Rejoin won't become a reality until the Conservative Party advocates it wholeheartedly. So not in my lifetime. The EU won't even consider us rejoining without that - there would be no point in going through a rejoin/Brexit cycle every time the UK government changed.
What that means for the LDs and pro-Europeans in general, I don't know. Perhaps campaign in a GE on 'Brexit is rubbish' but without making any commitment beyond 'working more closely' with the EU, and actively campaign to rejoin at some future date between GEs.
It needs someone as annoying as Farage to bang on about it for 20 years outside the main party system
The Tory Party will get behind rejoin if there is an electrical advantage, i.e. they can somehow pretend it is Labour's fault.
They will do it as cynically and opportunistically as they always do.
The Tories would never get behind Rejoin as they would see most of their voters defect to RefUK.
In the short term the only way we likely get Rejoin the EU or even EEA is a hung parliament at the next general election with the LDs holding the balance of power.
Or in the longer term at a 3rd term Labour government but only on the same terms as we had in 2016
My point was that we won't in that scenario, because the EU will just laugh and tell us to come back when we're serious.
Only when the Tories (or whatever the main right wing party is by then) realise that Brexit is a disaster, will we rejoin
The Tories will never rejoin, at most they might accept it after a Labour or Labour/LD government had already rejoined the EU although even then would more likely just rejoin EFTA
You cannot bind future Tory parties by proclamation on here, it is quite imaginable we get to a stage where their choice is become rejoiners or go extinct, because that is what the electorate wants. This is a rather obvious thing about being a political party in a democracy.
No, the choice would be between become a 9% Rejoin party ie what May's Tories got in the 2019 European elections having failed to deliver Brexit or a 37% party potentially as are the number who still back Brexit.
Only Labour and the LDs would ever take the UK back into the EU, the Tory voter coalition would never allow it and would defect en masse to Farage and ReformUK if it did
"Ever." Just how myopic can you get? Do you know how we got in to the EEC in the first place?
Just in case anyone was thinking it is worth negotiating with Russia, Medvedev reminds us why we shouldn't.
A new idea for Ukraine has emerged from the North Atlantic Alliance office: Ukraine will be able to join NATO if it gives up the disputed territories.
It does look like an interesting idea. The only problem is that all of – supposedly – their territories are highly disputable. And to enter the bloc, the Kiev authorities will have to give up even Kiev itself, the capital of Ancient Rus.
Only defeat has a chance of ridding Russia of its imperialist delusions and consequently creating a lasting peace.
There is not currently a route to a suitable place with Russia via negotiations. They choose to settle this via war and we have to ensure that they lose this war of their choosing.
How do you defeat a nuclear power who has suggested they might use nukes? And what happens to Russia after defeat?
Like, I agree that Russia needs to lose this war, but I don't see how that can happen with the situation as it is. It's not even like getting rid of Putin sorts anything out, because most of the people likely to take over in that scenario are more hard line than Putin.
A defeat in a war of aggression is a failure to hold on to the territory that is the target of the aggression. I don't think that leads to a nuclear response, as it didn't when Russia lost Kherson city.
Obviously you can't march on Moscow. So you might have to defend yourself against repeated wars of aggression until they get the message. But that's preferable to negotiating away more and more of Eastern Europe and providing Russia with the evidence that we don't have the resolve to stop them.
I would prefer a lasting peace - and that would likely involve understanding and helping fix Russia rather than continuing its pariah status. The neoliberalisation of its post USSR economy and working with Putin (as many saw Putin in the 90s as the right man) obviously hasn't led to lasting post Cold War peace - so what will?
If Putin feels losing this war will lead to him losing his job, which is the only thing that means he won't lose his life, why wouldn't he be willing to consider nuclear weapons? If the situation starts looking like unrest at home, if more Russian men are conscripted or losses increase, how will they make up for that? They could surrender, or they could push the button. I hope they would chose surrender, but then what the terms of that surrender are need to be something that is both a pathway to long term peace and also not so egregious to those in charge that fighting to the death isn't preferable. I don't know what that looks like; I cannot see something that would be enough to appease those who lead in Russia and also make it clear we won't have to do this all over again in two or three decades.
We would all prefer a lasting peace, but that's not our choice. It's Russia's. We can't control what happens in Russia. We can only choose how to react to it.
I think the international community have an obligation to try to work with Russia after its defeat to try and create a lasting peace.
First things first - defeat them comprehensively and liberate every single part of occupied Ukraine.
Once Russia surrenders, then we can consider working with them.
I doubt that's going to happen. It's looking increasingly as though the current situation is going to become a stalemate, with Russia illegally holding on to approximately the territory it currently occupies. It is clearly militarily difficult to dislodge such well dug-in troops, we can't attack Russia directly in any significant way, and Russia has enough economic support from third countries to withstand Western sanctions. The only real chance that I can see is political change within Russia leading to a voluntary withdrawal from the occupied territory.
Until it happens Russia need to be pariahs like North Korea.
And as long as Ukrainians are willing to fight to liberate their territory, that is their choice, and we should completely and unequivocally support them with every single thing they want to aid them in that fight.
What if the Ukrainians want NATO troops to help?
Oh, they’re helping, and helping lots.
Training, intelligence, logistics, and no doubt a few other things that don’t get discussed.
I'm curious as to how many resources are going towards holding the northern border against Belarus, given that's where part of the initial invasion came from.
I wonder if Poland etc would consider a security guarantee for everything west of Kyiv. Too aggro?
A common thread in Russian propaganda has been that Poland wants to annex parts of Ukraine and Belarus, Utter rubbish, but any Polish troops in Ukraine or Belarus will be shown to the world as a war and 'invasion' - whereas as everyone knows, Russia's war in Ukraine is just a peaceful SMO...
Politically, Polish troops taking direct part in either country will be massively difficult, for the reason above, and also because it would be 'NATO' involcement.
The poll also suggested that there would be another pro-independence majority after the next Holyrood election, with the SNP winning 57 seats and the Greens ten. Labour would return 38 MSPs to comfortably overtake the Conservatives whose representation at Holyrood would almost halve, to 16 MSPs. The Liberal Democrats would win eight seats under this scenario.
YouGov interviewed 1,086 people aged 16 and older in Scotland between August 3 and 8.
Combined Unionist parties on 62 MSPs however ahead of the SNP on 57 MSPs on that projection and just 5 behind the combined SNP and Greens total. Sarwar now has a net positive rating with Scots unlike Yousaf so at least a chance he will be next FM
Ah, HYUFD arithmetic where a minority of Unionist msps beats a majority of pro Indy msps. Who do you think votes in an FM? Rumours of the death of the SNP greatly exaggerated in any case.
Agree with that. Starmer/Sarwar still struggling to achieve definitive tipping point. The main danger to SNP is civil war breaking out over the alliance with the Greens. That would follow if Nats get hammered at GE but the result still appears open at the moment.
Starmer/Sarwar have had some success in convincing anti EU anti immigration Red wall voters in England and vaguely progressive pro EU voters in Scotland that Labour is the party for them, but the essential contradiction in those positions has to come to a head sooner or later. Pretending to these groups that the other doesn't exist only works for so long.
Seems the SNP have stabilised a little and much will depend on the outcome of the police investigations
As far as Starmer is concerned he remains an English man from London trying to ride two horses at once, with differences over trans gender policies and the 2 children rule between himself and Sawar, and indeed Khan and himself over ULEZ
I note a lot of wishcasting about Keir Starmer by Tory and SNP supporters: a sense that any time soon he's going to be "found out", and people will return to their rightful home.
But this is the sort of thinking that landed Labour in trouble in the mid 2000s, kicked them out of most of Scotland in 2015 and buried the Lib Dems in the South West in the same election. And ejected Labour from swathes of the North and Midlands in 2019. The idea a bloc of voters belongs rightfully to your party. It's the same tendency that could nobble the Tories in the home counties and South Coast next year (fingers crossed) and reverse some of those 2015 SNP gains in Scotland. It leads to supporters ignoring the warning signs and convincing themselves that their voters will come home once they find out the opposition for who they really are.
I'm convinced most of the opposition just assumed that voters would see through Boris' bluster. They probably did, but they voted for him anyway. Same with Keir. It's not that voters are unaware of his or Labour's limitations. They just seem to have concluded it's time for a change.
The difficulty about projecting how well Labour are going to do is that Starmer isn't particularly popular, he is just less unpopular than the alternatives. This means it looks like Labour is on course to win a parliamentary majority, and a big one, but it doesn't say much about how long that majority can be held together and what Starmer will do with it. So far he seems to be flouting policies to the right of Blair - which is not really the platform he was elected to the Labour leadership on. If he runs in a GE as that figure, I could see lots of voters going "back" to the SNP (although less so the Tories). On the other hand, if he tries to paint himself as someone who wants to change things significantly - who wants to fix a "broken Britain" - he might alienate Tory voters who really just want things to go "back to normal" with low interest rates and the like.
I think we could see a very large Labour majority that becomes very unpopular very quickly because it doesn't seem like many voters actively like Starmer's political vision for the UK.
I'm not sure I agree with this either. The voter ratings for Starmer are OK. Not stellar, but not bad at all. That's probably ideal ahead of an election. If expectations were sky high then the risk of rapid disillusionment would be greater. His political vision isn't transformational certainly, it's a bit prosaic. But it's not scary.
Labour's biggest risk after an election is the Conservatives getting their act together. How likely is that? I strongly suspect they have at least one more round of craziness in them before they wake up from their fever dream.
That's my view too. Winning a majority yet with nobody 'inspired' and expecting the earth to move is a political sweet spot for an incoming government and by a mixture of luck and planning it appears that Starmer will land right on it.
I disagree - sure it means fewer people to "let down" but it also means no hopeful populace already behind your mission, no political capital to point at and go "look, the voters put me here to do x, so let's do it". Is anyone truly going to feel they owe Starmer their seat in the same way MPs felt they did to Blair, or even Johnson? I also look at Starmer's team and see nothing but a desire to destroy the left - no coalition building within the party, no actual relationship building with unions or other stakeholder groups. Hell, Sunak gave a bigger pay rise to nurses than Starmer was willing to! We could have more strikes, more inflation and a Labour government to the right of this one on that issue...
I just don't see Starmer being a good PM or his government being popular for long.
All votes count '1' remember, however grudging or passionate. A big majority is a big majority. It's a mandate.
With Starmer I see only one thing at the moment - a determination to win the election. I don't have a strong sense of how he'll govern (assuming he does win) apart from being more competent and less divisive than we've grown used to in recent times. I think we can at least bank on that and I reckon this in itself will be enough to prevent any short order collapse in popularity.
Of course I hope he does (or at least attempts) some serious transformational things on what imo should be the defining mission of the Labour Party (reducing inequality) and we'll have to see if he does. It's hard to predict because pre election is different to post election.
The rhetoric atm is cagey and I think the manifesto will be. Nothing will be allowed to jeopardize the win. Same with the neutering of the Left. That's also about securing the win. I don't conclude from it that Starmer has zero sympathy with left wing ideas and won't be influenced by them as PM.
That's literally true, but politically it isn't. Starmer could get a huge majority, but the political capital of that depends on where MPs and people believe that majority came from. If MPs believe it is just a case that people were tired of the Tories and any Labour leader could have won, then why would they follow Starmer over anyone else? If voters make it clear early on that this was an election where they wanted to remove the Tory government, and not one where they specifically endorse Starmer's government policies (through strike action, protest, or through polling or local elections) then Starmer quickly becomes a lame duck PM.
Winning the election is all well and good - but you can't just want to win for winnings sake. You have to want to do something with the power being in government will bring, and enough people have to believe in that for you to be legitimate. If people only vote for you because they hate the other team more, it is harder to implement your agenda. And if you don't have an agenda you believe in, or your agenda isn't actually that much different from the other team's, then you create issues where the electorate starts spiralling into the "they're all the same, can't trust any of them" cycle.
I do get these points. And if SKS ends up governing with no energy or radicalism I'll be disappointed - but I'm not about to jump the gun and get disappointed now.
I think we differ on the question at the heart of this. Could Labour win from the Left in 2024 in a country that voted for a right populist project in 2016 and shortly thereafter delivered a landslide for Boris Johnson?
You, I infer, think they could. I think not. I think they need to win first, bed in, gain confidence, then inject the radicalism from a position of strength. They need to roll the pitch for it in government not in opposition. If they do the latter they won't get to see the former. Not in 2024 anyway, which is what counts right now.
Just in case anyone was thinking it is worth negotiating with Russia, Medvedev reminds us why we shouldn't.
A new idea for Ukraine has emerged from the North Atlantic Alliance office: Ukraine will be able to join NATO if it gives up the disputed territories.
It does look like an interesting idea. The only problem is that all of – supposedly – their territories are highly disputable. And to enter the bloc, the Kiev authorities will have to give up even Kiev itself, the capital of Ancient Rus.
Only defeat has a chance of ridding Russia of its imperialist delusions and consequently creating a lasting peace.
There is not currently a route to a suitable place with Russia via negotiations. They choose to settle this via war and we have to ensure that they lose this war of their choosing.
How do you defeat a nuclear power who has suggested they might use nukes? And what happens to Russia after defeat?
Like, I agree that Russia needs to lose this war, but I don't see how that can happen with the situation as it is. It's not even like getting rid of Putin sorts anything out, because most of the people likely to take over in that scenario are more hard line than Putin.
A defeat in a war of aggression is a failure to hold on to the territory that is the target of the aggression. I don't think that leads to a nuclear response, as it didn't when Russia lost Kherson city.
Obviously you can't march on Moscow. So you might have to defend yourself against repeated wars of aggression until they get the message. But that's preferable to negotiating away more and more of Eastern Europe and providing Russia with the evidence that we don't have the resolve to stop them.
I would prefer a lasting peace - and that would likely involve understanding and helping fix Russia rather than continuing its pariah status. The neoliberalisation of its post USSR economy and working with Putin (as many saw Putin in the 90s as the right man) obviously hasn't led to lasting post Cold War peace - so what will?
If Putin feels losing this war will lead to him losing his job, which is the only thing that means he won't lose his life, why wouldn't he be willing to consider nuclear weapons? If the situation starts looking like unrest at home, if more Russian men are conscripted or losses increase, how will they make up for that? They could surrender, or they could push the button. I hope they would chose surrender, but then what the terms of that surrender are need to be something that is both a pathway to long term peace and also not so egregious to those in charge that fighting to the death isn't preferable. I don't know what that looks like; I cannot see something that would be enough to appease those who lead in Russia and also make it clear we won't have to do this all over again in two or three decades.
We would all prefer a lasting peace, but that's not our choice. It's Russia's. We can't control what happens in Russia. We can only choose how to react to it.
I think the international community have an obligation to try to work with Russia after its defeat to try and create a lasting peace.
First things first - defeat them comprehensively and liberate every single part of occupied Ukraine.
Once Russia surrenders, then we can consider working with them.
I doubt that's going to happen. It's looking increasingly as though the current situation is going to become a stalemate, with Russia illegally holding on to approximately the territory it currently occupies. It is clearly militarily difficult to dislodge such well dug-in troops, we can't attack Russia directly in any significant way, and Russia has enough economic support from third countries to withstand Western sanctions. The only real chance that I can see is political change within Russia leading to a voluntary withdrawal from the occupied territory.
Until it happens Russia need to be pariahs like North Korea.
And as long as Ukrainians are willing to fight to liberate their territory, that is their choice, and we should completely and unequivocally support them with every single thing they want to aid them in that fight.
What if the Ukrainians want NATO troops to help?
Oh, they’re helping, and helping lots.
Training, intelligence, logistics, and no doubt a few other things that don’t get discussed.
I'm curious as to how many resources are going towards holding the northern border against Belarus, given that's where part of the initial invasion came from.
I wonder if Poland etc would consider a security guarantee for everything west of Kyiv. Too aggro?
A common thread in Russian propaganda has been that Poland wants to annex parts of Ukraine and Belarus, Utter rubbish, but any Polish troops in Ukraine or Belarus will be shown to the world as a war and 'invasion' - whereas as everyone knows, Russia's war in Ukraine is just a peaceful SMO...
Politically, Polish troops taking direct part in either country will be massively difficult, for the reason above, and also because it would be 'NATO' involcement.
Something purely defensive like anti-air?
The problem is there are so few ways to shake the conflict up. Mines and artillery are playing to Russian strengths.
