. That’s the tragedy of the whole thing

Putin has turned a natural brother into a mortal enemy

That's because he and most Russians don't see them as brothers, but subjects. Good way to turn friendly disposed peoples into enemies.

noneoftheabove said:

HYUFD said:

The problem for Republicans is Trump's first court case isn't until late March 2024 ie after Super Tuesday and the early Republican primaries and caucuses while his second case doesn't start until May. So depending on how long each case takes Trump could have won the nomination before the case concludes.

Yet a guilty verdict and jail sentence if he is convicted could be reached before the November general election and polls show even half of Republican voters would not vote for Trump again were he convicted

The problem for Republicans is they have surrendered their party and principles to a narcissistic toddler who wants to be a dictator.

Re the scheduling I'd expect Trumps lawyers to argue the court cases be postponed if he is the Republican nominee and can see courts going along with that.

His first hope appears to have been if he announced as a candidate very early that would stop the cases anyway (see his plaintive wails about being arrested despite being a candidate), but it doesn't take a lawyer to see why that would be nonsense.

His second hope as you note appears to be to work to ensure any cases take place after the election, or at least after he has already got the nomination, or as good as. That, on top of his arrogance, is presumably party behind his proxies desperately demanding the no hopers drop out now, so he is effectively already nominee even if not officially.

And given the wheels of justice do run slowly, and the myriad of challenges that are surely possible, that second hope is partly realised even if he cannot get all cases pushed until after the election. What does he care if that screws the GOP? (Assuming it does for the moment).

kle4 said:

Leon said:

Cicero said:

Leon said:

TimS said:

Leon said:

TimS said:

Sunil_Prasannan said:

Leon said:

Dura_Ace said:

Leon said:

Probably it would go nuclear if Crimea was seriously close to being overrun

I definitely think RF would threaten it if Crimea was in peril. Maybe a 'test' detonation over the Black Sea. That would be enough to cause utter chaos in the financial markets and Biden would be on WhatsApp to Z telling him to chill the fuck out.

Yes. That’s what I think. Crimea is the red line

I’ve just been reading Simon Sebag Montefiore’s The Romanovs and it is highly illustrative of the psychological importance of the South Ukrainian coast - especially Odessa - even more Crimea - to Russia’s self image

Catherine’s lover Potemkin was buried in the town
he founded. Kherson. The Russians removed his bones as they retreated

So why did Putin flatten Odessa's cathedral last week?

Because he’s a mobster.

And the idea Crimea would be some nuclear red line seems predicated on Putin and his goons having a deep emotional attachment to it as an ancient motherland (which it isn’t and never was, even under the Tsars), rather than simply some turf his crew picked up by a stroke of good luck in 2014.

In February 2022 I was all in on contingency planning to flee the country if things turned nuclear. I had a location analysis spreadsheet. Now I realise the Eastern Europeans and Baltics knew what they were taking about while the rest of us ignored them for decades. Russia’s just a bog standard bully that cowers when people stand up to it. Look at the reaction to Wagner’s mutiny.

You are absolutely and cluelessly wrong about Crimea. Read some history

It’s up there with historical British possessions
like Ireland or the United States. Or French Algeria. Somewhere they have a long history of owning or coveting, but always in reality a colony.

That’s better than your first attempt. Let’s remind ourselves what you said

Crimea is “simply some turf Putin’s crew picked up by a stroke of good luck in 2014”

But you’re still not quite there. Many of these southern Ukrainian/Crimean towns were tiny villages or uninhabited swampland. Russians literally built them from nothing

Eg Kherson, Odesa

Catherine seized Crimea from the ottomans, Potemkin built it up. It’s been Russian since the late 18th century. It was Russian in the USSR until kruschev handed it to the ukes for reasons of internal politics

Catherine called Crimea “Russia’s piece of paradise”

There is a serious emotional attachment to Crimea, in Russia. They won’t give it up now without a massive fight, or they will drop a tactical nuke on some island and scare everyone into a truce as world economies collapse in panic

Except that it is a national myth. Potemkin did not build villages in the wilderness, he built fake villages with fake peasants. The people in South Ukraine were and are Ukrainian. The primary population of Crimea, until 1942 were Crimean Tatars. Stalin murdered them on an industrial scale. Crimea was allocated to the UkrSSR in 1954, because it was largely depopulated. It wasn´t some absurd Russian gesture of good will.

So the regime may manufacture some propaganda, but the Russian claim is as stupid as a British claim on, say, Tuscany or the Dordogne would be.

No. “Potemkin” villages are themselves a myth

Read more

And the idea Russia didn’t build Odesa is infantile. Look at it

And the Ukrainians do look and sound awfully Russian. That’s the tragedy of the whole thing

Putin has turned a natural brother into a mortal enemy

That's because he and most Russians don't see them as brothers, but subjects. Good way to turn friendly disposed peoples into enemies.

IIRC we’ve been over this ground before. There have been so many changes of population in what we now call Ukraine and European Russia that it’s difficult to regard anyone as ancestral holders of land..
In the 13th C, for example, the Mongols depopulated significant parts of the area.

HYUFD said:

noneoftheabove said:

HYUFD said:

The problem for Republicans is Trump's first court case isn't until late March 2024 ie after Super Tuesday and the early Republican primaries and caucuses while his second case doesn't start until May. So depending on how long each case takes Trump could have won the nomination before the case concludes.

Yet a guilty verdict and jail sentence if he is convicted could be reached before the November general election and polls show even half of Republican voters would not vote for Trump again were he convicted

The problem for Republicans is they have surrendered their party and principles to a narcissistic toddler who wants to be a dictator.

Re the scheduling I'd expect Trumps lawyers to argue the court cases be postponed if he is the Republican nominee and can see courts going along with that.

Given the New York and DC judges at least are Democrat appointees they certainly wouldn't go along with that

We do rightly excoriate some of the openly partisan nature of judges in the USA and the absurd pretence the top ones don't make their decisions based on personal political preferences, but in slight defence of the system plenty of Trump appointees ruled against a lot of his spurious legal challenges. Ones like the judge in his documents case who basically ignored the law to help him and got slapped down by an appeals court appear to be rarer (which does make what looks a very solid case more unknown). So I'd say it isn't entirely assured that the judges in NY and DC would not permit some delays - presumably they will be wary of appeals.

Leon said:

Cicero said:

Leon said:

TimS said:

Leon said:

TimS said:

Sunil_Prasannan said:

Leon said:

Dura_Ace said:

Leon said:

Probably it would go nuclear if Crimea was seriously close to being overrun

I definitely think RF would threaten it if Crimea was in peril. Maybe a 'test' detonation over the Black Sea. That would be enough to cause utter chaos in the financial markets and Biden would be on WhatsApp to Z telling him to chill the fuck out.

Yes. That’s what I think. Crimea is the red line

I’ve just been reading Simon Sebag Montefiore’s The Romanovs and it is highly illustrative of the psychological importance of the South Ukrainian coast - especially Odessa - even more Crimea - to Russia’s self image

Catherine’s lover Potemkin was buried in the town
he founded. Kherson. The Russians removed his bones as they retreated

So why did Putin flatten Odessa's cathedral last week?

Because he’s a mobster.

And the idea Crimea would be some nuclear red line seems predicated on Putin and his goons having a deep emotional attachment to it as an ancient motherland (which it isn’t and never was, even under the Tsars), rather than simply some turf his crew picked up by a stroke of good luck in 2014.

In February 2022 I was all in on contingency planning to flee the country if things turned nuclear. I had a location analysis spreadsheet. Now I realise the Eastern Europeans and Baltics knew what they were taking about while the rest of us ignored them for decades. Russia’s just a bog standard bully that cowers when people stand up to it. Look at the reaction to Wagner’s mutiny.

You are absolutely and cluelessly wrong about Crimea. Read some history

It’s up there with historical British possessions
like Ireland or the United States. Or French Algeria. Somewhere they have a long history of owning or coveting, but always in reality a colony.

That’s better than your first attempt. Let’s remind ourselves what you said

Crimea is “simply some turf Putin’s crew picked up by a stroke of good luck in 2014”

But you’re still not quite there. Many of these southern Ukrainian/Crimean towns were tiny villages or uninhabited swampland. Russians literally built them from nothing

Eg Kherson, Odesa

Catherine seized Crimea from the ottomans, Potemkin built it up. It’s been Russian since the late 18th century. It was Russian in the USSR until kruschev handed it to the ukes for reasons of internal politics

Catherine called Crimea “Russia’s piece of paradise”

There is a serious emotional attachment to Crimea, in Russia. They won’t give it up now without a massive fight, or they will drop a tactical nuke on some island and scare everyone into a truce as world economies collapse in panic

Except that it is a national myth. Potemkin did not build villages in the wilderness, he built fake villages with fake peasants. The people in South Ukraine were and are Ukrainian. The primary population of Crimea, until 1942 were Crimean Tatars. Stalin murdered them on an industrial scale. Crimea was allocated to the UkrSSR in 1954, because it was largely depopulated. It wasn´t some absurd Russian gesture of good will.