“Elon Musk won’t fight Mark Zuckerberg in a ‘cage match’ – because he knows he’d lose”
NARRATOR: Elon Musk is 6 foot 1, and 85kg; Mark Zuckerberg is 5 foot 7, and 70kg
And Zuckerberg is actively training and has actively done this kind of fighting for a while now, and Musk... hasn't. I'm 6ft 5 and close to 100kg - I have a friend who is just under 6ft and closer to something like 80kg, but they do kickboxing twice a week. Are we saying I'd be favourite in a "cage match" against them?
The problem with some of that is the current Russian regime barely acknowledges the existence of an independent Ukraine. For them, it is 'the Ukraine' - the borderland - not 'Ukraine'. \
This is balls. There is no definite (or indefinite) article in Russian.
Elon Musk is worth approx $450 billion, at least pre-Twitter. His hair transplants were not brilliant and apparently he can't afford lipo and an abdominoplasty. It takes all the fun out of dreams of unlimited wealth, I'll tell you that.
The poll also suggested that there would be another pro-independence majority after the next Holyrood election, with the SNP winning 57 seats and the Greens ten. Labour would return 38 MSPs to comfortably overtake the Conservatives whose representation at Holyrood would almost halve, to 16 MSPs. The Liberal Democrats would win eight seats under this scenario.
YouGov interviewed 1,086 people aged 16 and older in Scotland between August 3 and 8.
Combined Unionist parties on 62 MSPs however ahead of the SNP on 57 MSPs on that projection and just 5 behind the combined SNP and Greens total. Sarwar now has a net positive rating with Scots unlike Yousaf so at least a chance he will be next FM
Ah, HYUFD arithmetic where a minority of Unionist msps beats a majority of pro Indy msps. Who do you think votes in an FM? Rumours of the death of the SNP greatly exaggerated in any case.
Agree with that. Starmer/Sarwar still struggling to achieve definitive tipping point. The main danger to SNP is civil war breaking out over the alliance with the Greens. That would follow if Nats get hammered at GE but the result still appears open at the moment.
Starmer/Sarwar have had some success in convincing anti EU anti immigration Red wall voters in England and vaguely progressive pro EU voters in Scotland that Labour is the party for them, but the essential contradiction in those positions has to come to a head sooner or later. Pretending to these groups that the other doesn't exist only works for so long.
Seems the SNP have stabilised a little and much will depend on the outcome of the police investigations
As far as Starmer is concerned he remains an English man from London trying to ride two horses at once, with differences over trans gender policies and the 2 children rule between himself and Sawar, and indeed Khan and himself over ULEZ
I note a lot of wishcasting about Keir Starmer by Tory and SNP supporters: a sense that any time soon he's going to be "found out", and people will return to their rightful home.
But this is the sort of thinking that landed Labour in trouble in the mid 2000s, kicked them out of most of Scotland in 2015 and buried the Lib Dems in the South West in the same election. And ejected Labour from swathes of the North and Midlands in 2019. The idea a bloc of voters belongs rightfully to your party. It's the same tendency that could nobble the Tories in the home counties and South Coast next year (fingers crossed) and reverse some of those 2015 SNP gains in Scotland. It leads to supporters ignoring the warning signs and convincing themselves that their voters will come home once they find out the opposition for who they really are.
I'm convinced most of the opposition just assumed that voters would see through Boris' bluster. They probably did, but they voted for him anyway. Same with Keir. It's not that voters are unaware of his or Labour's limitations. They just seem to have concluded it's time for a change.
The difficulty about projecting how well Labour are going to do is that Starmer isn't particularly popular, he is just less unpopular than the alternatives. This means it looks like Labour is on course to win a parliamentary majority, and a big one, but it doesn't say much about how long that majority can be held together and what Starmer will do with it. So far he seems to be flouting policies to the right of Blair - which is not really the platform he was elected to the Labour leadership on. If he runs in a GE as that figure, I could see lots of voters going "back" to the SNP (although less so the Tories). On the other hand, if he tries to paint himself as someone who wants to change things significantly - who wants to fix a "broken Britain" - he might alienate Tory voters who really just want things to go "back to normal" with low interest rates and the like.
I think we could see a very large Labour majority that becomes very unpopular very quickly because it doesn't seem like many voters actively like Starmer's political vision for the UK.
I'm not sure I agree with this either. The voter ratings for Starmer are OK. Not stellar, but not bad at all. That's probably ideal ahead of an election. If expectations were sky high then the risk of rapid disillusionment would be greater. His political vision isn't transformational certainly, it's a bit prosaic. But it's not scary.
Labour's biggest risk after an election is the Conservatives getting their act together. How likely is that? I strongly suspect they have at least one more round of craziness in them before they wake up from their fever dream.
That's my view too. Winning a majority yet with nobody 'inspired' and expecting the earth to move is a political sweet spot for an incoming government and by a mixture of luck and planning it appears that Starmer will land right on it.
I disagree - sure it means fewer people to "let down" but it also means no hopeful populace already behind your mission, no political capital to point at and go "look, the voters put me here to do x, so let's do it". Is anyone truly going to feel they owe Starmer their seat in the same way MPs felt they did to Blair, or even Johnson? I also look at Starmer's team and see nothing but a desire to destroy the left - no coalition building within the party, no actual relationship building with unions or other stakeholder groups. Hell, Sunak gave a bigger pay rise to nurses than Starmer was willing to! We could have more strikes, more inflation and a Labour government to the right of this one on that issue...
I just don't see Starmer being a good PM or his government being popular for long.
All votes count '1' remember, however grudging or passionate. A big majority is a big majority. It's a mandate.
With Starmer I see only one thing at the moment - a determination to win the election. I don't have a strong sense of how he'll govern (assuming he does win) apart from being more competent and less divisive than we've grown used to in recent times. I think we can at least bank on that and I reckon this in itself will be enough to prevent any short order collapse in popularity.
Of course I hope he does (or at least attempts) some serious transformational things on what imo should be the defining mission of the Labour Party (reducing inequality) and we'll have to see if he does. It's hard to predict because pre election is different to post election.
The rhetoric atm is cagey and I think the manifesto will be. Nothing will be allowed to jeopardize the win. Same with the neutering of the Left. That's also about securing the win. I don't conclude from it that Starmer has zero sympathy with left wing ideas and won't be influenced by them as PM.
That's literally true, but politically it isn't. Starmer could get a huge majority, but the political capital of that depends on where MPs and people believe that majority came from. If MPs believe it is just a case that people were tired of the Tories and any Labour leader could have won, then why would they follow Starmer over anyone else? If voters make it clear early on that this was an election where they wanted to remove the Tory government, and not one where they specifically endorse Starmer's government policies (through strike action, protest, or through polling or local elections) then Starmer quickly becomes a lame duck PM.
Winning the election is all well and good - but you can't just want to win for winnings sake. You have to want to do something with the power being in government will bring, and enough people have to believe in that for you to be legitimate. If people only vote for you because they hate the other team more, it is harder to implement your agenda. And if you don't have an agenda you believe in, or your agenda isn't actually that much different from the other team's, then you create issues where the electorate starts spiralling into the "they're all the same, can't trust any of them" cycle.
If (as seems likely) Starmer wins the general election, he’ll have more of a mandate than Sunak or Truss, who came in as PMs partway through a Parliament. He’ll do fine.
“Elon Musk won’t fight Mark Zuckerberg in a ‘cage match’ – because he knows he’d lose”
NARRATOR: Elon Musk is 6 foot 1, and 85kg; Mark Zuckerberg is 5 foot 7, and 70kg
And Zuckerberg is actively training and has actively done this kind of fighting for a while now, and Musk... hasn't. I'm 6ft 5 and close to 100kg - I have a friend who is just under 6ft and closer to something like 80kg, but they do kickboxing twice a week. Are we saying I'd be favourite in a "cage match" against them?
It would be like that scene in In Bruges where Colin Farrell runs away from the tourists.
I think there's a delusion running through your posts on this issue that the West is in control and can choose the outcome it wants (and therefore we should choose the option with zero deaths which means stopping the fighting now).
It's important to remember that this is happening because of the choice by Putin and Russia to invade, and we are reacting to that choice. We can't force Russia to be a reasonable and trustworthy counterparty in negotiations by finding a magic form of words, or a perfect compromise.
We have to accept the reality that their invasion showed us. They do not share our view of a world run by rules, agreements, negotiations and peaceful coexistence. They have a view of the world based on power, domination, imperialism and unilateral action. They are imposing that world view on the people of Ukraine and we either do all we can to resist that, or the future for the world is a much darker place.
You're of course right that we can't control the situation and decide the outcome - if we could, then simply saying "We decree that Russia is removed" would be the best option. But we're not powerless either. We are encouraging Ukraine to think that we will keep escalating with more and more sophisticated weaponry and that somehow that will enable them to win outright.
There are two snags in that. First, it's not clear that an outright win is a realistic prospect, and years of war will certainly lead to further massive deaths on both sides - we shouldn't be complicit in that unless we think it will work. Second, we are encouraging them to count on us indefinitely. All big powers have a history of supporting locally favoured governments (and factions) until we get fed up, and we do nearly always get fed up in the end, if only because a new government takes a different view (Trump is the obvious risk, but probably not the only one). We should IMO combine continued support with a realistic private assessment that they shouldn't assume that it will continue forever, and if they do show willingness to negotiate we will step up support to improve their negotiating position. It's not that different to our current policy, but the nuance is important.
I think Ukraine is well aware of the snags. They are aware of the deaths this war will cause (they are also aware of the deaths and trauma that will occur if Russia wins - which is one reason they are fighting). They are also aware that the support might not last forever - which will be one reason they are constantly asking for more.
The Ukrainians are not stupid, whatever Russians make them out to be.
Also, our support should not be reliant on their willingness to 'negotiate'; for one thing, that just pressures them into early negotiations.
Just in case anyone was thinking it is worth negotiating with Russia, Medvedev reminds us why we shouldn't.
A new idea for Ukraine has emerged from the North Atlantic Alliance office: Ukraine will be able to join NATO if it gives up the disputed territories.
It does look like an interesting idea. The only problem is that all of – supposedly – their territories are highly disputable. And to enter the bloc, the Kiev authorities will have to give up even Kiev itself, the capital of Ancient Rus.
Only defeat has a chance of ridding Russia of its imperialist delusions and consequently creating a lasting peace.
There is not currently a route to a suitable place with Russia via negotiations. They choose to settle this via war and we have to ensure that they lose this war of their choosing.
How do you defeat a nuclear power who has suggested they might use nukes? And what happens to Russia after defeat?
Like, I agree that Russia needs to lose this war, but I don't see how that can happen with the situation as it is. It's not even like getting rid of Putin sorts anything out, because most of the people likely to take over in that scenario are more hard line than Putin.
A defeat in a war of aggression is a failure to hold on to the territory that is the target of the aggression. I don't think that leads to a nuclear response, as it didn't when Russia lost Kherson city.
Obviously you can't march on Moscow. So you might have to defend yourself against repeated wars of aggression until they get the message. But that's preferable to negotiating away more and more of Eastern Europe and providing Russia with the evidence that we don't have the resolve to stop them.
I would prefer a lasting peace - and that would likely involve understanding and helping fix Russia rather than continuing its pariah status. The neoliberalisation of its post USSR economy and working with Putin (as many saw Putin in the 90s as the right man) obviously hasn't led to lasting post Cold War peace - so what will?
If Putin feels losing this war will lead to him losing his job, which is the only thing that means he won't lose his life, why wouldn't he be willing to consider nuclear weapons? If the situation starts looking like unrest at home, if more Russian men are conscripted or losses increase, how will they make up for that? They could surrender, or they could push the button. I hope they would chose surrender, but then what the terms of that surrender are need to be something that is both a pathway to long term peace and also not so egregious to those in charge that fighting to the death isn't preferable. I don't know what that looks like; I cannot see something that would be enough to appease those who lead in Russia and also make it clear we won't have to do this all over again in two or three decades.
We would all prefer a lasting peace, but that's not our choice. It's Russia's. We can't control what happens in Russia. We can only choose how to react to it.
I think the international community have an obligation to try to work with Russia after its defeat to try and create a lasting peace.
First things first - defeat them comprehensively and liberate every single part of occupied Ukraine.
Once Russia surrenders, then we can consider working with them.
I doubt that's going to happen. It's looking increasingly as though the current situation is going to become a stalemate, with Russia illegally holding on to approximately the territory it currently occupies. It is clearly militarily difficult to dislodge such well dug-in troops, we can't attack Russia directly in any significant way, and Russia has enough economic support from third countries to withstand Western sanctions. The only real chance that I can see is political change within Russia leading to a voluntary withdrawal from the occupied territory.
Until it happens Russia need to be pariahs like North Korea.
And as long as Ukrainians are willing to fight to liberate their territory, that is their choice, and we should completely and unequivocally support them with every single thing they want to aid them in that fight.
I take no pleasure in saying this - since I'm more on this side of the debate than the other 'realist' side - but you're posturing again.
Putting the rights and wrongs of Brexit aside, what does astonish me is the absolute pig's ear Kippers/Brexit Tories have made of its implementation and subsequent sell. You'd have thought they could have cobbled together a couple of odds and ends and vaguely marketed them (no matter how spuriously) as some kind of Brexit dividend. But no one has bothered putting a shine on it whatsoever. I suppose the one exception is Rishi and his post-EU 'alcohol-pricing reforms', but they seemed to vanish as soon as they appeared. Why does no one give a stuff?
It's a good question. I'd say one reason rejoin is doing so well is that there are people making the case for it; many of the people making the case for Brexit took it easy after 2016 with an air of job done, or after the pain in the arse of the 2016-2019 period with an air of thank God that's over.
Just in case anyone was thinking it is worth negotiating with Russia, Medvedev reminds us why we shouldn't.
A new idea for Ukraine has emerged from the North Atlantic Alliance office: Ukraine will be able to join NATO if it gives up the disputed territories.
It does look like an interesting idea. The only problem is that all of – supposedly – their territories are highly disputable. And to enter the bloc, the Kiev authorities will have to give up even Kiev itself, the capital of Ancient Rus.
Only defeat has a chance of ridding Russia of its imperialist delusions and consequently creating a lasting peace.
There is not currently a route to a suitable place with Russia via negotiations. They choose to settle this via war and we have to ensure that they lose this war of their choosing.
How do you defeat a nuclear power who has suggested they might use nukes? And what happens to Russia after defeat?
Like, I agree that Russia needs to lose this war, but I don't see how that can happen with the situation as it is. It's not even like getting rid of Putin sorts anything out, because most of the people likely to take over in that scenario are more hard line than Putin.
A defeat in a war of aggression is a failure to hold on to the territory that is the target of the aggression. I don't think that leads to a nuclear response, as it didn't when Russia lost Kherson city.
Obviously you can't march on Moscow. So you might have to defend yourself against repeated wars of aggression until they get the message. But that's preferable to negotiating away more and more of Eastern Europe and providing Russia with the evidence that we don't have the resolve to stop them.
I would prefer a lasting peace - and that would likely involve understanding and helping fix Russia rather than continuing its pariah status. The neoliberalisation of its post USSR economy and working with Putin (as many saw Putin in the 90s as the right man) obviously hasn't led to lasting post Cold War peace - so what will?
If Putin feels losing this war will lead to him losing his job, which is the only thing that means he won't lose his life, why wouldn't he be willing to consider nuclear weapons? If the situation starts looking like unrest at home, if more Russian men are conscripted or losses increase, how will they make up for that? They could surrender, or they could push the button. I hope they would chose surrender, but then what the terms of that surrender are need to be something that is both a pathway to long term peace and also not so egregious to those in charge that fighting to the death isn't preferable. I don't know what that looks like; I cannot see something that would be enough to appease those who lead in Russia and also make it clear we won't have to do this all over again in two or three decades.
We would all prefer a lasting peace, but that's not our choice. It's Russia's. We can't control what happens in Russia. We can only choose how to react to it.
I think the international community have an obligation to try to work with Russia after its defeat to try and create a lasting peace.
First things first - defeat them comprehensively and liberate every single part of occupied Ukraine.
Once Russia surrenders, then we can consider working with them.
I doubt that's going to happen. It's looking increasingly as though the current situation is going to become a stalemate, with Russia illegally holding on to approximately the territory it currently occupies. It is clearly militarily difficult to dislodge such well dug-in troops, we can't attack Russia directly in any significant way, and Russia has enough economic support from third countries to withstand Western sanctions. The only real chance that I can see is political change within Russia leading to a voluntary withdrawal from the occupied territory.
Until it happens Russia need to be pariahs like North Korea.
And as long as Ukrainians are willing to fight to liberate their territory, that is their choice, and we should completely and unequivocally support them with every single thing they want to aid them in that fight.