So the regime may manufacture some propaganda, but the Russian claim is as stupid as a British claim on, say, Tuscany or the Dordogne would be.

No. “Potemkin” villages are themselves a myth

Read more

And the idea Russia didn’t build Odesa is infantile. Look at it

And the Ukrainians do look and sound awfully Russian. That’s the tragedy of the whole thing

Putin has turned a natural brother into a mortal enemy

That is also at odds with history.

There have been efforts to build a free Ukraine since the end of the 19thC - and the Holodomor is not something visited on you by a 'natural brother'.

The relationship has been a colonial one for centuries.

FrankBooth said:

Leon - Crimea is roughly the size of Wales. Or in relative terms to the Russian federation, it's what the Isle of Wight is to Great Britain.

'Why Richard, it profit a man nothing to give his soul for the whole world. . . but for Wales/Crimea!'

Did Russian hearts bleed after 1991 when Crimea was part of an independent Ukraine? Do you really think they would risk the collapse of the entire Russian federation for a small territory where people like to go on holiday? I don't buy it. And it is NOT historically Russian. Up to the 1950s it was inhabited by Crimean Tatars.

It's now part of their current mythologising though, way more than the other areas. The actual history may not be as relevant if the public there genuinely regard it as part of Russia, rather than the more forced seeming sentiment over the rest of Ukraine.

If we get to the point where Ukraine can push for Crimea, I assume they'll have to do it with whatever they have built up at that point, without further significant assistance. I really hope they manage it oneday.

OldKingCole said:

kle4 said:

Leon said:

Cicero said:

Leon said:

TimS said:

Leon said:

TimS said:

Sunil_Prasannan said:

Leon said:

Dura_Ace said:

Leon said:

Probably it would go nuclear if Crimea was seriously close to being overrun

I definitely think RF would threaten it if Crimea was in peril. Maybe a 'test' detonation over the Black Sea. That would be enough to cause utter chaos in the financial markets and Biden would be on WhatsApp to Z telling him to chill the fuck out.

Yes. That’s what I think. Crimea is the red line

I’ve just been reading Simon Sebag Montefiore’s The Romanovs and it is highly illustrative of the psychological importance of the South Ukrainian coast - especially Odessa - even more Crimea - to Russia’s self image

Catherine’s lover Potemkin was buried in the town
he founded. Kherson. The Russians removed his bones as they retreated

So why did Putin flatten Odessa's cathedral last week?

Because he’s a mobster.

And the idea Crimea would be some nuclear red line seems predicated on Putin and his goons having a deep emotional attachment to it as an ancient motherland (which it isn’t and never was, even under the Tsars), rather than simply some turf his crew picked up by a stroke of good luck in 2014.

In February 2022 I was all in on contingency planning to flee the country if things turned nuclear. I had a location analysis spreadsheet. Now I realise the Eastern Europeans and Baltics knew what they were taking about while the rest of us ignored them for decades. Russia’s just a bog standard bully that cowers when people stand up to it. Look at the reaction to Wagner’s mutiny.

You are absolutely and cluelessly wrong about Crimea. Read some history

It’s up there with historical British possessions
like Ireland or the United States. Or French Algeria. Somewhere they have a long history of owning or coveting, but always in reality a colony.

That’s better than your first attempt. Let’s remind ourselves what you said

Crimea is “simply some turf Putin’s crew picked up by a stroke of good luck in 2014”

But you’re still not quite there. Many of these southern Ukrainian/Crimean towns were tiny villages or uninhabited swampland. Russians literally built them from nothing

Eg Kherson, Odesa

Catherine seized Crimea from the ottomans, Potemkin built it up. It’s been Russian since the late 18th century. It was Russian in the USSR until kruschev handed it to the ukes for reasons of internal politics

Catherine called Crimea “Russia’s piece of paradise”

There is a serious emotional attachment to Crimea, in Russia. They won’t give it up now without a massive fight, or they will drop a tactical nuke on some island and scare everyone into a truce as world economies collapse in panic

Except that it is a national myth. Potemkin did not build villages in the wilderness, he built fake villages with fake peasants. The people in South Ukraine were and are Ukrainian. The primary population of Crimea, until 1942 were Crimean Tatars. Stalin murdered them on an industrial scale. Crimea was allocated to the UkrSSR in 1954, because it was largely depopulated. It wasn´t some absurd Russian gesture of good will.

So the regime may manufacture some propaganda, but the Russian claim is as stupid as a British claim on, say, Tuscany or the Dordogne would be.

No. “Potemkin” villages are themselves a myth

Read more

And the idea Russia didn’t build Odesa is infantile. Look at it

And the Ukrainians do look and sound awfully Russian. That’s the tragedy of the whole thing

Putin has turned a natural brother into a mortal enemy

That's because he and most Russians don't see them as brothers, but subjects. Good way to turn friendly disposed peoples into enemies.

IIRC we’ve been over this ground before. There have been so many changes of population in what we now call Ukraine and European Russia that it’s difficult to regard anyone as ancestral holders of land..
In the 13th C, for example, the Mongols depopulated significant parts of the area.

Ancestral holding is pretty dumb for all sorts of reasons, and inconsistent even from the Putinistas who advocate it, picking convenient moments when it is and is not applicable.

NickPalmer said:

HYUFD said:

Casino_Royale said:

ydoethur said:

I don’t actually think Starmer is a centrist from conviction. He seems to have actually quite left wing instincts, more so than say, Wilson or Callaghan.

What he does have is pragmatism. He’s willing to compromise with the electorate to win power.

Blair and Brown were willing to do that too - the snag was they then never tried to make meaningful reforms with the opportunity they had. They spent so long rebranding and not frightening the horses that Brown in particular wasn’t willing to make radical changes. Meanwhile Blair, frustrated, took it out in misguided foreign policy ventures.

Unfortunately even if Starmer should prove not to have their timidity, it seems unlikely he will have a similar opportunity.

I think Blair actually believed it.

He was (and is) effectively a Christian Democrat, and pretty unique within the Labour movement.

No Blair was a social and
economic liberal and a
foreign policy
neoconservative. Starmer is a social democrat like Gordon Brown and Ed Miliband and closer to most in the Labour Party ideologically than Blair was even if not a socialist like Corbyn

I think that's right - I've only met him once but I have relatives who are old friends of his. They think he's mainstream social democrat, qualified by the focus on reassurance and winning.

I get that and he comes across as a reasonable man. But he also comes across as bereft of ideas or solutions to the problems we face in 2023 beyond being "nicer" and "more caring". To describe his policy ideas to date as banal would be generous and he has retreated from several at the first whiff of smoke.

NickPalmer said:

HYUFD said:

Casino_Royale said:

ydoethur said:

I don’t actually think Starmer is a centrist from conviction. He seems to have actually quite left wing instincts, more so than say, Wilson or Callaghan.

What he does have is pragmatism. He’s willing to compromise with the electorate to win power.

Blair and Brown were willing to do that too - the snag was they then never tried to make meaningful reforms with the opportunity they had. They spent so long rebranding and not frightening the horses that Brown in particular wasn’t willing to make radical changes. Meanwhile Blair, frustrated, took it out in misguided foreign policy ventures.

Unfortunately even if Starmer should prove not to have their timidity, it seems unlikely he will have a similar opportunity.

I think Blair actually believed it.

He was (and is) effectively a Christian Democrat, and pretty unique within the Labour movement.

No Blair was a social and
economic liberal and a
foreign policy
neoconservative. Starmer is a social democrat like Gordon Brown and Ed Miliband and closer to most in the Labour Party ideologically than Blair was even if not a socialist like Corbyn

I think that's right - I've only met him once but I have relatives who are old friends of his. They think he's mainstream social democrat, qualified by the focus on reassurance and winning.

Yes I would say Starmer is
economically social
democrat, socially centrist
and a foreign policy
pragmatist note too he opposed the Iraq War and on
Brexit is now more accepting of it than Blair too

Casino_Royale said:

I think people are projecting onto SKS precisely what they want to.

He is perfectly happy to let them do it.

Pragmatic centrists beware - they are always assuming leaders and parties are more centrist and pragmatic than they are, and then shocked when they do radical thing x they said they would!

Nigelb said:

kle4 said:

HYUFD said:

noneoftheabove said:

HYUFD said:

The problem for Republicans is Trump's first court case isn't until late March 2024 ie after Super Tuesday and the early Republican primaries and caucuses while his second case doesn't start until May. So depending on how long each case takes Trump could have won the nomination before the case concludes.