What if the Ukrainians want NATO troops to help?
Oh, they’re helping, and helping lots.
Training, intelligence, logistics, and no doubt a few other things that don’t get discussed.
I'm curious as to how many resources are going towards holding the northern border against Belarus, given that's where part of the initial invasion came from.
I wonder if Poland etc would consider a security guarantee for everything west of Kyiv. Too aggro?
A common thread in Russian propaganda has been that Poland wants to annex parts of Ukraine and Belarus, Utter rubbish, but any Polish troops in Ukraine or Belarus will be shown to the world as a war and 'invasion' - whereas as everyone knows, Russia's war in Ukraine is just a peaceful SMO...
Politically, Polish troops taking direct part in either country will be massively difficult, for the reason above, and also because it would be 'NATO' involcement.
Something purely defensive like anti-air?
The problem is there are so few ways to shake the conflict up. Mines and artillery are playing to Russian strengths.
Anti-air won't work. The orcs are flying planes with long range missiles within Belarus/Russian borders. The Ukranians need the ability to identify, target and destroy mobile Russian artillery in tens of seconds. There was a discussion recently (which I did not fully follow) on how close they are to achieving that.
They also need a way to demine hundreds of miles of Ukranian countryside that doesn't involve driving or walking over them then picking up the screaming remains.
The poll also suggested that there would be another pro-independence majority after the next Holyrood election, with the SNP winning 57 seats and the Greens ten. Labour would return 38 MSPs to comfortably overtake the Conservatives whose representation at Holyrood would almost halve, to 16 MSPs. The Liberal Democrats would win eight seats under this scenario.
YouGov interviewed 1,086 people aged 16 and older in Scotland between August 3 and 8.
Combined Unionist parties on 62 MSPs however ahead of the SNP on 57 MSPs on that projection and just 5 behind the combined SNP and Greens total. Sarwar now has a net positive rating with Scots unlike Yousaf so at least a chance he will be next FM
Ah, HYUFD arithmetic where a minority of Unionist msps beats a majority of pro Indy msps. Who do you think votes in an FM? Rumours of the death of the SNP greatly exaggerated in any case.
Agree with that. Starmer/Sarwar still struggling to achieve definitive tipping point. The main danger to SNP is civil war breaking out over the alliance with the Greens. That would follow if Nats get hammered at GE but the result still appears open at the moment.
Starmer/Sarwar have had some success in convincing anti EU anti immigration Red wall voters in England and vaguely progressive pro EU voters in Scotland that Labour is the party for them, but the essential contradiction in those positions has to come to a head sooner or later. Pretending to these groups that the other doesn't exist only works for so long.
Seems the SNP have stabilised a little and much will depend on the outcome of the police investigations
As far as Starmer is concerned he remains an English man from London trying to ride two horses at once, with differences over trans gender policies and the 2 children rule between himself and Sawar, and indeed Khan and himself over ULEZ
I note a lot of wishcasting about Keir Starmer by Tory and SNP supporters: a sense that any time soon he's going to be "found out", and people will return to their rightful home.
But this is the sort of thinking that landed Labour in trouble in the mid 2000s, kicked them out of most of Scotland in 2015 and buried the Lib Dems in the South West in the same election. And ejected Labour from swathes of the North and Midlands in 2019. The idea a bloc of voters belongs rightfully to your party. It's the same tendency that could nobble the Tories in the home counties and South Coast next year (fingers crossed) and reverse some of those 2015 SNP gains in Scotland. It leads to supporters ignoring the warning signs and convincing themselves that their voters will come home once they find out the opposition for who they really are.
I'm convinced most of the opposition just assumed that voters would see through Boris' bluster. They probably did, but they voted for him anyway. Same with Keir. It's not that voters are unaware of his or Labour's limitations. They just seem to have concluded it's time for a change.
The difficulty about projecting how well Labour are going to do is that Starmer isn't particularly popular, he is just less unpopular than the alternatives. This means it looks like Labour is on course to win a parliamentary majority, and a big one, but it doesn't say much about how long that majority can be held together and what Starmer will do with it. So far he seems to be flouting policies to the right of Blair - which is not really the platform he was elected to the Labour leadership on. If he runs in a GE as that figure, I could see lots of voters going "back" to the SNP (although less so the Tories). On the other hand, if he tries to paint himself as someone who wants to change things significantly - who wants to fix a "broken Britain" - he might alienate Tory voters who really just want things to go "back to normal" with low interest rates and the like.
I think we could see a very large Labour majority that becomes very unpopular very quickly because it doesn't seem like many voters actively like Starmer's political vision for the UK.
I'm not sure I agree with this either. The voter ratings for Starmer are OK. Not stellar, but not bad at all. That's probably ideal ahead of an election. If expectations were sky high then the risk of rapid disillusionment would be greater. His political vision isn't transformational certainly, it's a bit prosaic. But it's not scary.
Labour's biggest risk after an election is the Conservatives getting their act together. How likely is that? I strongly suspect they have at least one more round of craziness in them before they wake up from their fever dream.
That's my view too. Winning a majority yet with nobody 'inspired' and expecting the earth to move is a political sweet spot for an incoming government and by a mixture of luck and planning it appears that Starmer will land right on it.
I disagree - sure it means fewer people to "let down" but it also means no hopeful populace already behind your mission, no political capital to point at and go "look, the voters put me here to do x, so let's do it". Is anyone truly going to feel they owe Starmer their seat in the same way MPs felt they did to Blair, or even Johnson? I also look at Starmer's team and see nothing but a desire to destroy the left - no coalition building within the party, no actual relationship building with unions or other stakeholder groups. Hell, Sunak gave a bigger pay rise to nurses than Starmer was willing to! We could have more strikes, more inflation and a Labour government to the right of this one on that issue...
I just don't see Starmer being a good PM or his government being popular for long.
All votes count '1' remember, however grudging or passionate. A big majority is a big majority. It's a mandate.
With Starmer I see only one thing at the moment - a determination to win the election. I don't have a strong sense of how he'll govern (assuming he does win) apart from being more competent and less divisive than we've grown used to in recent times. I think we can at least bank on that and I reckon this in itself will be enough to prevent any short order collapse in popularity.
Of course I hope he does (or at least attempts) some serious transformational things on what imo should be the defining mission of the Labour Party (reducing inequality) and we'll have to see if he does. It's hard to predict because pre election is different to post election.
The rhetoric atm is cagey and I think the manifesto will be. Nothing will be allowed to jeopardize the win. Same with the neutering of the Left. That's also about securing the win. I don't conclude from it that Starmer has zero sympathy with left wing ideas and won't be influenced by them as PM.
That's literally true, but politically it isn't. Starmer could get a huge majority, but the political capital of that depends on where MPs and people believe that majority came from. If MPs believe it is just a case that people were tired of the Tories and any Labour leader could have won, then why would they follow Starmer over anyone else? If voters make it clear early on that this was an election where they wanted to remove the Tory government, and not one where they specifically endorse Starmer's government policies (through strike action, protest, or through polling or local elections) then Starmer quickly becomes a lame duck PM.
Winning the election is all well and good - but you can't just want to win for winnings sake. You have to want to do something with the power being in government will bring, and enough people have to believe in that for you to be legitimate. If people only vote for you because they hate the other team more, it is harder to implement your agenda. And if you don't have an agenda you believe in, or your agenda isn't actually that much different from the other team's, then you create issues where the electorate starts spiralling into the "they're all the same, can't trust any of them" cycle.
I do get these points. And if SKS ends up governing with no energy or radicalism I'll be disappointed - but I'm not about to jump the gun and get disappointed now.
I think we differ on the question at the heart of this. Could Labour win from the Left in 2024 in a country that voted for a right populist project in 2016 and shortly thereafter delivered a landslide for Boris Johnson?
You, I infer, think they could. I think not. I think they need to win first, bed in, gain confidence, then inject the radicalism from a position of strength. They need to roll the pitch for it in government not in opposition. If they do the latter they won't get to see the former. Not in 2024 anyway, which is what counts right now.
I think it depends why you thought Johnson won in 2019. I think the two biggest factors were "getting Brexit done" and "levelling up". The first has long been an issue, but wasn't enough to secure May a majority when she tried to use that as a way of doing other Tory policies alongside it. The second was, essentially, declaring an end to austerity (whether Johnson planned to go through with it or not was another matter entirely). So Johnson undercut what was popular about Corbyn (who realistically was only a few thousands votes in specific seats away from beating May in 2017) by saying "yes, money, we'll spend it and we'll target it at those areas most left behind". Now you have a Tory party and a Labour party once again agreeing that spending money isn't an option.
If Starmer was instead making clear that investment, Keynesianism, would be a good way to get out of our economic woes, and made that look closer to Biden's IRA with investment in green transition, insulating existing housing, building new housing using metrics for sustainability and energy efficiency, more green space and infrastructure spent on local amenities like new schools and GPs and roads etc. I think he could be popular to those who voted Johnson but now don't want to support the Tories AND popular amongst progressive (if not outright leftist) voters. He doesn't need to follow where the Tories lead on every culture war issue - doesn't need to try and seem tough on immigration or transpeople - when most voters disagree with the government on those culture war issues and it only appeals to the Tory base (and newspapers) who are unlikely to support Labour anyway.
Just in case anyone was thinking it is worth negotiating with Russia, Medvedev reminds us why we shouldn't.
A new idea for Ukraine has emerged from the North Atlantic Alliance office: Ukraine will be able to join NATO if it gives up the disputed territories.
It does look like an interesting idea. The only problem is that all of – supposedly – their territories are highly disputable. And to enter the bloc, the Kiev authorities will have to give up even Kiev itself, the capital of Ancient Rus.
Only defeat has a chance of ridding Russia of its imperialist delusions and consequently creating a lasting peace.
There is not currently a route to a suitable place with Russia via negotiations. They choose to settle this via war and we have to ensure that they lose this war of their choosing.
How do you defeat a nuclear power who has suggested they might use nukes? And what happens to Russia after defeat?
Like, I agree that Russia needs to lose this war, but I don't see how that can happen with the situation as it is. It's not even like getting rid of Putin sorts anything out, because most of the people likely to take over in that scenario are more hard line than Putin.
A defeat in a war of aggression is a failure to hold on to the territory that is the target of the aggression. I don't think that leads to a nuclear response, as it didn't when Russia lost Kherson city.
Obviously you can't march on Moscow. So you might have to defend yourself against repeated wars of aggression until they get the message. But that's preferable to negotiating away more and more of Eastern Europe and providing Russia with the evidence that we don't have the resolve to stop them.
I would prefer a lasting peace - and that would likely involve understanding and helping fix Russia rather than continuing its pariah status. The neoliberalisation of its post USSR economy and working with Putin (as many saw Putin in the 90s as the right man) obviously hasn't led to lasting post Cold War peace - so what will?
If Putin feels losing this war will lead to him losing his job, which is the only thing that means he won't lose his life, why wouldn't he be willing to consider nuclear weapons? If the situation starts looking like unrest at home, if more Russian men are conscripted or losses increase, how will they make up for that? They could surrender, or they could push the button. I hope they would chose surrender, but then what the terms of that surrender are need to be something that is both a pathway to long term peace and also not so egregious to those in charge that fighting to the death isn't preferable. I don't know what that looks like; I cannot see something that would be enough to appease those who lead in Russia and also make it clear we won't have to do this all over again in two or three decades.
We would all prefer a lasting peace, but that's not our choice. It's Russia's. We can't control what happens in Russia. We can only choose how to react to it.
I think the international community have an obligation to try to work with Russia after its defeat to try and create a lasting peace.
First things first - defeat them comprehensively and liberate every single part of occupied Ukraine.
Once Russia surrenders, then we can consider working with them.
I doubt that's going to happen. It's looking increasingly as though the current situation is going to become a stalemate, with Russia illegally holding on to approximately the territory it currently occupies. It is clearly militarily difficult to dislodge such well dug-in troops, we can't attack Russia directly in any significant way, and Russia has enough economic support from third countries to withstand Western sanctions. The only real chance that I can see is political change within Russia leading to a voluntary withdrawal from the occupied territory.
Until it happens Russia need to be pariahs like North Korea.
And as long as Ukrainians are willing to fight to liberate their territory, that is their choice, and we should completely and unequivocally support them with every single thing they want to aid them in that fight.
What if the Ukrainians want NATO troops to help?
Oh, they’re helping, and helping lots.
Training, intelligence, logistics, and no doubt a few other things that don’t get discussed.
I'm curious as to how many resources are going towards holding the northern border against Belarus, given that's where part of the initial invasion came from.
I wonder if Poland etc would consider a security guarantee for everything west of Kyiv. Too aggro?
A common thread in Russian propaganda has been that Poland wants to annex parts of Ukraine and Belarus, Utter rubbish, but any Polish troops in Ukraine or Belarus will be shown to the world as a war and 'invasion' - whereas as everyone knows, Russia's war in Ukraine is just a peaceful SMO...
Politically, Polish troops taking direct part in either country will be massively difficult, for the reason above, and also because it would be 'NATO' involcement.
Something purely defensive like anti-air?
The problem is there are so few ways to shake the conflict up. Mines and artillery are playing to Russian strengths.
Anti-air won't work. The orcs are flying planes with long range missiles within Belarus/Russian borders. The Ukranians need the ability to identify, target and destroy mobile Russian artillery in tens of seconds. There was a discussion recently (which I did not fully follow) on how close they are to achieving that.
They also need a way to demine hundreds of miles of Ukranian countryside that doesn't involve driving or walking over them then picking up the screaming remains.
AI robots driving surplus to requirement non-ULEZ diesels in close formation.
Another pretty big drop in CPI, I think the end of year rate is probably going to be ~4.5%, if oil prices fall then maybe 4%.
Core CPI looks tougher to shift with wage data endlessly rising and 2.5m people long term sick. If the government wants to fix the labour market then it needs to get serious about sickness benefits reform. Matthew Paris had it bang on a couple of weeks ago, too many people are realising that it's easy to get signed off sick for stress and opt out of working. For people aged 50-64 who have paid off mortgages it's a realistic option to live on sickness benefits plus all the other assistance you get for it like council tax reductions etc...
Once again the safety net has become a way of life for some people. This time it's the comfortably off middle classes opting out of work by saying they're too stressed. It's something the Labour will need to address on day one because it now seems that young people are not only being asked to support pensions for the old, childcare for their kids, endless student loan repayments, old age care in the NHS but now also for the lazy middle classes who are deciding not to work because they're "stressed".
Got a guy who's got signed off sick from work who worked for me up to last month.
He was basically a lazy fucker who was shy of a hard day's work unless it was easy and got sunshine blown up his arse.
We're a professional services firm not a holiday club.
So why haven't you dismissed him / managed him out for poor performance?
"Constructive dismissal" you can't get rid of people if they've been signed off sick with stress or some other bogus mental health issue they've made up and convinced some bleeding heart therapist is a real problem. The government needs to seriously reform being signed off for mental health concerns, at the moment it's become a free for all and the indolent have realised they can turn it into a lifestyle choice.
"Got a guy who's got signed off sick from work who worked for me up to last month."
"He was basically a lazy fucker who was shy of a hard day's work unless it was easy and got sunshine blown up his arse."
I cannot imagine what might have induced any level of employee stress here.
Instead of creating the opportunity/necessity to be signed off sick, perhaps a better management approach in the first place may have prevented it getting to that stage.
Just seen this; it's a bit below the belt and unnecessarily personal.
I'm actually a very good and fair manager and carried this guy for months, giving him lots of support (including working long hours to complete his work) and fedback where he could improve - and set fair targets. Eventually, I had to bring in people to do his job for him so we delivered for the client. I don't think he's committed (he used to work remotely much of the time with his camera off) and I have a question about his capability for the job. For now, he's on sick leave and I think the firm should performance manage the situation. I vented some of my frustration, sure, because it's created a lot of work for already overstretched people with no resolution in sight.
This discussion arose because we were talking about challenges with the UK workforce and long-term sickness. I shared a real-life example of my own experience. I could also add just how difficult, costly and time consuming it is to manage these cases once the person is employed.
I have not shared the firm I work for, or he works for, or any specifics or names on an anonymous forum so this is entirely unattributable.
You could argue that only historic cases should be mentioned on here (even if anonymous) and nothing vaguely contemporary or live should be even hinted at. But the only alternative would be that we never discuss any real life examples and just talk in generalities, which wouldn't necessarily contribute much to the discussion.
Just in case anyone was thinking it is worth negotiating with Russia, Medvedev reminds us why we shouldn't.
A new idea for Ukraine has emerged from the North Atlantic Alliance office: Ukraine will be able to join NATO if it gives up the disputed territories.
It does look like an interesting idea. The only problem is that all of – supposedly – their territories are highly disputable. And to enter the bloc, the Kiev authorities will have to give up even Kiev itself, the capital of Ancient Rus.
Only defeat has a chance of ridding Russia of its imperialist delusions and consequently creating a lasting peace.
There is not currently a route to a suitable place with Russia via negotiations. They choose to settle this via war and we have to ensure that they lose this war of their choosing.
How do you defeat a nuclear power who has suggested they might use nukes? And what happens to Russia after defeat?
Like, I agree that Russia needs to lose this war, but I don't see how that can happen with the situation as it is. It's not even like getting rid of Putin sorts anything out, because most of the people likely to take over in that scenario are more hard line than Putin.
A defeat in a war of aggression is a failure to hold on to the territory that is the target of the aggression. I don't think that leads to a nuclear response, as it didn't when Russia lost Kherson city.
Obviously you can't march on Moscow. So you might have to defend yourself against repeated wars of aggression until they get the message. But that's preferable to negotiating away more and more of Eastern Europe and providing Russia with the evidence that we don't have the resolve to stop them.
I would prefer a lasting peace - and that would likely involve understanding and helping fix Russia rather than continuing its pariah status. The neoliberalisation of its post USSR economy and working with Putin (as many saw Putin in the 90s as the right man) obviously hasn't led to lasting post Cold War peace - so what will?
If Putin feels losing this war will lead to him losing his job, which is the only thing that means he won't lose his life, why wouldn't he be willing to consider nuclear weapons? If the situation starts looking like unrest at home, if more Russian men are conscripted or losses increase, how will they make up for that? They could surrender, or they could push the button. I hope they would chose surrender, but then what the terms of that surrender are need to be something that is both a pathway to long term peace and also not so egregious to those in charge that fighting to the death isn't preferable. I don't know what that looks like; I cannot see something that would be enough to appease those who lead in Russia and also make it clear we won't have to do this all over again in two or three decades.
The second Russia stops being pariahs, pulls back to its own territory etc then it can start not being a pariah.
The only thing that will lead to lasting peace is Russia not being led by people who want war. That's up to them, not us.
We need to do that which is within our control which is helping to ensure that Russia lose, not negotiate a lasting peace. A lasting peace means Russia back within its own borders, but Russia don't want that yet - so we need to help make them want that - which means defeating them.
I think whilst that is mostly true there needs to be an international attempt at appealing directly to the people of Russia beyond the leadership and making clear that the issues are with the government not them and that a lasting peace and partnership between Russia and the rest of the world is possible. Whilst I think the invasion of Ukraine is unconscionable and Russia need to lose, I do see some of the arguments about NATO expansion as "provoking" Russia to this point as having somewhat of a point. I think that there is a responsibility to work with Russia to transform Russia, not just leave it to its own devices and just hope that leads to good outcomes. I don't think Ukraine should need to make concessions but other powers (like the US) might have to.
What concessions should other powers make and why?
If Russia don't want to be pariahs, the choice is theirs. We can't make their choices for them.
There is categorically no argument or point about NATO expansion "provoking" Russia, NATO is a defence organisation not an offensive one. Russia needs to be disabused of any notions that they get a say in what happens to their neighbours and to know if every single one of their neighbours want to join NATO then that is their choice and theirs alone.
Had Ukraine joined NATO sooner, this war would never have happened.
Other powers don't act that way - every country gets at least a say in what happens to their neighbours and many powers still use soft and hard power to enforce that. That Russia has been allowed to believe their only route to influence things is via direct hard power and not diplomacy or soft power is in part a failure of others willingness to work with Russia.
NATO is not just a defensive coalition, it's an acceptance of certain international cultural and economic hegemonies that at the end of the day most benefit the soft and hard power of the United States. If Russia or China wanted to build a similar coalition against the USA then there would be legitimate screeches of bloody murder, that any such move would suggest these powers are actively planning against the USA and should be treated thusly.
The continuation of NATO after the Cold War was a statement that the US had "won" and it had no intention of working with a post Cold War Russia after the fact. So no wonder Russia evolved into still being antagonistic to Europe and the USA. Again, I do not think that means the invasion of Ukraine or ceding any part of Ukraine to Russia is acceptable. But the chain of events that brought Russia to make this decision were not Russia's choices alone.
Wow. That is even more Russian propaganda than Putinguy puts out there.
No other powers don't act that way. How does Ukraine determine what Georgia does? How does Latvia determine what Belarus does? How does Turkey determine what Bulgaria does?
Russia needs to comprehend its just a country, like any other, and that its neighbours are free to make their own choices.
Russia absolutely is a defensive coalition, that's exactly what it is. The continuation of NATO after the Cold War was because threats could still exist in the world even after the Cold War, so nations would still need to be able to defend themselves. Something proven by Russia's violence and aggression.
Russia needs to take responsibility for its own choices. No victim blaming. Russia is the abuser and aggressor here, not the victim, the only victim here is Ukraine.
Mr. Sandpit, I could be wrong but I think all ICBMs have nuclear warheads because their kinetic energy by itself (with no warhead) exceeds the damage that could be caused by conventional warheads.
That seems wrong… that is, it can make sense to put a conventional warhead in a ICBM. The first ICBM-like things were the V2s and they had conventional warheads. There have been plans for kinetic energy weapons based on ICBM systems, but that’s an option, not the only possibility. The Prompt Global Strike program considered various conventional weapon formats: https://news.usni.org/2019/01/10/report-congress-conventional-prompt-global-strike-long-range-ballistic-missiles
However, cruise missiles give you greater accuracy.
“Elon Musk won’t fight Mark Zuckerberg in a ‘cage match’ – because he knows he’d lose”
NARRATOR: Elon Musk is 6 foot 1, and 85kg; Mark Zuckerberg is 5 foot 7, and 70kg
You're a big man, but you're out of shape. For me this is a full time job, so behave yourself.
Street fights go the ground in about 5 seconds, then it's just about who gases out first and the extra height doesn't really mean much. Musk doesn't look in terrific shape or like a bloke who has been in many scraps.
What does this defeat look like? Because pushing them back to the 2022 borders, which looks like a fucking long shot at this point, won't stop the fighting.
I wrote this at the start of the SMO and it's as true now as it was then. Except, I now think that would no longer be enough for VVP and Odessa would have to be on the table also.
I try and stay out of these debates because I don't have a huge amount to add but I do fear this war will just go on and on. The arrogance from some that Russia would surely be swiftly defeated seems to have quietly been forgotten. At the end of the day they do have nukes.
War going on and on is a better alternative than Russian occupation going on and on.
If it takes 8 years to liberate the whole of Ukraine, it takes 8 years. We should support Ukraine every single step of the way, until Russia is repelled back to their own borders.
Why does defeat need to be "swift"?
Its better for Ukraine to take their time, do it properly, do it well, and lose fewer people in the process than to send people into a meat grinder to try and do it on some arbitrarily rapid timeline.
We're now past the territorial changes following Russia's initial invasion and the largely succesful Ukraine counter-offensive. But over the last year or so, the only major changes have been Russia gaining Bakhmut and Ukraine I believe taking a handful of villages in this current counter-offensive. It's all moving at a snail's pace - the excitement about Prigozhin's aborted coup and a few bridge hits aside neither side seems to be going anywhere. The Syrian civil war is still ongoing, albeit with no shifts in any fronts for three years. The longer this war goes on the slower the front shifts are going to be - and with the GOP being largely Ukraine sceptical & european polling showing lukewarmness on the war I think long term Putin just has to wait it out to basically de facto claim most of the current Ukrainian territory Russia holds quite honestly.
None of the political culture (politicians, media, activists etc.) want to relitigate the EU (partly because solving other things is just as if not more important, partly because it is still a highly emotive topic for many). Labour has no desire to give the Tories a stick to beat them with, the LDs are not important enough and, most importantly, we don't know the terms we would be offered to rejoin. If I were an EU member state I would not allow the UK to rejoin with the exceptions we already had carved out back during the Cameron era. Not out of spite, but because it seems clear to me now that our exceptional status within the EU was part of what led us out - that we could not be appeased because at the end of the day the UK did not enter the project wanting it to succeed, and rather was accepted so it was on the inside pissing out rather than the other way around. For the UK to rejoin the EU would require both the UK and EU to say up front and clearly what kind of political entity they want the EU to be, and for the UK to clearly and affirmatively say we want to be part of that entity - not just a desire for us to get an economic boost for trade reasons (which we could do without rejoining).
If the EU project is that of differing states eventually evolving into a more federalist super state model, similar to the US or even the Russian Federation, the UKs "reentry" would be the perfect moment to make that clear. I know not all individual member states like that idea, nor do all voters within the individual states, but with a single currency and talks of increased security collaboration alongside increased collaboration likely necessary to deal with climate change and immigration, as well as threats from Russia and an increasingly unstable US, it would be beneficial to put all the cards on the table. And if the UK doesn't want to be part of that - fine. But if we do, we need to know at that point what rejoin means.
I don't think the EU really wants to have that conversation, and I don't think the UK would sign up for that - so I doubt anyone will push rejoin for a long time yet. I think the outcome of the Russian invasion of Ukraine and the next decade of US political leadership will likely force the EU to react and therefore become more like a federalised state, rather than an open debate about whether that is what the individual countries want. So I don't see rejoin becoming a significant movement for at least a decade, if not longer, and by then it will be greatly overshadowed by the politics of climate catastrophe.
I think that a Federal EU can only emerge based on the Eurozone, and so it would deepen the split between the Eurozone countries and the non-Eurozone countries, likely making it permanent (and anyway, neither France or Germany want a Federal Europe for different reasons anyway). I think at the moment the EU would prefer to preserve the fiction that this divide between the Eurozone and the rest is temporary, rather than entrench it.
We see with the way the EU has handled Hungary over Ukraine that it is currently favouring the preservation of unanimity, rather than proceeding with a more determined core (even when they core is all the states bar one).
I don't disagree that there is not a huge push atm for an actual federalised EU, I just think events will make it so. Russia's aggression presents a question - what should Europe's relationship with Russia look like? Will Russia even continue to be an entity if it loses? What happens if Russia wins? These questions will require greater links between EU states - no longer can Germany seek out it's own oil and gas deal with Russia in such a world. And if Russia falls apart, which is unlikely but not impossible, what happens to the leftovers?
I think the same will be true of the US. If Trump wins next year, the EU can expect another mini trade war and an erratic ally at best and an outright hostile US at worst. If Trump doesn't win, a DeSantis or Cruz will still have a shot in 28 or 32 - again people who will not likely put US/EU cooperation highly on their list of priorities. The US also looks like it might fragment over the next decade - abortion, LGBT+ rights, wealth inequality, labour strikes, not to mention the impacts of climate change on farming and food distribution between states. And there are no real politicians capable of unifying the country, nor doing so in a way that benefits its allies. Already the IRA, which is doing a lot to boost the USAs infrastructure and growth, is having a negative impact on other smaller countries (like the UK) by raising the prices of materials needed for infrastructure and green transition. The EU would be better doing this as a whole rather than as individual states - saving money by bulk purchasing, sharing expertise and labour and subsidising infrastructure for the poorer states. That will also require a lot more collaboration that would start looking more like a real federal state.
Personal view - with all its caveats etc - is that there will be a move to a federal Europe but the driver will be the increasing number of governments in Europe that will have a populist right agenda, or at least strongly influenced by it. If you look at Europe over the next five years - it is likely we will see France (under Le Pen), Italy, much of Central and Eastern Europe, Sweden, Netherlands, Austria etc that will have such movements as part of their governments. The AfD could also boost their share in Germany. Polling in Ireland shows strong support for a Dutch-style farmers party. If Ukraine gets in (which I don't think it will but...), then that will only increase that tilt.
If it heads in that way, then there are likely to be a number of areas where the Bloc would make substantial unifying progress simply because each country will recognise it cannot do things on its own and there is strength through numbers. However, it will be areas such as border protection, armed forces, protectionism, policies to encourage childbirth etc that will see the biggest integration. I suspect though that these will not be the measures that many pro-EU advocates have in mind when they talk about the greater integration of the EU.
British rejoiners, who tend to be of the liberal-left idealist internationalist type, might find themselves advocating to join a hard-right Fortress Europe, which would be interesting.
When I lived in Scotland I supported the Union, even though the Westminster government had a Fortress Britain mentality, and the Holyrood government was more left-wing.
In a democracy the ideology of elected government changes over time and is not fixed, so it shouldn't sway longer term constitutional questions.
Just in case anyone was thinking it is worth negotiating with Russia, Medvedev reminds us why we shouldn't.
A new idea for Ukraine has emerged from the North Atlantic Alliance office: Ukraine will be able to join NATO if it gives up the disputed territories.
It does look like an interesting idea. The only problem is that all of – supposedly – their territories are highly disputable. And to enter the bloc, the Kiev authorities will have to give up even Kiev itself, the capital of Ancient Rus.
Only defeat has a chance of ridding Russia of its imperialist delusions and consequently creating a lasting peace.
There is not currently a route to a suitable place with Russia via negotiations. They choose to settle this via war and we have to ensure that they lose this war of their choosing.
How do you defeat a nuclear power who has suggested they might use nukes? And what happens to Russia after defeat?
Like, I agree that Russia needs to lose this war, but I don't see how that can happen with the situation as it is. It's not even like getting rid of Putin sorts anything out, because most of the people likely to take over in that scenario are more hard line than Putin.
A defeat in a war of aggression is a failure to hold on to the territory that is the target of the aggression. I don't think that leads to a nuclear response, as it didn't when Russia lost Kherson city.
Obviously you can't march on Moscow. So you might have to defend yourself against repeated wars of aggression until they get the message. But that's preferable to negotiating away more and more of Eastern Europe and providing Russia with the evidence that we don't have the resolve to stop them.
I would prefer a lasting peace - and that would likely involve understanding and helping fix Russia rather than continuing its pariah status. The neoliberalisation of its post USSR economy and working with Putin (as many saw Putin in the 90s as the right man) obviously hasn't led to lasting post Cold War peace - so what will?
If Putin feels losing this war will lead to him losing his job, which is the only thing that means he won't lose his life, why wouldn't he be willing to consider nuclear weapons? If the situation starts looking like unrest at home, if more Russian men are conscripted or losses increase, how will they make up for that? They could surrender, or they could push the button. I hope they would chose surrender, but then what the terms of that surrender are need to be something that is both a pathway to long term peace and also not so egregious to those in charge that fighting to the death isn't preferable. I don't know what that looks like; I cannot see something that would be enough to appease those who lead in Russia and also make it clear we won't have to do this all over again in two or three decades.
We would all prefer a lasting peace, but that's not our choice. It's Russia's. We can't control what happens in Russia. We can only choose how to react to it.
I think the international community have an obligation to try to work with Russia after its defeat to try and create a lasting peace.
First things first - defeat them comprehensively and liberate every single part of occupied Ukraine.
Once Russia surrenders, then we can consider working with them.
I doubt that's going to happen. It's looking increasingly as though the current situation is going to become a stalemate, with Russia illegally holding on to approximately the territory it currently occupies. It is clearly militarily difficult to dislodge such well dug-in troops, we can't attack Russia directly in any significant way, and Russia has enough economic support from third countries to withstand Western sanctions. The only real chance that I can see is political change within Russia leading to a voluntary withdrawal from the occupied territory.
Until it happens Russia need to be pariahs like North Korea.
And as long as Ukrainians are willing to fight to liberate their territory, that is their choice, and we should completely and unequivocally support them with every single thing they want to aid them in that fight.
I take no pleasure in saying this - since I'm more on this side of the debate than the other 'realist' side - but you're posturing again.
I think there's a delusion running through your posts on this issue that the West is in control and can choose the outcome it wants (and therefore we should choose the option with zero deaths which means stopping the fighting now).
It's important to remember that this is happening because of the choice by Putin and Russia to invade, and we are reacting to that choice. We can't force Russia to be a reasonable and trustworthy counterparty in negotiations by finding a magic form of words, or a perfect compromise.
We have to accept the reality that their invasion showed us. They do not share our view of a world run by rules, agreements, negotiations and peaceful coexistence. They have a view of the world based on power, domination, imperialism and unilateral action. They are imposing that world view on the people of Ukraine and we either do all we can to resist that, or the future for the world is a much darker place.
You're of course right that we can't control the situation and decide the outcome - if we could, then simply saying "We decree that Russia is removed" would be the best option. But we're not powerless either. We are encouraging Ukraine to think that we will keep escalating with more and more sophisticated weaponry and that somehow that will enable them to win outright.