Yet a guilty verdict and jail sentence if he is convicted could be reached before the November general election and polls show even half of Republican voters would not vote for Trump again were he convicted

The problem for Republicans is they have surrendered their party and principles to a narcissistic toddler who wants to be a dictator.

Re the scheduling I'd expect Trumps lawyers to argue the court cases be postponed if he is the Republican nominee and can see courts going along with that.

Given the New York and DC judges at least are Democrat appointees they certainly wouldn't go along with that

We do rightly excoriate some of the openly partisan nature of judges in the USA and the absurd pretence the top ones don't make their decisions based on personal political preferences, but in slight defence of the system plenty of Trump appointees ruled against a lot of his spurious legal challenges. Ones like the judge in his documents case who basically ignored the law to help him and got slapped down by an appeals court appear to be rarer (which does make what looks a very solid case more unknown). So I'd say it isn't entirely assured that the judges in NY and DC would not permit some delays - presumably they will be wary of appeals.

There are various possible grounds for delay, but it's unlikely that a campaign schedule is among them.

His team have a long history of advancing one argument in the media, and not using it in court (hence so many of the election challenges not being as dramatic in court as out), I'm sure they can think of something.

edmundintokyo said:

Nigelb said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

edmundintokyo said:

OK so I did this on the thread yesterday but a lot of the legal wonks seem to think Trump is going to get convicted in DC, for serious crimes, next year? Then I guess he appeals?

Meanwhile 45% of Republicans say they wouldn't vote for him if he was convicted of a felony
https://www.ipsos.com/en-us/reutersipsos-survey-despite-indictments-trump-leads-primary-field-desantis-loses-support I guess some of them would go back to the tribe, but nevertheless, it seems like a bad basis to run for election.

Equally, as far as the primary polling goes, it looks like Trump is going to control most of the delegates at the GOP convention. So he gets to choose whether to run himself, or substitute someone else.

Even if he somehow does beat Biden under these conditions, it's not clear that he can pardon himself.

The move to make if he's not a complete and utter delusional moron would be to put up someone more popular as GOP nominee.

Is he a complete and utter delusional moron? I don't think it's clear either way. It's worth thinking about who he might choose.

Surely in this scenario, there is no-one more popular than Trump, else they would already be nominee. And if Trump were to make way for someone less popular than himself, there is no guarantee he can deliver his base, who, let's not forget, have just declined to vote for this substitute in order to vote for Trump himself.

So who might Trump choose? Someone who has not attacked him personally during the primary campaign, and who has agreed to pardon him. Anyone but DeSantis, so far.

Actually, DeSantis has already publicly stated he would pardon Trump. And been attacked by Trumpists for contemplating the possibility of Trump being found guilty.

DeSantis is the (wrong) answer to the question, "who can tap into GOP resentment enough to have a chance of beating Trump". If Trump gets to pick his question is "who is loyal and can beat Biden". Depending on the balance of those things he could pick Ivanka, or one of several other GOP governors with high approval ratings.

I think the idea that Trump will 'pick' anyone is fanciful.
He either gets the nomination, or becomes irrelevant. There isn't really a middle ground.

kle4 said:

Casino_Royale said:

TimS said:

Casino_Royale said:

ydoethur said:

I don’t actually think Starmer is a centrist from conviction. He seems to have actually quite left wing instincts, more so than say, Wilson or Callaghan.

What he does have is pragmatism. He’s willing to compromise with the electorate to win power.

Blair and Brown were willing to do that too - the snag was they then never tried to make meaningful reforms with the opportunity they had. They spent so long rebranding and not frightening the horses that Brown in particular wasn’t willing to make radical changes. Meanwhile Blair, frustrated, took it out in misguided foreign policy ventures.

Unfortunately even if Starmer should prove not to have their timidity, it seems unlikely he will have a similar opportunity.

I think Blair actually believed it.

He was (and is) effectively a Christian Democrat, and pretty unique within the Labour movement.

I worry (others may hope) that Starmer is actually going in a journey. I’ve no doubt he has been a true lefty for much of his career but it’s not unknown for people to start way to the left and end up way to the right as they get older.

I don’t think it’s beyond the realms of possibility that an elected Starmer could keep moving, at least on the authoritarian vs liberal spectrum.

My sense is he's actually quite left-wing but also a careerist so, if nothing else, it will be interesting to see how that plays out in office.

He should go big pretty early - even if it looks to be going further than his campaign indicated he will never have a better opportunity to have the public give that the benefit of the doubt.

I keep banging on about it, but that should include their plan to grant councils enhanced compulsory purchase powers for building land.
That will be extremely unpopular among a small group of people - and extremely popular if it shows results during the term of his government.

kle4 said:

Nigelb said:

kle4 said:

Cicero said:

Leon said:

TimS said:

Leon said:

TimS said:

Sunil_Prasannan said:

Leon said:

Dura_Ace said:

Leon said:

Probably it would go nuclear if Crimea was seriously close to being overrun

I definitely think RF would threaten it if Crimea was in peril. Maybe a 'test' detonation over the Black Sea. That would be enough to cause utter chaos in the financial markets and Biden would be on WhatsApp to Z telling him to chill the fuck out.

Yes. That’s what I think. Crimea is the red line

I’ve just been reading Simon Sebag Montefiore’s The Romanovs and it is highly illustrative of the psychological importance of the South Ukrainian coast - especially Odessa - even more Crimea - to Russia’s self image

Catherine’s lover Potemkin was buried in the town
he founded. Kherson. The Russians removed his bones as they retreated

So why did Putin flatten Odessa's cathedral last week?

Because he’s a mobster.

And the idea Crimea would be some nuclear red line seems predicated on Putin and his goons having a deep emotional attachment to it as an ancient motherland (which it isn’t and never was, even under the Tsars), rather than simply some turf his crew picked up by a stroke of good luck in 2014.

In February 2022 I was all in on contingency planning to flee the country if things turned nuclear. I had a location analysis spreadsheet. Now I realise the Eastern Europeans and Baltics knew what they were taking about while the rest of us ignored them for decades. Russia’s just a bog standard bully that cowers when people stand up to it. Look at the reaction to Wagner’s mutiny.

You are absolutely and cluelessly wrong about Crimea. Read some history

It’s up there with historical British possessions
like Ireland or the United States. Or French Algeria. Somewhere they have a long history of owning or coveting, but always in reality a colony.

That’s better than your first attempt. Let’s remind ourselves what you said

Crimea is “simply some turf Putin’s crew picked up by a stroke of good luck in 2014”

But you’re still not quite there. Many of these southern Ukrainian/Crimean towns were tiny villages or uninhabited swampland. Russians literally built them from nothing

Eg Kherson, Odesa

Catherine seized Crimea from the ottomans, Potemkin built it up. It’s been Russian since the late 18th century. It was Russian in the USSR until kruschev handed it to the ukes for reasons of internal politics

Catherine called Crimea “Russia’s piece of paradise”

There is a serious emotional attachment to Crimea, in Russia. They won’t give it up now without a massive fight, or they will drop a tactical nuke on some island and scare everyone into a truce as world economies collapse in panic

Except that it is a national myth. Potemkin did not build villages in the wilderness, he built fake villages with fake peasants. The people in South Ukraine were and are Ukrainian. The primary population of Crimea, until 1942 were Crimean Tatars. Stalin murdered them on an industrial scale. Crimea was allocated to the UkrSSR in 1954, because it was largely depopulated. It wasn´t some absurd Russian gesture of good will.

So the regime may manufacture some propaganda, but the Russian claim is as stupid as a British claim on, say, Tuscany or the Dordogne would be.

The next claim would be the Baltic, Poland, Germany- They will not stop with Crimea, nor Vohlynia, nor Saxony... They must be stopped here and now.

It is hard to see how Russia's government could survive losing Crimea without at least attempting to escalate still further, it is easy to see how international partners would pressure Ukraine into accepting the status quo there (even though it provides a launch pad for any future invasion attempts), especially if it was the only part that was left in that limbo.

But the basic point is irrefutable - if you succeed in one invasion to acquire territory you will believe you can do it again, even though in this scenario hundreds of thousands of lives were wasted on failed attempts to expand that area further.

If Ukraine retakes the Black Sea coast, holding Crimea without their consent becomes extremely difficult.
That might be a basis for a negotiation over its status. And indeed for a peace agreement.

Indeed. And if the Kerch bridge keeps getting hit that adds another element to making holding it hard.

That bridge is going to be reminiscent of Mr Eagles’ favourite online stepmom, by the time this war is over.

malcolmg said:

Nigelb said:

kle4 said:

Cicero said:

Leon said:

TimS said:

Leon said:

TimS said:

Sunil_Prasannan said:

Leon said:

Dura_Ace said:

Leon said:

Probably it would go nuclear if Crimea was seriously close to being overrun

I definitely think RF would threaten it if Crimea was in peril. Maybe a 'test' detonation over the Black Sea. That would be enough to cause utter chaos in the financial markets and Biden would be on WhatsApp to Z telling him to chill the fuck out.

Yes. That’s what I think. Crimea is the red line

I’ve just been reading Simon Sebag Montefiore’s The Romanovs and it is highly illustrative of the psychological importance of the South Ukrainian coast - especially Odessa - even more Crimea - to Russia’s self image

Catherine’s lover Potemkin was buried in the town
he founded. Kherson. The Russians removed his bones as they retreated

So why did Putin flatten Odessa's cathedral last week?

Because he’s a mobster.

And the idea Crimea would be some nuclear red line seems predicated on Putin and his goons having a deep emotional attachment to it as an ancient motherland (which it isn’t and never was, even under the Tsars), rather than simply some turf his crew picked up by a stroke of good luck in 2014.

In February 2022 I was all in on contingency planning to flee the country if things turned nuclear. I had a location analysis spreadsheet. Now I realise the Eastern Europeans and Baltics knew what they were taking about while the rest of us ignored them for decades. Russia’s just a bog standard bully that cowers when people stand up to it. Look at the reaction to Wagner’s mutiny.

You are absolutely and cluelessly wrong about Crimea. Read some history

It’s up there with historical British possessions
like Ireland or the United States. Or French Algeria. Somewhere they have a long history of owning or coveting, but always in reality a colony.

That’s better than your first attempt. Let’s remind ourselves what you said

Crimea is “simply some turf Putin’s crew picked up by a stroke of good luck in 2014”

But you’re still not quite there. Many of these southern Ukrainian/Crimean towns were tiny villages or uninhabited swampland. Russians literally built them from nothing

Eg Kherson, Odesa

Catherine seized Crimea from the ottomans, Potemkin built it up. It’s been Russian since the late 18th century. It was Russian in the USSR until kruschev handed it to the ukes for reasons of internal politics

Catherine called Crimea “Russia’s piece of paradise”

There is a serious emotional attachment to Crimea, in Russia. They won’t give it up now without a massive fight, or they will drop a tactical nuke on some island and scare everyone into a truce as world economies collapse in panic

Except that it is a national myth. Potemkin did not build villages in the wilderness, he built fake villages with fake peasants. The people in South Ukraine were and are Ukrainian. The primary population of Crimea, until 1942 were Crimean Tatars. Stalin murdered them on an industrial scale. Crimea was allocated to the UkrSSR in 1954, because it was largely depopulated. It wasn´t some absurd Russian gesture of good will.

So the regime may manufacture some propaganda, but the Russian claim is as stupid as a British claim on, say, Tuscany or the Dordogne would be.

The next claim would be the Baltic, Poland, Germany- They will not stop with Crimea, nor Vohlynia, nor Saxony... They must be stopped here and now.

It is hard to see how Russia's government could survive losing Crimea without at least attempting to escalate still further, it is easy to see how international partners would pressure Ukraine into accepting the status quo there (even though it provides a launch pad for any future invasion attempts), especially if it was the only part that was left in that limbo.

But the basic point is irrefutable - if you succeed in one invasion to acquire territory you will believe you can do it again, even though in this scenario hundreds of thousands of lives were wasted on failed attempts to expand that area further.

If Ukraine retakes the Black Sea coast, holding Crimea without their consent becomes extremely difficult.
That might be a basis for a negotiation over its status. And indeed for a peace agreement.

Hard to see Ukraine accepting any compromise unless West desert them

Quite possibly.
But the point is that without their retaking the coast, the war will continue.

Nigelb said:

malcolmg said:

Nigelb said:

kle4 said:

Cicero said:

Leon said:

TimS said:

Leon said:

TimS said:

Sunil_Prasannan said:

Leon said:

Dura_Ace said:

Leon said:

Probably it would go nuclear if Crimea was seriously close to being overrun

I definitely think RF would threaten it if Crimea was in peril. Maybe a 'test' detonation over the Black Sea. That would be enough to cause utter chaos in the financial markets and Biden would be on WhatsApp to Z telling him to chill the fuck out.

Yes. That’s what I think. Crimea is the red line

I’ve just been reading Simon Sebag Montefiore’s The Romanovs and it is highly illustrative of the psychological importance of the South Ukrainian coast - especially Odessa - even more Crimea - to Russia’s self image

Catherine’s lover Potemkin was buried in the town
he founded. Kherson. The Russians removed his bones as they retreated

So why did Putin flatten Odessa's cathedral last week?

Because he’s a mobster.

And the idea Crimea would be some nuclear red line seems predicated on Putin and his goons having a deep emotional attachment to it as an ancient motherland (which it isn’t and never was, even under the Tsars), rather than simply some turf his crew picked up by a stroke of good luck in 2014.

In February 2022 I was all in on contingency planning to flee the country if things turned nuclear. I had a location analysis spreadsheet. Now I realise the Eastern Europeans and Baltics knew what they were taking about while the rest of us ignored them for decades. Russia’s just a bog standard bully that cowers when people stand up to it. Look at the reaction to Wagner’s mutiny.

You are absolutely and cluelessly wrong about Crimea. Read some history

It’s up there with historical British possessions
like Ireland or the United States. Or French Algeria. Somewhere they have a long history of owning or coveting, but always in reality a colony.

That’s better than your first attempt. Let’s remind ourselves what you said

Crimea is “simply some turf Putin’s crew picked up by a stroke of good luck in 2014”

But you’re still not quite there. Many of these southern Ukrainian/Crimean towns were tiny villages or uninhabited swampland. Russians literally built them from nothing

Eg Kherson, Odesa

Catherine seized Crimea from the ottomans, Potemkin built it up. It’s been Russian since the late 18th century. It was Russian in the USSR until kruschev handed it to the ukes for reasons of internal politics

Catherine called Crimea “Russia’s piece of paradise”

There is a serious emotional attachment to Crimea, in Russia. They won’t give it up now without a massive fight, or they will drop a tactical nuke on some island and scare everyone into a truce as world economies collapse in panic

Except that it is a national myth. Potemkin did not build villages in the wilderness, he built fake villages with fake peasants. The people in South Ukraine were and are Ukrainian. The primary population of Crimea, until 1942 were Crimean Tatars. Stalin murdered them on an industrial scale. Crimea was allocated to the UkrSSR in 1954, because it was largely depopulated. It wasn´t some absurd Russian gesture of good will.

So the regime may manufacture some propaganda, but the Russian claim is as stupid as a British claim on, say, Tuscany or the Dordogne would be.

The next claim would be the Baltic, Poland, Germany- They will not stop with Crimea, nor Vohlynia, nor Saxony... They must be stopped here and now.

It is hard to see how Russia's government could survive losing Crimea without at least attempting to escalate still further, it is easy to see how international partners would pressure Ukraine into accepting the status quo there (even though it provides a launch pad for any future invasion attempts), especially if it was the only part that was left in that limbo.

But the basic point is irrefutable - if you succeed in one invasion to acquire territory you will believe you can do it again, even though in this scenario hundreds of thousands of lives were wasted on failed attempts to expand that area further.

If Ukraine retakes the Black Sea coast, holding Crimea without their consent becomes extremely difficult.
That might be a basis for a negotiation over its status. And indeed for a peace agreement.

Hard to see Ukraine accepting any compromise unless West desert them

Quite possibly.
But the point is that without their retaking the coast, the war will continue.

Yes, breaking the land line between Russia and Crimea is the key to winning, even if it doesn't end it. Mariupol is the key objective but it looks quite a long way off.

.

noneoftheabove said:

HYUFD said:

The problem for Republicans is Trump's first court case isn't until late March 2024 ie after Super Tuesday and the early Republican primaries and caucuses while his second case doesn't start until May. So depending on how long each case takes Trump could have won the nomination before the case concludes.

Yet a guilty verdict and jail sentence if he is convicted could be reached before the November general election and polls show even half of Republican voters would not vote for Trump again were he convicted

The problem for Republicans is they have surrendered their party and principles to a narcissistic toddler who wants to be a dictator.

Re the scheduling I'd expect Trumps lawyers to argue the court cases be postponed if he is the Republican nominee and can see courts going along with that.

Why should the courts agree to a postponement? That would not be standard procedure for any other defendant. “Oh, you’re busy with some voluntary activity in your life so you want your criminal trial delayed? No problem!”

DavidL said:

Nigelb said:

malcolmg said:

Nigelb said:

kle4 said:

Cicero said:

Leon said:

TimS said:

Leon said:

TimS said:

Sunil_Prasannan said:

Leon said:

Dura_Ace said:

Leon said:

Probably it would go nuclear if Crimea was seriously close to being overrun

I definitely think RF would threaten it if Crimea was in peril. Maybe a 'test' detonation over the Black Sea. That would be enough to cause utter chaos in the financial markets and Biden would be on WhatsApp to Z telling him to chill the fuck out.