There are two snags in that. First, it's not clear that an outright win is a realistic prospect, and years of war will certainly lead to further massive deaths on both sides - we shouldn't be complicit in that unless we think it will work. Second, we are encouraging them to count on us indefinitely. All big powers have a history of supporting locally favoured governments (and factions) until we get fed up, and we do nearly always get fed up in the end, if only because a new government takes a different view (Trump is the obvious risk, but probably not the only one). We should IMO combine continued support with a realistic private assessment that they shouldn't assume that it will continue forever, and if they do show willingness to negotiate we will step up support to improve their negotiating position. It's not that different to our current policy, but the nuance is important.
"...First, it's not clear that an outright win is a realistic prospect, and years of war will certainly lead to further massive deaths on both sides - we shouldn't be complicit in that unless we think it will work..."
You want a casualty-low war. Not on the table. You want certainty in a war. None exists. You want lack of complicity in the war. Not available. That's not how wars work. You pick a side and support it until you can't. You can't plan them, you just fight them until you can't.
“Elon Musk won’t fight Mark Zuckerberg in a ‘cage match’ – because he knows he’d lose”
NARRATOR: Elon Musk is 6 foot 1, and 85kg; Mark Zuckerberg is 5 foot 7, and 70kg
You're a big man, but you're out of shape. For me this is a full time job, so behave yourself.
Street fights go the ground in about 5 seconds, then it's just about who gases out first and the extra height doesn't really mean much. Musk doesn't look in terrific shape or like a bloke who has been in many scraps.
He’s definitely vulnerable to hair pulling, the whole lot could come off in a oner.
“Elon Musk won’t fight Mark Zuckerberg in a ‘cage match’ – because he knows he’d lose”
NARRATOR: Elon Musk is 6 foot 1, and 85kg; Mark Zuckerberg is 5 foot 7, and 70kg
You're a big man, but you're out of shape. For me this is a full time job, so behave yourself.
Street fights go the ground in about 5 seconds, then it's just about who gases out first and the extra height doesn't really mean much. Musk doesn't look in terrific shape or like a bloke who has been in many scraps.
The height and weight mean F all if one of them actually knows MMA and is in good shape while the other doesn't and isn't.
With equal-ish skill, physical dimensions make a big difference, but I daresay an MMA fighter half my weight would knock me on my arse and have me crying in seconds.
Another pretty big drop in CPI, I think the end of year rate is probably going to be ~4.5%, if oil prices fall then maybe 4%.
Core CPI looks tougher to shift with wage data endlessly rising and 2.5m people long term sick. If the government wants to fix the labour market then it needs to get serious about sickness benefits reform. Matthew Paris had it bang on a couple of weeks ago, too many people are realising that it's easy to get signed off sick for stress and opt out of working. For people aged 50-64 who have paid off mortgages it's a realistic option to live on sickness benefits plus all the other assistance you get for it like council tax reductions etc...
Once again the safety net has become a way of life for some people. This time it's the comfortably off middle classes opting out of work by saying they're too stressed. It's something the Labour will need to address on day one because it now seems that young people are not only being asked to support pensions for the old, childcare for their kids, endless student loan repayments, old age care in the NHS but now also for the lazy middle classes who are deciding not to work because they're "stressed".
Got a guy who's got signed off sick from work who worked for me up to last month.
He was basically a lazy fucker who was shy of a hard day's work unless it was easy and got sunshine blown up his arse.
We're a professional services firm not a holiday club.
So why haven't you dismissed him / managed him out for poor performance?
"Constructive dismissal" you can't get rid of people if they've been signed off sick with stress or some other bogus mental health issue they've made up and convinced some bleeding heart therapist is a real problem. The government needs to seriously reform being signed off for mental health concerns, at the moment it's become a free for all and the indolent have realised they can turn it into a lifestyle choice.
"Got a guy who's got signed off sick from work who worked for me up to last month."
"He was basically a lazy fucker who was shy of a hard day's work unless it was easy and got sunshine blown up his arse."
I cannot imagine what might have induced any level of employee stress here.
Instead of creating the opportunity/necessity to be signed off sick, perhaps a better management approach in the first place may have prevented it getting to that stage.
Just seen this; it's a bit below the belt and unnecessarily personal.
I'm actually a very good and fair manager and carried this guy for months, giving him lots of support (including working long hours to complete his work) and feedback. Eventually, I had to bring in people to do his job for him so we delivered for the client.
None of the political culture (politicians, media, activists etc.) want to relitigate the EU (partly because solving other things is just as if not more important, partly because it is still a highly emotive topic for many). Labour has no desire to give the Tories a stick to beat them with, the LDs are not important enough and, most importantly, we don't know the terms we would be offered to rejoin. If I were an EU member state I would not allow the UK to rejoin with the exceptions we already had carved out back during the Cameron era. Not out of spite, but because it seems clear to me now that our exceptional status within the EU was part of what led us out - that we could not be appeased because at the end of the day the UK did not enter the project wanting it to succeed, and rather was accepted so it was on the inside pissing out rather than the other way around. For the UK to rejoin the EU would require both the UK and EU to say up front and clearly what kind of political entity they want the EU to be, and for the UK to clearly and affirmatively say we want to be part of that entity - not just a desire for us to get an economic boost for trade reasons (which we could do without rejoining).
If the EU project is that of differing states eventually evolving into a more federalist super state model, similar to the US or even the Russian Federation, the UKs "reentry" would be the perfect moment to make that clear. I know not all individual member states like that idea, nor do all voters within the individual states, but with a single currency and talks of increased security collaboration alongside increased collaboration likely necessary to deal with climate change and immigration, as well as threats from Russia and an increasingly unstable US, it would be beneficial to put all the cards on the table. And if the UK doesn't want to be part of that - fine. But if we do, we need to know at that point what rejoin means.
I don't think the EU really wants to have that conversation, and I don't think the UK would sign up for that - so I doubt anyone will push rejoin for a long time yet. I think the outcome of the Russian invasion of Ukraine and the next decade of US political leadership will likely force the EU to react and therefore become more like a federalised state, rather than an open debate about whether that is what the individual countries want. So I don't see rejoin becoming a significant movement for at least a decade, if not longer, and by then it will be greatly overshadowed by the politics of climate catastrophe.
I think that a Federal EU can only emerge based on the Eurozone, and so it would deepen the split between the Eurozone countries and the non-Eurozone countries, likely making it permanent (and anyway, neither France or Germany want a Federal Europe for different reasons anyway). I think at the moment the EU would prefer to preserve the fiction that this divide between the Eurozone and the rest is temporary, rather than entrench it.
We see with the way the EU has handled Hungary over Ukraine that it is currently favouring the preservation of unanimity, rather than proceeding with a more determined core (even when they core is all the states bar one).
I don't disagree that there is not a huge push atm for an actual federalised EU, I just think events will make it so. Russia's aggression presents a question - what should Europe's relationship with Russia look like? Will Russia even continue to be an entity if it loses? What happens if Russia wins? These questions will require greater links between EU states - no longer can Germany seek out it's own oil and gas deal with Russia in such a world. And if Russia falls apart, which is unlikely but not impossible, what happens to the leftovers?
I think the same will be true of the US. If Trump wins next year, the EU can expect another mini trade war and an erratic ally at best and an outright hostile US at worst. If Trump doesn't win, a DeSantis or Cruz will still have a shot in 28 or 32 - again people who will not likely put US/EU cooperation highly on their list of priorities. The US also looks like it might fragment over the next decade - abortion, LGBT+ rights, wealth inequality, labour strikes, not to mention the impacts of climate change on farming and food distribution between states. And there are no real politicians capable of unifying the country, nor doing so in a way that benefits its allies. Already the IRA, which is doing a lot to boost the USAs infrastructure and growth, is having a negative impact on other smaller countries (like the UK) by raising the prices of materials needed for infrastructure and green transition. The EU would be better doing this as a whole rather than as individual states - saving money by bulk purchasing, sharing expertise and labour and subsidising infrastructure for the poorer states. That will also require a lot more collaboration that would start looking more like a real federal state.
Personal view - with all its caveats etc - is that there will be a move to a federal Europe but the driver will be the increasing number of governments in Europe that will have a populist right agenda, or at least strongly influenced by it. If you look at Europe over the next five years - it is likely we will see France (under Le Pen), Italy, much of Central and Eastern Europe, Sweden, Netherlands, Austria etc that will have such movements as part of their governments. The AfD could also boost their share in Germany. Polling in Ireland shows strong support for a Dutch-style farmers party. If Ukraine gets in (which I don't think it will but...), then that will only increase that tilt.
If it heads in that way, then there are likely to be a number of areas where the Bloc would make substantial unifying progress simply because each country will recognise it cannot do things on its own and there is strength through numbers. However, it will be areas such as border protection, armed forces, protectionism, policies to encourage childbirth etc that will see the biggest integration. I suspect though that these will not be the measures that many pro-EU advocates have in mind when they talk about the greater integration of the EU.
British rejoiners, who tend to be of the liberal-left idealist internationalist type, might find themselves advocating to join a hard-right Fortress Europe, which would be interesting.
When I lived in Scotland I supported the Union, even though the Westminster government had a Fortress Britain mentality, and the Holyrood government was more left-wing.
In a democracy the ideology of elected government changes over time and is not fixed, so it shouldn't sway longer term constitutional questions.
It should be but time and time again we see how tactical and short-sighted that can be.
The Conservatives were very much in favour of the EU in the 1970s and early 80s because they saw it as buttressing the free market and business and protecting the UK and socialism. Labour then turned in favour in the late 80s after the Delors speech as he advocated a social Europe and a strong role for unions and worker protection.
British politics has a feature of trying to evade accountability to the electorate by playing structural games and then finger-pointing that 'something else' if there's any blowback.
Just in case anyone was thinking it is worth negotiating with Russia, Medvedev reminds us why we shouldn't.
A new idea for Ukraine has emerged from the North Atlantic Alliance office: Ukraine will be able to join NATO if it gives up the disputed territories.
It does look like an interesting idea. The only problem is that all of – supposedly – their territories are highly disputable. And to enter the bloc, the Kiev authorities will have to give up even Kiev itself, the capital of Ancient Rus.
Only defeat has a chance of ridding Russia of its imperialist delusions and consequently creating a lasting peace.
There is not currently a route to a suitable place with Russia via negotiations. They choose to settle this via war and we have to ensure that they lose this war of their choosing.
How do you defeat a nuclear power who has suggested they might use nukes? And what happens to Russia after defeat?
Like, I agree that Russia needs to lose this war, but I don't see how that can happen with the situation as it is. It's not even like getting rid of Putin sorts anything out, because most of the people likely to take over in that scenario are more hard line than Putin.
A defeat in a war of aggression is a failure to hold on to the territory that is the target of the aggression. I don't think that leads to a nuclear response, as it didn't when Russia lost Kherson city.
Obviously you can't march on Moscow. So you might have to defend yourself against repeated wars of aggression until they get the message. But that's preferable to negotiating away more and more of Eastern Europe and providing Russia with the evidence that we don't have the resolve to stop them.
I would prefer a lasting peace - and that would likely involve understanding and helping fix Russia rather than continuing its pariah status. The neoliberalisation of its post USSR economy and working with Putin (as many saw Putin in the 90s as the right man) obviously hasn't led to lasting post Cold War peace - so what will?
If Putin feels losing this war will lead to him losing his job, which is the only thing that means he won't lose his life, why wouldn't he be willing to consider nuclear weapons? If the situation starts looking like unrest at home, if more Russian men are conscripted or losses increase, how will they make up for that? They could surrender, or they could push the button. I hope they would chose surrender, but then what the terms of that surrender are need to be something that is both a pathway to long term peace and also not so egregious to those in charge that fighting to the death isn't preferable. I don't know what that looks like; I cannot see something that would be enough to appease those who lead in Russia and also make it clear we won't have to do this all over again in two or three decades.
We would all prefer a lasting peace, but that's not our choice. It's Russia's. We can't control what happens in Russia. We can only choose how to react to it.
I think the international community have an obligation to try to work with Russia after its defeat to try and create a lasting peace.
First things first - defeat them comprehensively and liberate every single part of occupied Ukraine.
Once Russia surrenders, then we can consider working with them.
I doubt that's going to happen. It's looking increasingly as though the current situation is going to become a stalemate, with Russia illegally holding on to approximately the territory it currently occupies. It is clearly militarily difficult to dislodge such well dug-in troops, we can't attack Russia directly in any significant way, and Russia has enough economic support from third countries to withstand Western sanctions. The only real chance that I can see is political change within Russia leading to a voluntary withdrawal from the occupied territory.
Until it happens Russia need to be pariahs like North Korea.
And as long as Ukrainians are willing to fight to liberate their territory, that is their choice, and we should completely and unequivocally support them with every single thing they want to aid them in that fight.
What if the Ukrainians want NATO troops to help?
Oh, they’re helping, and helping lots.
Training, intelligence, logistics, and no doubt a few other things that don’t get discussed.
I'm curious as to how many resources are going towards holding the northern border against Belarus, given that's where part of the initial invasion came from.
I wonder if Poland etc would consider a security guarantee for everything west of Kyiv. Too aggro?
A common thread in Russian propaganda has been that Poland wants to annex parts of Ukraine and Belarus, Utter rubbish, but any Polish troops in Ukraine or Belarus will be shown to the world as a war and 'invasion' - whereas as everyone knows, Russia's war in Ukraine is just a peaceful SMO...
Politically, Polish troops taking direct part in either country will be massively difficult, for the reason above, and also because it would be 'NATO' involcement.
Something purely defensive like anti-air?
The problem is there are so few ways to shake the conflict up. Mines and artillery are playing to Russian strengths.
Anti-air won't work. The orcs are flying planes with long range missiles within Belarus/Russian borders. The Ukranians need the ability to identify, target and destroy mobile Russian artillery in tens of seconds. There was a discussion recently (which I did not fully follow) on how close they are to achieving that.
They also need a way to demine hundreds of miles of Ukranian countryside that doesn't involve driving or walking over them then picking up the screaming remains.
There are lots of videos on telegram, or the website formerly known as twitter, showing effective Ukrainian counter-battery action.
We can see that the Ukrainians have been claiming an increased rate of Russian artillery losses since early May that correlates with this visual evidence. It's just that Russia has a lot of artillery, so this Ukrainian capability doesn't mean that all Russian artillery is instantly neutralised. But the attrition in the artillery war seems to be to Ukraine's advantage at present. A large difference compared with a year ago.
Mr. Sandpit, I could be wrong but I think all ICBMs have nuclear warheads because their kinetic energy by itself (with no warhead) exceeds the damage that could be caused by conventional warheads.
That seems wrong… that is, it can make sense to put a conventional warhead in a ICBM. The first ICBM-like things were the V2s and they had conventional warheads. There have been plans for kinetic energy weapons based on ICBM systems, but that’s an option, not the only possibility. The Prompt Global Strike program considered various conventional weapon formats: https://news.usni.org/2019/01/10/report-congress-conventional-prompt-global-strike-long-range-ballistic-missiles
However, cruise missiles give you greater accuracy.
Accuracy with ballistic weapons can be extraordinary.
Hence the Trident test the US ran a few years back. The dummy warheads landed in an obviously designed pattern (not a smiley as rumoured, apparently) near Kwajalein. After impact, the dummy warheads inflate a ballon to bring them can to the surface of the ocean.
This was timed so that that Russian and Chinese satellites could see the warhead landing points. A way of sending a message...
The main reasons for not using ballistic missiles with conventional warheads are expense (A Trident is $80 million a shot or not far off) and the fact that if someone sees a ballistic inbound on radar, they might think it is nuclear and the party really gets started.
“Elon Musk won’t fight Mark Zuckerberg in a ‘cage match’ – because he knows he’d lose”
NARRATOR: Elon Musk is 6 foot 1, and 85kg; Mark Zuckerberg is 5 foot 7, and 70kg
You're a big man, but you're out of shape. For me this is a full time job, so behave yourself.
Street fights go the ground in about 5 seconds, then it's just about who gases out first and the extra height doesn't really mean much. Musk doesn't look in terrific shape or like a bloke who has been in many scraps.
Indeed. Zuck trains BJJ regularly, so assuming he has decent takedown game, he could have Musk flat on his back and go for a submission in 15 seconds or less of the fight starting. Since this is a betting site... I'd bet heavily on Zuck to win. Musk's extra weight / height means nothing if Zuck can get him on the ground in top position, which I assume he absolutely can.