Yes. That’s what I think. Crimea is the red line

I’ve just been reading Simon Sebag Montefiore’s The Romanovs and it is highly illustrative of the psychological importance of the South Ukrainian coast - especially Odessa - even more Crimea - to Russia’s self image

Catherine’s lover Potemkin was buried in the town
he founded. Kherson. The Russians removed his bones as they retreated

So why did Putin flatten Odessa's cathedral last week?

Because he’s a mobster.

And the idea Crimea would be some nuclear red line seems predicated on Putin and his goons having a deep emotional attachment to it as an ancient motherland (which it isn’t and never was, even under the Tsars), rather than simply some turf his crew picked up by a stroke of good luck in 2014.

In February 2022 I was all in on contingency planning to flee the country if things turned nuclear. I had a location analysis spreadsheet. Now I realise the Eastern Europeans and Baltics knew what they were taking about while the rest of us ignored them for decades. Russia’s just a bog standard bully that cowers when people stand up to it. Look at the reaction to Wagner’s mutiny.

You are absolutely and cluelessly wrong about Crimea. Read some history

It’s up there with historical British possessions
like Ireland or the United States. Or French Algeria. Somewhere they have a long history of owning or coveting, but always in reality a colony.

That’s better than your first attempt. Let’s remind ourselves what you said

Crimea is “simply some turf Putin’s crew picked up by a stroke of good luck in 2014”

But you’re still not quite there. Many of these southern Ukrainian/Crimean towns were tiny villages or uninhabited swampland. Russians literally built them from nothing

Eg Kherson, Odesa

Catherine seized Crimea from the ottomans, Potemkin built it up. It’s been Russian since the late 18th century. It was Russian in the USSR until kruschev handed it to the ukes for reasons of internal politics

Catherine called Crimea “Russia’s piece of paradise”

There is a serious emotional attachment to Crimea, in Russia. They won’t give it up now without a massive fight, or they will drop a tactical nuke on some island and scare everyone into a truce as world economies collapse in panic

Except that it is a national myth. Potemkin did not build villages in the wilderness, he built fake villages with fake peasants. The people in South Ukraine were and are Ukrainian. The primary population of Crimea, until 1942 were Crimean Tatars. Stalin murdered them on an industrial scale. Crimea was allocated to the UkrSSR in 1954, because it was largely depopulated. It wasn´t some absurd Russian gesture of good will.

So the regime may manufacture some propaganda, but the Russian claim is as stupid as a British claim on, say, Tuscany or the Dordogne would be.

The next claim would be the Baltic, Poland, Germany- They will not stop with Crimea, nor Vohlynia, nor Saxony... They must be stopped here and now.

It is hard to see how Russia's government could survive losing Crimea without at least attempting to escalate still further, it is easy to see how international partners would pressure Ukraine into accepting the status quo there (even though it provides a launch pad for any future invasion attempts), especially if it was the only part that was left in that limbo.

But the basic point is irrefutable - if you succeed in one invasion to acquire territory you will believe you can do it again, even though in this scenario hundreds of thousands of lives were wasted on failed attempts to expand that area further.

If Ukraine retakes the Black Sea coast, holding Crimea without their consent becomes extremely difficult.
That might be a basis for a negotiation over its status. And indeed for a peace agreement.

Hard to see Ukraine accepting any compromise unless West desert them

Quite possibly.
But the point is that without their retaking the coast, the war will continue.

Yes, breaking the land line between Russia and Crimea is the key to winning, even if it doesn't end it. Mariupol is the key objective but it looks quite a long way off.

I think the railway line, which is crucial for Russian logistics, is well to the north of Mariupol.

Leon said:

Cicero said:

Leon said:

Cicero said:

The hot war is in Ukraine, but from the Russian point of view, it is only incidentally about Ukraine.

For most of the past two decades, Russia has been seeking to overturn what they see as the Western dominated world order. In that time they have not only used violence: in Moldova, Georgia, Syria and other places, as well as Ukraine itself, but they have also used an arsenal of hybrid or unconventional tactics. The regime sends murder squads to kill opponents, at home, like Anna Politkovskaya, Boris Nemtsov or Pavel Klebnikov or abroad, like Sasha Litvinenko in London or Yanderbayev in Qatar and hundreds of other examples.

Moscow also uses bribery, blackmail and subversion to bring key people under their control. Some political parties, such as AfD and the French National Rally have received public support, including financial support from Russian sources. Some movements, like the French Gilets Jaunes are believed to be entirely sustained by Russian clandestine operations. These operations undertaken by the Russian secret services are believed to be even larger and more active than during the very worse of the Cold War. It would be extremely naive to assume that the UK was not also the focus of such operations, which is why the relationship of Farage and Salmond with the Russia Today black propaganda channel has been highlighted as a source of concern, and why the decisions by Boris Johnson to hire Dominic Cummings, despite his not receiving full security clearance, and appoint Evgeny Lebedev to the House of Lords led to considerable dismay in certain quarters.

In short, by a variety of means, including but not limited to full scale war, the Putin government has been launching a large and orchestrated campaign to undermine Western democracy, and reduce its will to counter Russian aggression.

Putin clearly hopes that the return of Trump would destroy the united will of the West to support Ukraine and in the process lead to the collapse of NATO. The danger now in the Ukrainian war is not that the Ukrainian nation will fold, but that the West, demoralized and leaderless, will allow Russia a free hand first in Ukraine, and then elsewhere in order to destroy the EU and then democracy itself.

This is a World War already.

If we are to avoid the victory of corruption and criminal and brutal barbarism, we must understand that this is an existential struggle, not just for Ukraine, but for the West itself and act accordingly. There is nothing we can give Putin that will satisfy him.

Putin must be defeated and destroyed.

Huzzah!

And how do you suggest that we do this, practically?

A good start would be to recognize the reality of the situation, and to send all of the weapons and the financial support to Ukraine that we have promised and which the Germans and the US have delayed.

Then to provide the ZSU with as much advanced equipment as they want, including F-16s and any other kit that they ask for, so that they can establish greater air superiority and then also interdict the ports of Sevastopil and Novorossysk as the Russians have interdicted Odesa until now. This would allow the grain flows to reopen, because the Russian Navy could no longer stop them.

To counter the Wagner coup in Niger by supporting an ECOWAS military intervention. Push back in Syria and Iran, and permit Ukrainian special operations to be used against Iranian drone manufacturers.

Diplomatically to continue the dialogue with China, but make it clear that the West will not permit any form of Russian victory.

Lustrate the cases where individuals or groups in the West have long term relations with Russian organisations, and force them to account for themselves.

Do not give up.

Interesting. And Thankyou for answering my question so thoroughly

Some of this makes sense, some of this is just hopeful dreamland. How are we going to “push back in Syria and Iran”?!

You also seem to suggest we give Ukraine an air force that can outmatch Russia’s. That’s never going to happen, no American President would authorise it for multiple reasons, the Europeans can’t afford it and don’t have the capability

It does need to outmatch Russia all the time, just provide local air superiority, and the Russian Air Force is, how shall we put this..? Not that good. Even Wagner were able to knock some kit out the sky.

As for Iran, up the sanctions, interfere with the trade flows to Russia, allow the UA forces to take down supply routes. Reducing the supply of components for Shaheeds would help a lot.

Nigelb said:

kle4 said:

Casino_Royale said:

TimS said:

Casino_Royale said:

ydoethur said:

I don’t actually think Starmer is a centrist from conviction. He seems to have actually quite left wing instincts, more so than say, Wilson or Callaghan.

What he does have is pragmatism. He’s willing to compromise with the electorate to win power.

Blair and Brown were willing to do that too - the snag was they then never tried to make meaningful reforms with the opportunity they had. They spent so long rebranding and not frightening the horses that Brown in particular wasn’t willing to make radical changes. Meanwhile Blair, frustrated, took it out in misguided foreign policy ventures.

Unfortunately even if Starmer should prove not to have their timidity, it seems unlikely he will have a similar opportunity.

I think Blair actually believed it.

He was (and is) effectively a Christian Democrat, and pretty unique within the Labour movement.

I worry (others may hope) that Starmer is actually going in a journey. I’ve no doubt he has been a true lefty for much of his career but it’s not unknown for people to start way to the left and end up way to the right as they get older.

I don’t think it’s beyond the realms of possibility that an elected Starmer could keep moving, at least on the authoritarian vs liberal spectrum.

My sense is he's actually quite left-wing but also a careerist so, if nothing else, it will be interesting to see how that plays out in office.

He should go big pretty early - even if it looks to be going further than his campaign indicated he will never have a better opportunity to have the public give that the benefit of the doubt.

I keep banging on about it, but that should include their plan to grant councils enhanced compulsory purchase powers for building land.
That will be extremely unpopular among a small group of people - and extremely popular if it shows results during the term of his government.

Assuming that Starmer wins in 2024, his next target is to make things feel better by 2028- enough to campaign on "lots done, lots still to do". That points to doing the politically brave stuff early on, possibly coupled with a "the Tories' inheritance is even worse than we feared" mantra.

Looking at the methodical way he has worked towards making Labour electable, that sort of planning looks within his skill set. Whereas the Conservatives have been incredibly skittish over the last decade. Only one of the reasons why they really can't do another term of government.

Nigelb said:

kle4 said:

Casino_Royale said:

TimS said:

Casino_Royale said:

ydoethur said:

I don’t actually think Starmer is a centrist from conviction. He seems to have actually quite left wing instincts, more so than say, Wilson or Callaghan.

What he does have is pragmatism. He’s willing to compromise with the electorate to win power.

Blair and Brown were willing to do that too - the snag was they then never tried to make meaningful reforms with the opportunity they had. They spent so long rebranding and not frightening the horses that Brown in particular wasn’t willing to make radical changes. Meanwhile Blair, frustrated, took it out in misguided foreign policy ventures.

Unfortunately even if Starmer should prove not to have their timidity, it seems unlikely he will have a similar opportunity.

I think Blair actually believed it.

He was (and is) effectively a Christian Democrat, and pretty unique within the Labour movement.

I worry (others may hope) that Starmer is actually going in a journey. I’ve no doubt he has been a true lefty for much of his career but it’s not unknown for people to start way to the left and end up way to the right as they get older.

I don’t think it’s beyond the realms of possibility that an elected Starmer could keep moving, at least on the authoritarian vs liberal spectrum.

My sense is he's actually quite left-wing but also a careerist so, if nothing else, it will be interesting to see how that plays out in office.

He should go big pretty early - even if it looks to be going further than his campaign indicated he will never have a better opportunity to have the public give that the benefit of the doubt.

I keep banging on about it, but that should include their plan to grant councils enhanced compulsory purchase powers for building land.
That will be extremely unpopular among a small group of people - and extremely popular if it shows results during the term of his government.

If.

The problem with change is that the opposition is immediate and the achievements can take years to arrive, if at all.

Taz said:

boulay said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

...

malcolmg said:

Nigelb said:

kle4 said:

Cicero said:

Leon said:

TimS said:

Leon said:

TimS said:

Sunil_Prasannan said:

Leon said:

Dura_Ace said:

Leon said:

Probably it would go nuclear if Crimea was seriously close to being overrun

I definitely think RF would threaten it if Crimea was in peril. Maybe a 'test' detonation over the Black Sea. That would be enough to cause utter chaos in the financial markets and Biden would be on WhatsApp to Z telling him to chill the fuck out.

Yes. That’s what I think. Crimea is the red line

I’ve just been reading Simon Sebag Montefiore’s The Romanovs and it is highly illustrative of the psychological importance of the South Ukrainian coast - especially Odessa - even more Crimea - to Russia’s self image

Catherine’s lover Potemkin was buried in the town
he founded. Kherson. The Russians removed his bones as they retreated

So why did Putin flatten Odessa's cathedral last week?

Because he’s a mobster.

And the idea Crimea would be some nuclear red line seems predicated on Putin and his goons having a deep emotional attachment to it as an ancient motherland (which it isn’t and never was, even under the Tsars), rather than simply some turf his crew picked up by a stroke of good luck in 2014.

In February 2022 I was all in on contingency planning to flee the country if things turned nuclear. I had a location analysis spreadsheet. Now I realise the Eastern Europeans and Baltics knew what they were taking about while the rest of us ignored them for decades. Russia’s just a bog standard bully that cowers when people stand up to it. Look at the reaction to Wagner’s mutiny.

You are absolutely and cluelessly wrong about Crimea. Read some history

It’s up there with historical British possessions
like Ireland or the United States. Or French Algeria. Somewhere they have a long history of owning or coveting, but always in reality a colony.

That’s better than your first attempt. Let’s remind ourselves what you said

Crimea is “simply some turf Putin’s crew picked up by a stroke of good luck in 2014”

But you’re still not quite there. Many of these southern Ukrainian/Crimean towns were tiny villages or uninhabited swampland. Russians literally built them from nothing

Eg Kherson, Odesa

Catherine seized Crimea from the ottomans, Potemkin built it up. It’s been Russian since the late 18th century. It was Russian in the USSR until kruschev handed it to the ukes for reasons of internal politics

Catherine called Crimea “Russia’s piece of paradise”

There is a serious emotional attachment to Crimea, in Russia. They won’t give it up now without a massive fight, or they will drop a tactical nuke on some island and scare everyone into a truce as world economies collapse in panic

Except that it is a national myth. Potemkin did not build villages in the wilderness, he built fake villages with fake peasants. The people in South Ukraine were and are Ukrainian. The primary population of Crimea, until 1942 were Crimean Tatars. Stalin murdered them on an industrial scale. Crimea was allocated to the UkrSSR in 1954, because it was largely depopulated. It wasn´t some absurd Russian gesture of good will.

So the regime may manufacture some propaganda, but the Russian claim is as stupid as a British claim on, say, Tuscany or the Dordogne would be.

The next claim would be the Baltic, Poland, Germany- They will not stop with Crimea, nor Vohlynia, nor Saxony... They must be stopped here and now.

It is hard to see how Russia's government could survive losing Crimea without at least attempting to escalate still further, it is easy to see how international partners would pressure Ukraine into accepting the status quo there (even though it provides a launch pad for any future invasion attempts), especially if it was the only part that was left in that limbo.

But the basic point is irrefutable - if you succeed in one invasion to acquire territory you will believe you can do it again, even though in this scenario hundreds of thousands of lives were wasted on failed attempts to expand that area further.

If Ukraine retakes the Black Sea coast, holding Crimea without their consent becomes extremely difficult.
That might be a basis for a negotiation over its status. And indeed for a peace agreement.

Hard to see Ukraine accepting any compromise unless West desert them

It's a complete shitshow Malcolm. It cannot be put back in a box, and I cannot see any scenario that doesn't end in Russia taking a chunk of Ukraine, and all those with a Russian preference moving there, and vice versa. Then rebuilding, and heavily garrisoning each side. It was true 6 months ago, it is true now, and it will be true 6 month's hence, just more people will be dead, more buildings and equipment destroyed, and economies more destabilised.

I think you are correct bar some miraculous advances by Ukraine however much I wish to be wrong. I would imagine a Korea situation solution if donor fatigue hits and a negotiated settlement required with a DMZ and Crimea demilitarised, Ukraine can then join NATO as conflict officially over and then the DMZ on Ukraine side backed by a big NATO contingent to ensure Russia can’t try again once they have restocked their military.

Well from reading @Leon earlier in the week donor fatigue certainly seems to be something that is starting to happen in the US.

If this war grinds on, and I think it will as neither side seems to really have the upper hand, and Ukraine is largely reliant on the largesse of western nations then I suspect donor fatigue will become more and more mainstream.

If the Ukrainian daily claims:

https://www.facebook.com/GeneralStaff.ua/posts/pfbid0uzv4jn8hNdxc7gZKiDvTAXyRkdcFkSMCFVyAdFCipSYijTbg8aehjWEoNdFZ8R7gl

are anywhere near accurate then Russia ultimately runs out of equipment.

The Russian army has already ceased to be capable of effective offensive action, at some point it will cease to be capable of effective defense.

Taz said:

boulay said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

...

malcolmg said:

Nigelb said:

kle4 said:

Cicero said:

Leon said:

TimS said:

Leon said:

TimS said:

Sunil_Prasannan said:

Leon said:

Dura_Ace said:

Leon said:

Probably it would go nuclear if Crimea was seriously close to being overrun

I definitely think RF would threaten it if Crimea was in peril. Maybe a 'test' detonation over the Black Sea. That would be enough to cause utter chaos in the financial markets and Biden would be on WhatsApp to Z telling him to chill the fuck out.

Yes. That’s what I think. Crimea is the red line

I’ve just been reading Simon Sebag Montefiore’s The Romanovs and it is highly illustrative of the psychological importance of the South Ukrainian coast - especially Odessa - even more Crimea - to Russia’s self image

Catherine’s lover Potemkin was buried in the town
he founded. Kherson. The Russians removed his bones as they retreated

So why did Putin flatten Odessa's cathedral last week?

Because he’s a mobster.

And the idea Crimea would be some nuclear red line seems predicated on Putin and his goons having a deep emotional attachment to it as an ancient motherland (which it isn’t and never was, even under the Tsars), rather than simply some turf his crew picked up by a stroke of good luck in 2014.