As for the progress in the war, the Ukranian advances in Zaphorzhzhia (sp?) are currently running at about five miles a month, which will enable them to reach the coast in mid 2024 or earlier if they speed up past the minefields. Their only danger is the unremarked Russian advances in/around the Kharkiv oblast, which at the same rate will enable them to retake Izium. The Ukrainian problem is not the counterattack, as they are willing to expend the men and materiel to do it (this war is a process of converting men and machines into land). It's what the Russians are doing elsewhere.
Musk v Zuckerberg is the social media equivalent of Alien v Predator as far as I'm concerned but I don't think height and weight count for much as knowing what to do with it. You just have to cause pain or break something, which can happen very quickly, and it's over.
“Elon Musk won’t fight Mark Zuckerberg in a ‘cage match’ – because he knows he’d lose”
NARRATOR: Elon Musk is 6 foot 1, and 85kg; Mark Zuckerberg is 5 foot 7, and 70kg
And Zuckerberg is actively training and has actively done this kind of fighting for a while now, and Musk... hasn't. I'm 6ft 5 and close to 100kg - I have a friend who is just under 6ft and closer to something like 80kg, but they do kickboxing twice a week. Are we saying I'd be favourite in a "cage match" against them?
Weird. By default I picture PBers as tall and thin, but I read your name as gross so had you down as short and fat.
Sick of extra-slow replays obscuring interesting things going on in real-time play. The person in charge of the replays must have a whopping great ego.
Just in case anyone was thinking it is worth negotiating with Russia, Medvedev reminds us why we shouldn't.
A new idea for Ukraine has emerged from the North Atlantic Alliance office: Ukraine will be able to join NATO if it gives up the disputed territories.
It does look like an interesting idea. The only problem is that all of – supposedly – their territories are highly disputable. And to enter the bloc, the Kiev authorities will have to give up even Kiev itself, the capital of Ancient Rus.
Only defeat has a chance of ridding Russia of its imperialist delusions and consequently creating a lasting peace.
There is not currently a route to a suitable place with Russia via negotiations. They choose to settle this via war and we have to ensure that they lose this war of their choosing.
How do you defeat a nuclear power who has suggested they might use nukes? And what happens to Russia after defeat?
Like, I agree that Russia needs to lose this war, but I don't see how that can happen with the situation as it is. It's not even like getting rid of Putin sorts anything out, because most of the people likely to take over in that scenario are more hard line than Putin.
A defeat in a war of aggression is a failure to hold on to the territory that is the target of the aggression. I don't think that leads to a nuclear response, as it didn't when Russia lost Kherson city.
Obviously you can't march on Moscow. So you might have to defend yourself against repeated wars of aggression until they get the message. But that's preferable to negotiating away more and more of Eastern Europe and providing Russia with the evidence that we don't have the resolve to stop them.
I would prefer a lasting peace - and that would likely involve understanding and helping fix Russia rather than continuing its pariah status. The neoliberalisation of its post USSR economy and working with Putin (as many saw Putin in the 90s as the right man) obviously hasn't led to lasting post Cold War peace - so what will?
If Putin feels losing this war will lead to him losing his job, which is the only thing that means he won't lose his life, why wouldn't he be willing to consider nuclear weapons? If the situation starts looking like unrest at home, if more Russian men are conscripted or losses increase, how will they make up for that? They could surrender, or they could push the button. I hope they would chose surrender, but then what the terms of that surrender are need to be something that is both a pathway to long term peace and also not so egregious to those in charge that fighting to the death isn't preferable. I don't know what that looks like; I cannot see something that would be enough to appease those who lead in Russia and also make it clear we won't have to do this all over again in two or three decades.
We would all prefer a lasting peace, but that's not our choice. It's Russia's. We can't control what happens in Russia. We can only choose how to react to it.
I think the international community have an obligation to try to work with Russia after its defeat to try and create a lasting peace.
First things first - defeat them comprehensively and liberate every single part of occupied Ukraine.
Once Russia surrenders, then we can consider working with them.
I doubt that's going to happen. It's looking increasingly as though the current situation is going to become a stalemate, with Russia illegally holding on to approximately the territory it currently occupies. It is clearly militarily difficult to dislodge such well dug-in troops, we can't attack Russia directly in any significant way, and Russia has enough economic support from third countries to withstand Western sanctions. The only real chance that I can see is political change within Russia leading to a voluntary withdrawal from the occupied territory.
Until it happens Russia need to be pariahs like North Korea.
And as long as Ukrainians are willing to fight to liberate their territory, that is their choice, and we should completely and unequivocally support them with every single thing they want to aid them in that fight.
I take no pleasure in saying this - since I'm more on this side of the debate than the other 'realist' side - but you're posturing again.
No, I'm not.
You're just an apologist for evil.
You have a lot of form on this.
Mmm, my long track record of defending Putin and the like. It's a rare post from me that doesn't do that. Surprised I haven't been banned.
“Elon Musk won’t fight Mark Zuckerberg in a ‘cage match’ – because he knows he’d lose”
NARRATOR: Elon Musk is 6 foot 1, and 85kg; Mark Zuckerberg is 5 foot 7, and 70kg
You're a big man, but you're out of shape. For me this is a full time job, so behave yourself.
Street fights go the ground in about 5 seconds, then it's just about who gases out first and the extra height doesn't really mean much. Musk doesn't look in terrific shape or like a bloke who has been in many scraps.
The height and weight mean F all if one of them actually knows MMA and is in good shape while the other doesn't and isn't.
With equal-ish skill, physical dimensions make a big difference, but I daresay an MMA fighter half my weight would knock me on my arse and have me crying in seconds.
That’s a nice big bridge you got there Mr Putin, it would be a real shame if something were to happen to it.
I wonder what it'd take to actually destroy, not just damage, the bridge? To bring down supports and see a complete break in the bridge.
It'd be good happen.
In the football - Nearly a third there.
To properly blow the main span of the bridge, pretty difficult given the security, it’s a well built bridge and the enemy knows it’s a target. You probably need a lorry-sized shaped charge on each carriageway.
A cheap drone boat every couple of weeks must be really annoying them though, they will have hundreds of men tied up on bridge security, who would otherwise be attacking Ukrainians.
Rejoin won't become a reality until the Conservative Party advocates it wholeheartedly. So not in my lifetime. The EU won't even consider us rejoining without that - there would be no point in going through a rejoin/Brexit cycle every time the UK government changed.
What that means for the LDs and pro-Europeans in general, I don't know. Perhaps campaign in a GE on 'Brexit is rubbish' but without making any commitment beyond 'working more closely' with the EU, and actively campaign to rejoin at some future date between GEs.
It needs someone as annoying as Farage to bang on about it for 20 years outside the main party system
The Tory Party will get behind rejoin if there is an electrical advantage, i.e. they can somehow pretend it is Labour's fault.
They will do it as cynically and opportunistically as they always do.
The Tories would never get behind Rejoin as they would see most of their voters defect to RefUK.
In the short term the only way we likely get Rejoin the EU or even EEA is a hung parliament at the next general election with the LDs holding the balance of power.
Or in the longer term at a 3rd term Labour government but only on the same terms as we had in 2016
My point was that we won't in that scenario, because the EU will just laugh and tell us to come back when we're serious.
Only when the Tories (or whatever the main right wing party is by then) realise that Brexit is a disaster, will we rejoin
The Tories will never rejoin, at most they might accept it after a Labour or Labour/LD government had already rejoined the EU although even then would more likely just rejoin EFTA
You cannot bind future Tory parties by proclamation on here, it is quite imaginable we get to a stage where their choice is become rejoiners or go extinct, because that is what the electorate wants. This is a rather obvious thing about being a political party in a democracy.
No, the choice would be between become a 9% Rejoin party ie what May's Tories got in the 2019 European elections having failed to deliver Brexit or a 37% party potentially as are the number who still back Brexit.
Only Labour and the LDs would ever take the UK back into the EU, the Tory voter coalition would never allow it and would defect en masse to Farage and ReformUK if it did
"Ever." Just how myopic can you get? Do you know how we got in to the EEC in the first place?
It's also odd to see that, because HYUFD is always arguing that current Tory policy on x and Y is immutable because Palmerston wore a UJ jockstrap, or something.
Musk v Zuckerberg is the social media equivalent of Alien v Predator as far as I'm concerned but I don't think height and weight count for much as knowing what to do with it. You just have to cause pain or break something, which can happen very quickly, and it's over.
Plus, Musk is as tubby as f*ck.
Get Bezos in there. With one gentle squeeze on each opponent's left shoulder he would instantly disable both of them, without breaking sweat. By the time they came round their families would all be signed up to Prime and SpaceX would be running its servers off AWS.
Just in case anyone was thinking it is worth negotiating with Russia, Medvedev reminds us why we shouldn't.
A new idea for Ukraine has emerged from the North Atlantic Alliance office: Ukraine will be able to join NATO if it gives up the disputed territories.
It does look like an interesting idea. The only problem is that all of – supposedly – their territories are highly disputable. And to enter the bloc, the Kiev authorities will have to give up even Kiev itself, the capital of Ancient Rus.
Only defeat has a chance of ridding Russia of its imperialist delusions and consequently creating a lasting peace.
There is not currently a route to a suitable place with Russia via negotiations. They choose to settle this via war and we have to ensure that they lose this war of their choosing.
How do you defeat a nuclear power who has suggested they might use nukes? And what happens to Russia after defeat?
Like, I agree that Russia needs to lose this war, but I don't see how that can happen with the situation as it is. It's not even like getting rid of Putin sorts anything out, because most of the people likely to take over in that scenario are more hard line than Putin.
A defeat in a war of aggression is a failure to hold on to the territory that is the target of the aggression. I don't think that leads to a nuclear response, as it didn't when Russia lost Kherson city.
Obviously you can't march on Moscow. So you might have to defend yourself against repeated wars of aggression until they get the message. But that's preferable to negotiating away more and more of Eastern Europe and providing Russia with the evidence that we don't have the resolve to stop them.
I would prefer a lasting peace - and that would likely involve understanding and helping fix Russia rather than continuing its pariah status. The neoliberalisation of its post USSR economy and working with Putin (as many saw Putin in the 90s as the right man) obviously hasn't led to lasting post Cold War peace - so what will?
If Putin feels losing this war will lead to him losing his job, which is the only thing that means he won't lose his life, why wouldn't he be willing to consider nuclear weapons? If the situation starts looking like unrest at home, if more Russian men are conscripted or losses increase, how will they make up for that? They could surrender, or they could push the button. I hope they would chose surrender, but then what the terms of that surrender are need to be something that is both a pathway to long term peace and also not so egregious to those in charge that fighting to the death isn't preferable. I don't know what that looks like; I cannot see something that would be enough to appease those who lead in Russia and also make it clear we won't have to do this all over again in two or three decades.
The second Russia stops being pariahs, pulls back to its own territory etc then it can start not being a pariah.
The only thing that will lead to lasting peace is Russia not being led by people who want war. That's up to them, not us.
We need to do that which is within our control which is helping to ensure that Russia lose, not negotiate a lasting peace. A lasting peace means Russia back within its own borders, but Russia don't want that yet - so we need to help make them want that - which means defeating them.
I think whilst that is mostly true there needs to be an international attempt at appealing directly to the people of Russia beyond the leadership and making clear that the issues are with the government not them and that a lasting peace and partnership between Russia and the rest of the world is possible. Whilst I think the invasion of Ukraine is unconscionable and Russia need to lose, I do see some of the arguments about NATO expansion as "provoking" Russia to this point as having somewhat of a point. I think that there is a responsibility to work with Russia to transform Russia, not just leave it to its own devices and just hope that leads to good outcomes. I don't think Ukraine should need to make concessions but other powers (like the US) might have to.
What concessions should other powers make and why?
If Russia don't want to be pariahs, the choice is theirs. We can't make their choices for them.
There is categorically no argument or point about NATO expansion "provoking" Russia, NATO is a defence organisation not an offensive one. Russia needs to be disabused of any notions that they get a say in what happens to their neighbours and to know if every single one of their neighbours want to join NATO then that is their choice and theirs alone.
Had Ukraine joined NATO sooner, this war would never have happened.
Other powers don't act that way - every country gets at least a say in what happens to their neighbours and many powers still use soft and hard power to enforce that. That Russia has been allowed to believe their only route to influence things is via direct hard power and not diplomacy or soft power is in part a failure of others willingness to work with Russia.
NATO is not just a defensive coalition, it's an acceptance of certain international cultural and economic hegemonies that at the end of the day most benefit the soft and hard power of the United States. If Russia or China wanted to build a similar coalition against the USA then there would be legitimate screeches of bloody murder, that any such move would suggest these powers are actively planning against the USA and should be treated thusly.
The continuation of NATO after the Cold War was a statement that the US had "won" and it had no intention of working with a post Cold War Russia after the fact. So no wonder Russia evolved into still being antagonistic to Europe and the USA. Again, I do not think that means the invasion of Ukraine or ceding any part of Ukraine to Russia is acceptable. But the chain of events that brought Russia to make this decision were not Russia's choices alone.
Wow. That is even more Russian propaganda than Putinguy puts out there.
No other powers don't act that way. How does Ukraine determine what Georgia does? How does Latvia determine what Belarus does? How does Turkey determine what Bulgaria does?
Russia needs to comprehend its just a country, like any other, and that its neighbours are free to make their own choices.
Russia absolutely is a defensive coalition, that's exactly what it is. The continuation of NATO after the Cold War was because threats could still exist in the world even after the Cold War, so nations would still need to be able to defend themselves. Something proven by Russia's violence and aggression.
Russia needs to take responsibility for its own choices. No victim blaming. Russia is the abuser and aggressor here, not the victim, the only victim here is Ukraine.
Turkey demanded that Sweden define Kurdish organisations who fought ISIS as terrorist organisations or they would veto their entry into NATO. Loads of countries "determine" what happens to neighbours or other countries because they too have influence. The USA is very heavily involved in South America, China is heavily involved in Asia and the East and South China seas, as well as various African countries, and Europe is highly integrated to the point where countries literally have banded together to determine each others fates. Some of this is consensual, like the EU, some of this is less so, like the long history of American and Chinese involvement in propping up favourable neighbouring governments with arms. That Russia wants to be allowed to act like this is reasonable - even if I dislike it when any nation acts like this. That Russia resorts to hard power is worse, yes, and that it feels entitled to the land which is Ukraine is bad - but so is the Monroe Doctrine and its history.
My position is Russia is a right wing imperialist nation that should not be allowed to invade or impose its will on its neighbouring countries. But considering that the USA is also a right wing imperialist nation that does impose its will on neighbouring countries, as is China, and historically most imperial powers have been right wing and imposed their will on other countries - this is not an act specific to or particularly surprising from Russia. If we want to stop conflict in the future, it would be good to stop having imperialist powers full stop. Right now that requires defeating Russia. But I think it should also require active efforts to deescalate global tensions, a reduction in militarisation across the globe, and considerations for how to do better diplomacy so things like this don't become more common, especially as climate catastrophe puts more strain on resources within nations and will require more cooperation between nations.
I had a feeling Australia were going to score eventually. 1-1.
Aaaand takes profit at effective 1/2 on the draw bet. Phew.
Phew^2
Played it like a violin there. Hats off. Me, I'm looking good with 4/1 for the trophy.
Nice.
TBF Australia should have scored at least one of their chances; England then hitting on the break was always going to be a risk with that level of pressure.
Just in case anyone was thinking it is worth negotiating with Russia, Medvedev reminds us why we shouldn't.
A new idea for Ukraine has emerged from the North Atlantic Alliance office: Ukraine will be able to join NATO if it gives up the disputed territories.
It does look like an interesting idea. The only problem is that all of – supposedly – their territories are highly disputable. And to enter the bloc, the Kiev authorities will have to give up even Kiev itself, the capital of Ancient Rus.
Only defeat has a chance of ridding Russia of its imperialist delusions and consequently creating a lasting peace.
There is not currently a route to a suitable place with Russia via negotiations. They choose to settle this via war and we have to ensure that they lose this war of their choosing.
How do you defeat a nuclear power who has suggested they might use nukes? And what happens to Russia after defeat?
Like, I agree that Russia needs to lose this war, but I don't see how that can happen with the situation as it is. It's not even like getting rid of Putin sorts anything out, because most of the people likely to take over in that scenario are more hard line than Putin.
A defeat in a war of aggression is a failure to hold on to the territory that is the target of the aggression. I don't think that leads to a nuclear response, as it didn't when Russia lost Kherson city.