In February 2022 I was all in on contingency planning to flee the country if things turned nuclear. I had a location analysis spreadsheet. Now I realise the Eastern Europeans and Baltics knew what they were taking about while the rest of us ignored them for decades. Russia’s just a bog standard bully that cowers when people stand up to it. Look at the reaction to Wagner’s mutiny.

You are absolutely and cluelessly wrong about Crimea. Read some history

It’s up there with historical British possessions
like Ireland or the United States. Or French Algeria. Somewhere they have a long history of owning or coveting, but always in reality a colony.

That’s better than your first attempt. Let’s remind ourselves what you said

Crimea is “simply some turf Putin’s crew picked up by a stroke of good luck in 2014”

But you’re still not quite there. Many of these southern Ukrainian/Crimean towns were tiny villages or uninhabited swampland. Russians literally built them from nothing

Eg Kherson, Odesa

Catherine seized Crimea from the ottomans, Potemkin built it up. It’s been Russian since the late 18th century. It was Russian in the USSR until kruschev handed it to the ukes for reasons of internal politics

Catherine called Crimea “Russia’s piece of paradise”

There is a serious emotional attachment to Crimea, in Russia. They won’t give it up now without a massive fight, or they will drop a tactical nuke on some island and scare everyone into a truce as world economies collapse in panic

Except that it is a national myth. Potemkin did not build villages in the wilderness, he built fake villages with fake peasants. The people in South Ukraine were and are Ukrainian. The primary population of Crimea, until 1942 were Crimean Tatars. Stalin murdered them on an industrial scale. Crimea was allocated to the UkrSSR in 1954, because it was largely depopulated. It wasn´t some absurd Russian gesture of good will.

So the regime may manufacture some propaganda, but the Russian claim is as stupid as a British claim on, say, Tuscany or the Dordogne would be.

The next claim would be the Baltic, Poland, Germany- They will not stop with Crimea, nor Vohlynia, nor Saxony... They must be stopped here and now.

It is hard to see how Russia's government could survive losing Crimea without at least attempting to escalate still further, it is easy to see how international partners would pressure Ukraine into accepting the status quo there (even though it provides a launch pad for any future invasion attempts), especially if it was the only part that was left in that limbo.

But the basic point is irrefutable - if you succeed in one invasion to acquire territory you will believe you can do it again, even though in this scenario hundreds of thousands of lives were wasted on failed attempts to expand that area further.

If Ukraine retakes the Black Sea coast, holding Crimea without their consent becomes extremely difficult.
That might be a basis for a negotiation over its status. And indeed for a peace agreement.

Hard to see Ukraine accepting any compromise unless West desert them

It's a complete shitshow Malcolm. It cannot be put back in a box, and I cannot see any scenario that doesn't end in Russia taking a chunk of Ukraine, and all those with a Russian preference moving there, and vice versa. Then rebuilding, and heavily garrisoning each side. It was true 6 months ago, it is true now, and it will be true 6 month's hence, just more people will be dead, more buildings and equipment destroyed, and economies more destabilised.

I think you are correct bar some miraculous advances by Ukraine however much I wish to be wrong. I would imagine a Korea situation solution if donor fatigue hits and a negotiated settlement required with a DMZ and Crimea demilitarised, Ukraine can then join NATO as conflict officially over and then the DMZ on Ukraine side backed by a big NATO contingent to ensure Russia can’t try again once they have restocked their military.

Well from reading @Leon earlier in the week donor fatigue certainly seems to be something that is starting to happen in the US.

If this war grinds on, and I think it will as neither side seems to really have the upper hand, and Ukraine is largely reliant on the largesse of western nations then I suspect donor fatigue will become more and more mainstream.

The problem is that Trumps personal vendetta against the Bidens includes Ukraine, because of the stuff that led to his first impeachment.

The MAGA crowd want to pull funding and surplus weapons from Ukraine in order to get back at Biden. They want to cut down the tree because they don't like the bird singing in it.

In terms of value for money, and at considerable cost in Ukrainian blood, the USA has defanged and declawed the Russian bear, eliminating

"Personally, I’m less sure of Mr. Trump’s legal fate. Prosecutors will soon run up against the epistemological challenges of explaining and convicting a man whose behavior defies and undermines the structures and logic of civic life."

"...the prosecutors’ story of his grand scheming will most likely require them to present a figure of the former president — calculated, methodical, knowing and cunning — that none of his supporters or anyone who has ever met him or reasonable jurors and perhaps even the world at large would recognize."

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/08/04/opinion/trump-indictment-fraud.html

bondegezou said:

.

noneoftheabove said:

HYUFD said:

The problem for Republicans is Trump's first court case isn't until late March 2024 ie after Super Tuesday and the early Republican primaries and caucuses while his second case doesn't start until May. So depending on how long each case takes Trump could have won the nomination before the case concludes.

Yet a guilty verdict and jail sentence if he is convicted could be reached before the November general election and polls show even half of Republican voters would not vote for Trump again were he convicted

The problem for Republicans is they have surrendered their party and principles to a narcissistic toddler who wants to be a dictator.

Re the scheduling I'd expect Trumps lawyers to argue the court cases be postponed if he is the Republican nominee and can see courts going along with that.

Why should the courts agree to a postponement? That would not be standard procedure for any other defendant. “Oh, you’re busy with some voluntary activity in your life so you want your criminal trial delayed? No problem!”

Courts grant postponements all the time for reasons valid and spurious, US court cases often take forever and Trump is a master of court delay. The US Justice department has an informal 60 day rule that they wont start new investigations into candidates before an election so similar (different but similar) already exists. I can imagine Trump arguing a court handicapping a Presidential election by denying one of the main two candidates campaigning time is unreasonable vs a few months delay.

Or he might come up with something completely different, but he will almost certainly ask and I wouldn't be surprised if some delays are accepted. Of course he has several cases at once, so a delay in one case wouldn't necessarily create a delay in all. Perhaps he can schedule them in his favour of least likely to be conviced, or least serious first as an alternative.

Taz said:

Twitter thread on sea temperature and SO2’s which some may find interesting following recent discussions

https://twitter.com/hankgreen/status/1687535525169930241?s=61&t=s0ae0IFncdLS1Dc7J0P_TQ

Yes, this was fascinating. The “good” news about this sort of termination shock is that the heat in the Atlantic is probably superficial. This is about surface heating from eliminating low level clouds, rather than deep ocean warming through drawdown (though that drawdown will happen if the surface remains warm).

DavidL said:

FrankBooth said:

DavidL said:

Nigelb said:

malcolmg said:

Nigelb said:

kle4 said:

Cicero said:

Leon said:

TimS said:

Leon said:

TimS said:

Sunil_Prasannan said:

Leon said:

Dura_Ace said:

Leon said:

Probably it would go nuclear if Crimea was seriously close to being overrun

I definitely think RF would threaten it if Crimea was in peril. Maybe a 'test' detonation over the Black Sea. That would be enough to cause utter chaos in the financial markets and Biden would be on WhatsApp to Z telling him to chill the fuck out.

Yes. That’s what I think. Crimea is the red line

I’ve just been reading Simon Sebag Montefiore’s The Romanovs and it is highly illustrative of the psychological importance of the South Ukrainian coast - especially Odessa - even more Crimea - to Russia’s self image

Catherine’s lover Potemkin was buried in the town
he founded. Kherson. The Russians removed his bones as they retreated

So why did Putin flatten Odessa's cathedral last week?

Because he’s a mobster.

And the idea Crimea would be some nuclear red line seems predicated on Putin and his goons having a deep emotional attachment to it as an ancient motherland (which it isn’t and never was, even under the Tsars), rather than simply some turf his crew picked up by a stroke of good luck in 2014.

In February 2022 I was all in on contingency planning to flee the country if things turned nuclear. I had a location analysis spreadsheet. Now I realise the Eastern Europeans and Baltics knew what they were taking about while the rest of us ignored them for decades. Russia’s just a bog standard bully that cowers when people stand up to it. Look at the reaction to Wagner’s mutiny.

You are absolutely and cluelessly wrong about Crimea. Read some history

It’s up there with historical British possessions
like Ireland or the United States. Or French Algeria. Somewhere they have a long history of owning or coveting, but always in reality a colony.

That’s better than your first attempt. Let’s remind ourselves what you said

Crimea is “simply some turf Putin’s crew picked up by a stroke of good luck in 2014”

But you’re still not quite there. Many of these southern Ukrainian/Crimean towns were tiny villages or uninhabited swampland. Russians literally built them from nothing

Eg Kherson, Odesa

Catherine seized Crimea from the ottomans, Potemkin built it up. It’s been Russian since the late 18th century. It was Russian in the USSR until kruschev handed it to the ukes for reasons of internal politics

Catherine called Crimea “Russia’s piece of paradise”

There is a serious emotional attachment to Crimea, in Russia. They won’t give it up now without a massive fight, or they will drop a tactical nuke on some island and scare everyone into a truce as world economies collapse in panic

Except that it is a national myth. Potemkin did not build villages in the wilderness, he built fake villages with fake peasants. The people in South Ukraine were and are Ukrainian. The primary population of Crimea, until 1942 were Crimean Tatars. Stalin murdered them on an industrial scale. Crimea was allocated to the UkrSSR in 1954, because it was largely depopulated. It wasn´t some absurd Russian gesture of good will.