Obviously you can't march on Moscow. So you might have to defend yourself against repeated wars of aggression until they get the message. But that's preferable to negotiating away more and more of Eastern Europe and providing Russia with the evidence that we don't have the resolve to stop them.
I would prefer a lasting peace - and that would likely involve understanding and helping fix Russia rather than continuing its pariah status. The neoliberalisation of its post USSR economy and working with Putin (as many saw Putin in the 90s as the right man) obviously hasn't led to lasting post Cold War peace - so what will?
If Putin feels losing this war will lead to him losing his job, which is the only thing that means he won't lose his life, why wouldn't he be willing to consider nuclear weapons? If the situation starts looking like unrest at home, if more Russian men are conscripted or losses increase, how will they make up for that? They could surrender, or they could push the button. I hope they would chose surrender, but then what the terms of that surrender are need to be something that is both a pathway to long term peace and also not so egregious to those in charge that fighting to the death isn't preferable. I don't know what that looks like; I cannot see something that would be enough to appease those who lead in Russia and also make it clear we won't have to do this all over again in two or three decades.
We would all prefer a lasting peace, but that's not our choice. It's Russia's. We can't control what happens in Russia. We can only choose how to react to it.
I think the international community have an obligation to try to work with Russia after its defeat to try and create a lasting peace.
First things first - defeat them comprehensively and liberate every single part of occupied Ukraine.
Once Russia surrenders, then we can consider working with them.
I doubt that's going to happen. It's looking increasingly as though the current situation is going to become a stalemate, with Russia illegally holding on to approximately the territory it currently occupies. It is clearly militarily difficult to dislodge such well dug-in troops, we can't attack Russia directly in any significant way, and Russia has enough economic support from third countries to withstand Western sanctions. The only real chance that I can see is political change within Russia leading to a voluntary withdrawal from the occupied territory.
Until it happens Russia need to be pariahs like North Korea.
And as long as Ukrainians are willing to fight to liberate their territory, that is their choice, and we should completely and unequivocally support them with every single thing they want to aid them in that fight.
I take no pleasure in saying this - since I'm more on this side of the debate than the other 'realist' side - but you're posturing again.
No, I'm not.
You're just an apologist for evil.
You have a lot of form on this.
Mmm, my long track record of defending Putin and the like. It's a rare post from me that doesn't do that. Surprised I haven't been banned.
Far more egregious offenders than you haven't been banned. You're not a troll, you're just an apologist.
Its not so much that you want evil to happen, you just turn a blind eye to it and don't want difficult choices to defeat it. You do this regularly with Putin, you did it with Corbyn too.
Easier for you to pretend evil doesn't exist, so we don't need to act, than to do an action you don't want like support one side in a war to continue a conflict until they're free, or stand up against a Labour leader promoting antisemitism.
“Elon Musk won’t fight Mark Zuckerberg in a ‘cage match’ – because he knows he’d lose”
NARRATOR: Elon Musk is 6 foot 1, and 85kg; Mark Zuckerberg is 5 foot 7, and 70kg
And Zuckerberg is actively training and has actively done this kind of fighting for a while now, and Musk... hasn't. I'm 6ft 5 and close to 100kg - I have a friend who is just under 6ft and closer to something like 80kg, but they do kickboxing twice a week. Are we saying I'd be favourite in a "cage match" against them?
Weird. By default I picture PBers as tall and thin, but I read your name as gross so had you down as short and fat.
I am tall and people say I'm thin, but don't consider myself thin (when I was in my early 20s I was this height but like 12 stone, so that's what I consider thin).
“Elon Musk won’t fight Mark Zuckerberg in a ‘cage match’ – because he knows he’d lose”
NARRATOR: Elon Musk is 6 foot 1, and 85kg; Mark Zuckerberg is 5 foot 7, and 70kg
And Zuckerberg is actively training and has actively done this kind of fighting for a while now, and Musk... hasn't. I'm 6ft 5 and close to 100kg - I have a friend who is just under 6ft and closer to something like 80kg, but they do kickboxing twice a week. Are we saying I'd be favourite in a "cage match" against them?
Weird. By default I picture PBers as tall and thin, but I read your name as gross so had you down as short and fat.
I am tall and people say I'm thin, but don't consider myself thin (when I was in my early 20s I was this height but like 12 stone, so that's what I consider thin).
“Elon Musk won’t fight Mark Zuckerberg in a ‘cage match’ – because he knows he’d lose”
NARRATOR: Elon Musk is 6 foot 1, and 85kg; Mark Zuckerberg is 5 foot 7, and 70kg
And Zuckerberg is actively training and has actively done this kind of fighting for a while now, and Musk... hasn't. I'm 6ft 5 and close to 100kg - I have a friend who is just under 6ft and closer to something like 80kg, but they do kickboxing twice a week. Are we saying I'd be favourite in a "cage match" against them?
Oh shit, and there I was arguing with you about SKS.
He's a left hating disgrace you say? ... damn right he is!
As for the progress in the war, the Ukranian advances in Zaphorzhzhia (sp?) are currently running at about five miles a month, which will enable them to reach the coast in mid 2024 or earlier if they speed up past the minefields. Their only danger is the unremarked Russian advances in/around the Kharkiv oblast, which at the same rate will enable them to retake Izium. The Ukrainian problem is not the counterattack, as they are willing to expend the men and materiel to do it (this war is a process of converting men and machines into land). It's what the Russians are doing elsewhere.
The last thing you would expect in an offensive is a linear rate of progress. I would think the most likely possibilities are:
1. Initial rapid advances slowing down over time as reserves are exhausted, logistic lines stretched and defences bolstered.
2. Slow initial advances that accelerate once the defensive reserves are exhausted or a key defensive line is broken.
3. Essentially little or no movement in the grand scheme of things.
We don't know whether (2) or (3) applies yet. I think there are reasons to be cautiously optimistic that Ukraine may cause enough attrition to the Russian defence that we will see (2) before winter.
Your analysis is all straight lines. That's not how this war has gone.
Just in case anyone was thinking it is worth negotiating with Russia, Medvedev reminds us why we shouldn't.
A new idea for Ukraine has emerged from the North Atlantic Alliance office: Ukraine will be able to join NATO if it gives up the disputed territories.
It does look like an interesting idea. The only problem is that all of – supposedly – their territories are highly disputable. And to enter the bloc, the Kiev authorities will have to give up even Kiev itself, the capital of Ancient Rus.
Only defeat has a chance of ridding Russia of its imperialist delusions and consequently creating a lasting peace.
There is not currently a route to a suitable place with Russia via negotiations. They choose to settle this via war and we have to ensure that they lose this war of their choosing.
How do you defeat a nuclear power who has suggested they might use nukes? And what happens to Russia after defeat?
Like, I agree that Russia needs to lose this war, but I don't see how that can happen with the situation as it is. It's not even like getting rid of Putin sorts anything out, because most of the people likely to take over in that scenario are more hard line than Putin.
A defeat in a war of aggression is a failure to hold on to the territory that is the target of the aggression. I don't think that leads to a nuclear response, as it didn't when Russia lost Kherson city.
Obviously you can't march on Moscow. So you might have to defend yourself against repeated wars of aggression until they get the message. But that's preferable to negotiating away more and more of Eastern Europe and providing Russia with the evidence that we don't have the resolve to stop them.
I would prefer a lasting peace - and that would likely involve understanding and helping fix Russia rather than continuing its pariah status. The neoliberalisation of its post USSR economy and working with Putin (as many saw Putin in the 90s as the right man) obviously hasn't led to lasting post Cold War peace - so what will?
If Putin feels losing this war will lead to him losing his job, which is the only thing that means he won't lose his life, why wouldn't he be willing to consider nuclear weapons? If the situation starts looking like unrest at home, if more Russian men are conscripted or losses increase, how will they make up for that? They could surrender, or they could push the button. I hope they would chose surrender, but then what the terms of that surrender are need to be something that is both a pathway to long term peace and also not so egregious to those in charge that fighting to the death isn't preferable. I don't know what that looks like; I cannot see something that would be enough to appease those who lead in Russia and also make it clear we won't have to do this all over again in two or three decades.
We would all prefer a lasting peace, but that's not our choice. It's Russia's. We can't control what happens in Russia. We can only choose how to react to it.
I think the international community have an obligation to try to work with Russia after its defeat to try and create a lasting peace.
First things first - defeat them comprehensively and liberate every single part of occupied Ukraine.
Once Russia surrenders, then we can consider working with them.
I doubt that's going to happen. It's looking increasingly as though the current situation is going to become a stalemate, with Russia illegally holding on to approximately the territory it currently occupies. It is clearly militarily difficult to dislodge such well dug-in troops, we can't attack Russia directly in any significant way, and Russia has enough economic support from third countries to withstand Western sanctions. The only real chance that I can see is political change within Russia leading to a voluntary withdrawal from the occupied territory.
Until it happens Russia need to be pariahs like North Korea.
And as long as Ukrainians are willing to fight to liberate their territory, that is their choice, and we should completely and unequivocally support them with every single thing they want to aid them in that fight.
I take no pleasure in saying this - since I'm more on this side of the debate than the other 'realist' side - but you're posturing again.
No, I'm not.
You're just an apologist for evil.
You have a lot of form on this.
Mmm, my long track record of defending Putin and the like. It's a rare post from me that doesn't do that. Surprised I haven't been banned.
Far more egregious offenders than you haven't been banned. You're not a troll, you're just an apologist.
Its not so much that you want evil to happen, you just turn a blind eye to it and don't want difficult choices to defeat it. You do this regularly with Putin, you did it with Corbyn too.
Easier for you to pretend evil doesn't exist, so we don't need to act, than to do an action you don't want like support one side in a war to continue a conflict until they're free, or stand up against a Labour leader promoting antisemitism.
I just think there is an unwillingness to accept nuance in geopolitical situations.
Is Putin bad? Yes. Is his vision of the Russian state bad? Also yes. Does this mean people who oppose him and the Russian state are automatically good? No.
You can say that Russia have no legitimate grounds for invading Ukraine, and that they should be defeated and at the same time argue that the USA is also a bad imperialist power whose history of antagonism to Russia potentially contributed to the situation we find ourselves in. The history of imperialism is long and complicated, and filled with evil and bad on all sides.
“Elon Musk won’t fight Mark Zuckerberg in a ‘cage match’ – because he knows he’d lose”
NARRATOR: Elon Musk is 6 foot 1, and 85kg; Mark Zuckerberg is 5 foot 7, and 70kg
And Zuckerberg is actively training and has actively done this kind of fighting for a while now, and Musk... hasn't. I'm 6ft 5 and close to 100kg - I have a friend who is just under 6ft and closer to something like 80kg, but they do kickboxing twice a week. Are we saying I'd be favourite in a "cage match" against them?
Oh shit, and there I was arguing with you about SKS.
He's a left hating disgrace you say? ... damn right he is!
Lol, I do not like the idea of people finding my physicality intimidating... I am a gentle giant.
Just in case anyone was thinking it is worth negotiating with Russia, Medvedev reminds us why we shouldn't.
A new idea for Ukraine has emerged from the North Atlantic Alliance office: Ukraine will be able to join NATO if it gives up the disputed territories.
It does look like an interesting idea. The only problem is that all of – supposedly – their territories are highly disputable. And to enter the bloc, the Kiev authorities will have to give up even Kiev itself, the capital of Ancient Rus.
Only defeat has a chance of ridding Russia of its imperialist delusions and consequently creating a lasting peace.
There is not currently a route to a suitable place with Russia via negotiations. They choose to settle this via war and we have to ensure that they lose this war of their choosing.
How do you defeat a nuclear power who has suggested they might use nukes? And what happens to Russia after defeat?
Like, I agree that Russia needs to lose this war, but I don't see how that can happen with the situation as it is. It's not even like getting rid of Putin sorts anything out, because most of the people likely to take over in that scenario are more hard line than Putin.
A defeat in a war of aggression is a failure to hold on to the territory that is the target of the aggression. I don't think that leads to a nuclear response, as it didn't when Russia lost Kherson city.
Obviously you can't march on Moscow. So you might have to defend yourself against repeated wars of aggression until they get the message. But that's preferable to negotiating away more and more of Eastern Europe and providing Russia with the evidence that we don't have the resolve to stop them.
I would prefer a lasting peace - and that would likely involve understanding and helping fix Russia rather than continuing its pariah status. The neoliberalisation of its post USSR economy and working with Putin (as many saw Putin in the 90s as the right man) obviously hasn't led to lasting post Cold War peace - so what will?
If Putin feels losing this war will lead to him losing his job, which is the only thing that means he won't lose his life, why wouldn't he be willing to consider nuclear weapons? If the situation starts looking like unrest at home, if more Russian men are conscripted or losses increase, how will they make up for that? They could surrender, or they could push the button. I hope they would chose surrender, but then what the terms of that surrender are need to be something that is both a pathway to long term peace and also not so egregious to those in charge that fighting to the death isn't preferable. I don't know what that looks like; I cannot see something that would be enough to appease those who lead in Russia and also make it clear we won't have to do this all over again in two or three decades.
We would all prefer a lasting peace, but that's not our choice. It's Russia's. We can't control what happens in Russia. We can only choose how to react to it.
I think the international community have an obligation to try to work with Russia after its defeat to try and create a lasting peace.
First things first - defeat them comprehensively and liberate every single part of occupied Ukraine.
Once Russia surrenders, then we can consider working with them.
I doubt that's going to happen. It's looking increasingly as though the current situation is going to become a stalemate, with Russia illegally holding on to approximately the territory it currently occupies. It is clearly militarily difficult to dislodge such well dug-in troops, we can't attack Russia directly in any significant way, and Russia has enough economic support from third countries to withstand Western sanctions. The only real chance that I can see is political change within Russia leading to a voluntary withdrawal from the occupied territory.
Until it happens Russia need to be pariahs like North Korea.
And as long as Ukrainians are willing to fight to liberate their territory, that is their choice, and we should completely and unequivocally support them with every single thing they want to aid them in that fight.
I take no pleasure in saying this - since I'm more on this side of the debate than the other 'realist' side - but you're posturing again.
No, I'm not.
You're just an apologist for evil.
You have a lot of form on this.
Mmm, my long track record of defending Putin and the like. It's a rare post from me that doesn't do that. Surprised I haven't been banned.
Far more egregious offenders than you haven't been banned. You're not a troll, you're just an apologist.
Its not so much that you want evil to happen, you just turn a blind eye to it and don't want difficult choices to defeat it. You do this regularly with Putin, you did it with Corbyn too.
Easier for you to pretend evil doesn't exist, so we don't need to act, than to do an action you don't want like support one side in a war to continue a conflict until they're free, or stand up against a Labour leader promoting antisemitism.
Sanctimonious bellicose talk is cheap. In fact it’s absolutely free.
I think there's a delusion running through your posts on this issue that the West is in control and can choose the outcome it wants (and therefore we should choose the option with zero deaths which means stopping the fighting now).
It's important to remember that this is happening because of the choice by Putin and Russia to invade, and we are reacting to that choice. We can't force Russia to be a reasonable and trustworthy counterparty in negotiations by finding a magic form of words, or a perfect compromise.
We have to accept the reality that their invasion showed us. They do not share our view of a world run by rules, agreements, negotiations and peaceful coexistence. They have a view of the world based on power, domination, imperialism and unilateral action. They are imposing that world view on the people of Ukraine and we either do all we can to resist that, or the future for the world is a much darker place.
You're of course right that we can't control the situation and decide the outcome - if we could, then simply saying "We decree that Russia is removed" would be the best option. But we're not powerless either. We are encouraging Ukraine to think that we will keep escalating with more and more sophisticated weaponry and that somehow that will enable them to win outright.
There are two snags in that. First, it's not clear that an outright win is a realistic prospect, and years of war will certainly lead to further massive deaths on both sides - we shouldn't be complicit in that unless we think it will work. Second, we are encouraging them to count on us indefinitely. All big powers have a history of supporting locally favoured governments (and factions) until we get fed up, and we do nearly always get fed up in the end, if only because a new government takes a different view (Trump is the obvious risk, but probably not the only one). We should IMO combine continued support with a realistic private assessment that they shouldn't assume that it will continue forever, and if they do show willingness to negotiate we will step up support to improve their negotiating position. It's not that different to our current policy, but the nuance is important.
"...First, it's not clear that an outright win is a realistic prospect, and years of war will certainly lead to further massive deaths on both sides - we shouldn't be complicit in that unless we think it will work..."
You want a casualty-low war. Not on the table. You want certainty in a war. None exists. You want lack of complicity in the war. Not available. That's not how wars work. You pick a side and support it until you can't. You can't plan them, you just fight them until you can't.