So the regime may manufacture some propaganda, but the Russian claim is as stupid as a British claim on, say, Tuscany or the Dordogne would be.

The next claim would be the Baltic, Poland, Germany- They will not stop with Crimea, nor Vohlynia, nor Saxony... They must be stopped here and now.

It is hard to see how Russia's government could survive losing Crimea without at least attempting to escalate still further, it is easy to see how international partners would pressure Ukraine into accepting the status quo there (even though it provides a launch pad for any future invasion attempts), especially if it was the only part that was left in that limbo.

But the basic point is irrefutable - if you succeed in one invasion to acquire territory you will believe you can do it again, even though in this scenario hundreds of thousands of lives were wasted on failed attempts to expand that area further.

If Ukraine retakes the Black Sea coast, holding Crimea without their consent becomes extremely difficult.
That might be a basis for a negotiation over its status. And indeed for a peace agreement.

Hard to see Ukraine accepting any compromise unless West desert them

Quite possibly.
But the point is that without their retaking the coast, the war will continue.

Yes, breaking the land line between Russia and Crimea is the key to winning, even if it doesn't end it. Mariupol is the key objective but it looks quite a long way off.

I think the railway line, which is crucial for Russian logistics, is well to the north of Mariupol.

And it is now in range of Ukrainian artillery. But road transport is important too.

And as for the bridge: https://twitter.com/i/status/1687585098172858368

rottenborough said:

"Personally, I’m less sure of Mr. Trump’s legal fate. Prosecutors will soon run up against the epistemological challenges of explaining and convicting a man whose behavior defies and undermines the structures and logic of civic life."

"...the prosecutors’ story of his grand scheming will most likely require them to present a figure of the former president — calculated, methodical, knowing and cunning — that none of his supporters or anyone who has ever met him or reasonable jurors and perhaps even the world at large would recognize."

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/08/04/opinion/trump-indictment-fraud.html

Non-paywall: https://archive.is/jmHhw

...

viewcode said:

rottenborough said:

"Personally, I’m less sure of Mr. Trump’s legal fate. Prosecutors will soon run up against the epistemological challenges of explaining and convicting a man whose behavior defies and undermines the structures and logic of civic life."

"...the prosecutors’ story of his grand scheming will most likely require them to present a figure of the former president — calculated, methodical, knowing and cunning — that none of his supporters or anyone who has ever met him or reasonable jurors and perhaps even the world at large would recognize."

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/08/04/opinion/trump-indictment-fraud.html

Non-paywall: https://archive.is/jmHhw

Not a great look that a global anti-pollution measure has backfired in such a spectacular way if that is what's happened. And hardly lends credence to the argument that we should grind the UK economy to a halt to reduce CO2 emissions, when other things can make such a huge and virtually instantaneous difference.

No_Offence_Alan said:

noneoftheabove said:

bondegezou said:

.

noneoftheabove said:

HYUFD said:

The problem for Republicans is Trump's first court case isn't until late March 2024 ie after Super Tuesday and the early Republican primaries and caucuses while his second case doesn't start until May. So depending on how long each case takes Trump could have won the nomination before the case concludes.

Yet a guilty verdict and jail sentence if he is convicted could be reached before the November general election and polls show even half of Republican voters would not vote for Trump again were he convicted

The problem for Republicans is they have surrendered their party and principles to a narcissistic toddler who wants to be a dictator.

Re the scheduling I'd expect Trumps lawyers to argue the court cases be postponed if he is the Republican nominee and can see courts going along with that.

Why should the courts agree to a postponement? That would not be standard procedure for any other defendant. “Oh, you’re busy with some voluntary activity in your life so you want your criminal trial delayed? No problem!”

Courts grant postponements all the time for reasons valid and spurious, US court cases often take forever and Trump is a master of court delay. The US Justice department has an informal 60 day rule that they wont start new investigations into candidates before an election so similar (different but similar) already exists. I can imagine Trump arguing a court handicapping a Presidential election by denying one of the main two candidates campaigning time is unreasonable vs a few months delay.

Or he might come up with something completely different, but he will almost certainly ask and I wouldn't be surprised if some delays are accepted. Of course he has several cases at once, so a delay in one case wouldn't necessarily create a delay in all. Perhaps he can schedule them in his favour of least likely to be conviced, or least serious first as an alternative.

At what point will some GOP wannabe have the courage to say "Do you want your campaign donations to fight Biden, or to pay Trumps' legal fees?"

Chris Christie is saying that.
https://twitter.com/GovChristie/status/1686784012109463552?t=3nI_PXeB2EuqheglznB3aA&s=19

Malmesbury said:

kle4 said:

Leon said:

Cicero said:

Leon said:

TimS said:

Leon said:

TimS said:

Sunil_Prasannan said:

Leon said:

Dura_Ace said:

Leon said:

Probably it would go nuclear if Crimea was seriously close to being overrun

I definitely think RF would threaten it if Crimea was in peril. Maybe a 'test' detonation over the Black Sea. That would be enough to cause utter chaos in the financial markets and Biden would be on WhatsApp to Z telling him to chill the fuck out.

Yes. That’s what I think. Crimea is the red line

I’ve just been reading Simon Sebag Montefiore’s The Romanovs and it is highly illustrative of the psychological importance of the South Ukrainian coast - especially Odessa - even more Crimea - to Russia’s self image

Catherine’s lover Potemkin was buried in the town
he founded. Kherson. The Russians removed his bones as they retreated

So why did Putin flatten Odessa's cathedral last week?

Because he’s a mobster.

And the idea Crimea would be some nuclear red line seems predicated on Putin and his goons having a deep emotional attachment to it as an ancient motherland (which it isn’t and never was, even under the Tsars), rather than simply some turf his crew picked up by a stroke of good luck in 2014.

In February 2022 I was all in on contingency planning to flee the country if things turned nuclear. I had a location analysis spreadsheet. Now I realise the Eastern Europeans and Baltics knew what they were taking about while the rest of us ignored them for decades. Russia’s just a bog standard bully that cowers when people stand up to it. Look at the reaction to Wagner’s mutiny.

You are absolutely and cluelessly wrong about Crimea. Read some history

It’s up there with historical British possessions
like Ireland or the United States. Or French Algeria. Somewhere they have a long history of owning or coveting, but always in reality a colony.

That’s better than your first attempt. Let’s remind ourselves what you said

Crimea is “simply some turf Putin’s crew picked up by a stroke of good luck in 2014”

But you’re still not quite there. Many of these southern Ukrainian/Crimean towns were tiny villages or uninhabited swampland. Russians literally built them from nothing

Eg Kherson, Odesa

Catherine seized Crimea from the ottomans, Potemkin built it up. It’s been Russian since the late 18th century. It was Russian in the USSR until kruschev handed it to the ukes for reasons of internal politics

Catherine called Crimea “Russia’s piece of paradise”

There is a serious emotional attachment to Crimea, in Russia. They won’t give it up now without a massive fight, or they will drop a tactical nuke on some island and scare everyone into a truce as world economies collapse in panic

Except that it is a national myth. Potemkin did not build villages in the wilderness, he built fake villages with fake peasants. The people in South Ukraine were and are Ukrainian. The primary population of Crimea, until 1942 were Crimean Tatars. Stalin murdered them on an industrial scale. Crimea was allocated to the UkrSSR in 1954, because it was largely depopulated. It wasn´t some absurd Russian gesture of good will.

So the regime may manufacture some propaganda, but the Russian claim is as stupid as a British claim on, say, Tuscany or the Dordogne would be.

No. “Potemkin” villages are themselves a myth

Read more

And the idea Russia didn’t build Odesa is infantile. Look at it

And the Ukrainians do look and sound awfully Russian. That’s the tragedy of the whole thing

Putin has turned a natural brother into a mortal enemy

That's because he and most Russians don't see them as brothers, but subjects. Good way to turn friendly disposed peoples into enemies.

Before the start of the recent war, I was told here that to describe Russia or China as empires was “to make the concept of empire meaningless”

If you rule a collection of cultures & counties by force, methodically demolishing their identity, and ruling them as second class citizens in their own land - that’s an empire.

The imperial mentality is exactly what Cicero describes above.

If the only way to “keep” your subjects is to channel General Dwyer, you are running an Empire. End of.

General Dyer!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reginald_Dyer

Michael O'Dwyer was the Governor of Punjab at the time.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_O'Dwyer