Who invented this rule? Countries support various sides in wars whilst it is in their interests to do so. When it isn't, they don't.
“Elon Musk won’t fight Mark Zuckerberg in a ‘cage match’ – because he knows he’d lose”
NARRATOR: Elon Musk is 6 foot 1, and 85kg; Mark Zuckerberg is 5 foot 7, and 70kg
And Zuckerberg is actively training and has actively done this kind of fighting for a while now, and Musk... hasn't. I'm 6ft 5 and close to 100kg - I have a friend who is just under 6ft and closer to something like 80kg, but they do kickboxing twice a week. Are we saying I'd be favourite in a "cage match" against them?
Weird. By default I picture PBers as tall and thin, but I read your name as gross so had you down as short and fat.
I am tall and people say I'm thin, but don't consider myself thin (when I was in my early 20s I was this height but like 12 stone, so that's what I consider thin).
6'5 and 12 stone is very thin indeed.
Yeah, those were the days - eat anything I wanted and the metabolism just burnt it right up. Mid 20s that all changed. Aging isn't for wimps, as they say.
Just in case anyone was thinking it is worth negotiating with Russia, Medvedev reminds us why we shouldn't.
A new idea for Ukraine has emerged from the North Atlantic Alliance office: Ukraine will be able to join NATO if it gives up the disputed territories.
It does look like an interesting idea. The only problem is that all of – supposedly – their territories are highly disputable. And to enter the bloc, the Kiev authorities will have to give up even Kiev itself, the capital of Ancient Rus.
Only defeat has a chance of ridding Russia of its imperialist delusions and consequently creating a lasting peace.
There is not currently a route to a suitable place with Russia via negotiations. They choose to settle this via war and we have to ensure that they lose this war of their choosing.
How do you defeat a nuclear power who has suggested they might use nukes? And what happens to Russia after defeat?
Like, I agree that Russia needs to lose this war, but I don't see how that can happen with the situation as it is. It's not even like getting rid of Putin sorts anything out, because most of the people likely to take over in that scenario are more hard line than Putin.
A defeat in a war of aggression is a failure to hold on to the territory that is the target of the aggression. I don't think that leads to a nuclear response, as it didn't when Russia lost Kherson city.
Obviously you can't march on Moscow. So you might have to defend yourself against repeated wars of aggression until they get the message. But that's preferable to negotiating away more and more of Eastern Europe and providing Russia with the evidence that we don't have the resolve to stop them.
I would prefer a lasting peace - and that would likely involve understanding and helping fix Russia rather than continuing its pariah status. The neoliberalisation of its post USSR economy and working with Putin (as many saw Putin in the 90s as the right man) obviously hasn't led to lasting post Cold War peace - so what will?
If Putin feels losing this war will lead to him losing his job, which is the only thing that means he won't lose his life, why wouldn't he be willing to consider nuclear weapons? If the situation starts looking like unrest at home, if more Russian men are conscripted or losses increase, how will they make up for that? They could surrender, or they could push the button. I hope they would chose surrender, but then what the terms of that surrender are need to be something that is both a pathway to long term peace and also not so egregious to those in charge that fighting to the death isn't preferable. I don't know what that looks like; I cannot see something that would be enough to appease those who lead in Russia and also make it clear we won't have to do this all over again in two or three decades.
We would all prefer a lasting peace, but that's not our choice. It's Russia's. We can't control what happens in Russia. We can only choose how to react to it.
I think the international community have an obligation to try to work with Russia after its defeat to try and create a lasting peace.
First things first - defeat them comprehensively and liberate every single part of occupied Ukraine.
Once Russia surrenders, then we can consider working with them.
I doubt that's going to happen. It's looking increasingly as though the current situation is going to become a stalemate, with Russia illegally holding on to approximately the territory it currently occupies. It is clearly militarily difficult to dislodge such well dug-in troops, we can't attack Russia directly in any significant way, and Russia has enough economic support from third countries to withstand Western sanctions. The only real chance that I can see is political change within Russia leading to a voluntary withdrawal from the occupied territory.
Until it happens Russia need to be pariahs like North Korea.
And as long as Ukrainians are willing to fight to liberate their territory, that is their choice, and we should completely and unequivocally support them with every single thing they want to aid them in that fight.
I take no pleasure in saying this - since I'm more on this side of the debate than the other 'realist' side - but you're posturing again.
No, I'm not.
You're just an apologist for evil.
You have a lot of form on this.
Mmm, my long track record of defending Putin and the like. It's a rare post from me that doesn't do that. Surprised I haven't been banned.
Far more egregious offenders than you haven't been banned. You're not a troll, you're just an apologist.
Its not so much that you want evil to happen, you just turn a blind eye to it and don't want difficult choices to defeat it. You do this regularly with Putin, you did it with Corbyn too.
Easier for you to pretend evil doesn't exist, so we don't need to act, than to do an action you don't want like support one side in a war to continue a conflict until they're free, or stand up against a Labour leader promoting antisemitism.
I just think there is an unwillingness to accept nuance in geopolitical situations.
Is Putin bad? Yes. Is his vision of the Russian state bad? Also yes. Does this mean people who oppose him and the Russian state are automatically good? No.
You can say that Russia have no legitimate grounds for invading Ukraine, and that they should be defeated and at the same time argue that the USA is also a bad imperialist power whose history of antagonism to Russia potentially contributed to the situation we find ourselves in. The history of imperialism is long and complicated, and filled with evil and bad on all sides.
Are the people who oppose him in seeking to liberate their own land automatically good? Yes.
Should we support them for as long as it takes, with as much as it takes, as long as they're prepared to fight? Yes.
Is NATO a defensive organisation? Yes.
Is the world a better place for NATO existing? Yes.
There has been absolutely NO antagonism to Russia to lead to this situation, the situation is because of appeasement of Russia, letting them get away with prior invasions and continuing to buy oil and gas from them, continuing to allow developments like Nordstream despite what they were doing.
Just in case anyone was thinking it is worth negotiating with Russia, Medvedev reminds us why we shouldn't.
A new idea for Ukraine has emerged from the North Atlantic Alliance office: Ukraine will be able to join NATO if it gives up the disputed territories.
It does look like an interesting idea. The only problem is that all of – supposedly – their territories are highly disputable. And to enter the bloc, the Kiev authorities will have to give up even Kiev itself, the capital of Ancient Rus.
Only defeat has a chance of ridding Russia of its imperialist delusions and consequently creating a lasting peace.
There is not currently a route to a suitable place with Russia via negotiations. They choose to settle this via war and we have to ensure that they lose this war of their choosing.
How do you defeat a nuclear power who has suggested they might use nukes? And what happens to Russia after defeat?
Like, I agree that Russia needs to lose this war, but I don't see how that can happen with the situation as it is. It's not even like getting rid of Putin sorts anything out, because most of the people likely to take over in that scenario are more hard line than Putin.
A defeat in a war of aggression is a failure to hold on to the territory that is the target of the aggression. I don't think that leads to a nuclear response, as it didn't when Russia lost Kherson city.
Obviously you can't march on Moscow. So you might have to defend yourself against repeated wars of aggression until they get the message. But that's preferable to negotiating away more and more of Eastern Europe and providing Russia with the evidence that we don't have the resolve to stop them.
I would prefer a lasting peace - and that would likely involve understanding and helping fix Russia rather than continuing its pariah status. The neoliberalisation of its post USSR economy and working with Putin (as many saw Putin in the 90s as the right man) obviously hasn't led to lasting post Cold War peace - so what will?
If Putin feels losing this war will lead to him losing his job, which is the only thing that means he won't lose his life, why wouldn't he be willing to consider nuclear weapons? If the situation starts looking like unrest at home, if more Russian men are conscripted or losses increase, how will they make up for that? They could surrender, or they could push the button. I hope they would chose surrender, but then what the terms of that surrender are need to be something that is both a pathway to long term peace and also not so egregious to those in charge that fighting to the death isn't preferable. I don't know what that looks like; I cannot see something that would be enough to appease those who lead in Russia and also make it clear we won't have to do this all over again in two or three decades.
We would all prefer a lasting peace, but that's not our choice. It's Russia's. We can't control what happens in Russia. We can only choose how to react to it.
I think the international community have an obligation to try to work with Russia after its defeat to try and create a lasting peace.
First things first - defeat them comprehensively and liberate every single part of occupied Ukraine.
Once Russia surrenders, then we can consider working with them.
I doubt that's going to happen. It's looking increasingly as though the current situation is going to become a stalemate, with Russia illegally holding on to approximately the territory it currently occupies. It is clearly militarily difficult to dislodge such well dug-in troops, we can't attack Russia directly in any significant way, and Russia has enough economic support from third countries to withstand Western sanctions. The only real chance that I can see is political change within Russia leading to a voluntary withdrawal from the occupied territory.
Until it happens Russia need to be pariahs like North Korea.
And as long as Ukrainians are willing to fight to liberate their territory, that is their choice, and we should completely and unequivocally support them with every single thing they want to aid them in that fight.
I take no pleasure in saying this - since I'm more on this side of the debate than the other 'realist' side - but you're posturing again.
No, I'm not.
You're just an apologist for evil.
You have a lot of form on this.
Mmm, my long track record of defending Putin and the like. It's a rare post from me that doesn't do that. Surprised I haven't been banned.
Far more egregious offenders than you haven't been banned. You're not a troll, you're just an apologist.
Its not so much that you want evil to happen, you just turn a blind eye to it and don't want difficult choices to defeat it. You do this regularly with Putin, you did it with Corbyn too.
Easier for you to pretend evil doesn't exist, so we don't need to act, than to do an action you don't want like support one side in a war to continue a conflict until they're free, or stand up against a Labour leader promoting antisemitism.
Sanctimonious bellicose talk is cheap. In fact it’s absolutely free.
If only it were taxed, we might not have such a fiscal mountain to climb.
“Elon Musk won’t fight Mark Zuckerberg in a ‘cage match’ – because he knows he’d lose”
NARRATOR: Elon Musk is 6 foot 1, and 85kg; Mark Zuckerberg is 5 foot 7, and 70kg
And Zuckerberg is actively training and has actively done this kind of fighting for a while now, and Musk... hasn't. I'm 6ft 5 and close to 100kg - I have a friend who is just under 6ft and closer to something like 80kg, but they do kickboxing twice a week. Are we saying I'd be favourite in a "cage match" against them?
Oh shit, and there I was arguing with you about SKS.
He's a left hating disgrace you say? ... damn right he is!
Lol, I do not like the idea of people finding my physicality intimidating... I am a gentle giant.
As for the progress in the war, the Ukranian advances in Zaphorzhzhia (sp?) are currently running at about five miles a month, which will enable them to reach the coast in mid 2024 or earlier if they speed up past the minefields. Their only danger is the unremarked Russian advances in/around the Kharkiv oblast, which at the same rate will enable them to retake Izium. The Ukrainian problem is not the counterattack, as they are willing to expend the men and materiel to do it (this war is a process of converting men and machines into land). It's what the Russians are doing elsewhere.
The last thing you would expect in an offensive is a linear rate of progress. I would think the most likely possibilities are:
1. Initial rapid advances slowing down over time as reserves are exhausted, logistic lines stretched and defences bolstered.
2. Slow initial advances that accelerate once the defensive reserves are exhausted or a key defensive line is broken.
3. Essentially little or no movement in the grand scheme of things.
We don't know whether (2) or (3) applies yet. I think there are reasons to be cautiously optimistic that Ukraine may cause enough attrition to the Russian defence that we will see (2) before winter.
Your analysis is all straight lines. That's not how this war has gone.
There's a word for reducing complex qualitative situations to simple quantitative measurements that can be understood by everyday people. That word is "statistics".
As for your analysis, I agree with it, but your three points reduce to "1: slow down", "2: speed up", or "3: stop". I hope that 2 will happen in the future, but I can only tell you about the present.
As for the progress in the war, the Ukranian advances in Zaphorzhzhia (sp?) are currently running at about five miles a month, which will enable them to reach the coast in mid 2024 or earlier if they speed up past the minefields. Their only danger is the unremarked Russian advances in/around the Kharkiv oblast, which at the same rate will enable them to retake Izium. The Ukrainian problem is not the counterattack, as they are willing to expend the men and materiel to do it (this war is a process of converting men and machines into land). It's what the Russians are doing elsewhere.
The last thing you would expect in an offensive is a linear rate of progress. I would think the most likely possibilities are:
1. Initial rapid advances slowing down over time as reserves are exhausted, logistic lines stretched and defences bolstered.
2. Slow initial advances that accelerate once the defensive reserves are exhausted or a key defensive line is broken.
3. Essentially little or no movement in the grand scheme of things.
We don't know whether (2) or (3) applies yet. I think there are reasons to be cautiously optimistic that Ukraine may cause enough attrition to the Russian defence that we will see (2) before winter.
Your analysis is all straight lines. That's not how this war has gone.
There isn't a lot of fighting season left, though. Ukraine appear very recently to have committed some significant reserves (note the Challengers, Leopards, Marders etc) around Robotyne.
The next few weeks will settle whether it's 2 or 3.
Just in case anyone was thinking it is worth negotiating with Russia, Medvedev reminds us why we shouldn't.
A new idea for Ukraine has emerged from the North Atlantic Alliance office: Ukraine will be able to join NATO if it gives up the disputed territories.
It does look like an interesting idea. The only problem is that all of – supposedly – their territories are highly disputable. And to enter the bloc, the Kiev authorities will have to give up even Kiev itself, the capital of Ancient Rus.
Only defeat has a chance of ridding Russia of its imperialist delusions and consequently creating a lasting peace.
There is not currently a route to a suitable place with Russia via negotiations. They choose to settle this via war and we have to ensure that they lose this war of their choosing.
How do you defeat a nuclear power who has suggested they might use nukes? And what happens to Russia after defeat?
Like, I agree that Russia needs to lose this war, but I don't see how that can happen with the situation as it is. It's not even like getting rid of Putin sorts anything out, because most of the people likely to take over in that scenario are more hard line than Putin.
A defeat in a war of aggression is a failure to hold on to the territory that is the target of the aggression. I don't think that leads to a nuclear response, as it didn't when Russia lost Kherson city.
Obviously you can't march on Moscow. So you might have to defend yourself against repeated wars of aggression until they get the message. But that's preferable to negotiating away more and more of Eastern Europe and providing Russia with the evidence that we don't have the resolve to stop them.
I would prefer a lasting peace - and that would likely involve understanding and helping fix Russia rather than continuing its pariah status. The neoliberalisation of its post USSR economy and working with Putin (as many saw Putin in the 90s as the right man) obviously hasn't led to lasting post Cold War peace - so what will?
If Putin feels losing this war will lead to him losing his job, which is the only thing that means he won't lose his life, why wouldn't he be willing to consider nuclear weapons? If the situation starts looking like unrest at home, if more Russian men are conscripted or losses increase, how will they make up for that? They could surrender, or they could push the button. I hope they would chose surrender, but then what the terms of that surrender are need to be something that is both a pathway to long term peace and also not so egregious to those in charge that fighting to the death isn't preferable. I don't know what that looks like; I cannot see something that would be enough to appease those who lead in Russia and also make it clear we won't have to do this all over again in two or three decades.
We would all prefer a lasting peace, but that's not our choice. It's Russia's. We can't control what happens in Russia. We can only choose how to react to it.
I think the international community have an obligation to try to work with Russia after its defeat to try and create a lasting peace.
First things first - defeat them comprehensively and liberate every single part of occupied Ukraine.
Once Russia surrenders, then we can consider working with them.
I doubt that's going to happen. It's looking increasingly as though the current situation is going to become a stalemate, with Russia illegally holding on to approximately the territory it currently occupies. It is clearly militarily difficult to dislodge such well dug-in troops, we can't attack Russia directly in any significant way, and Russia has enough economic support from third countries to withstand Western sanctions. The only real chance that I can see is political change within Russia leading to a voluntary withdrawal from the occupied territory.
Until it happens Russia need to be pariahs like North Korea.
And as long as Ukrainians are willing to fight to liberate their territory, that is their choice, and we should completely and unequivocally support them with every single thing they want to aid them in that fight.
I take no pleasure in saying this - since I'm more on this side of the debate than the other 'realist' side - but you're posturing again.
No, I'm not.
You're just an apologist for evil.
You have a lot of form on this.
Mmm, my long track record of defending Putin and the like. It's a rare post from me that doesn't do that. Surprised I haven't been banned.
Far more egregious offenders than you haven't been banned. You're not a troll, you're just an apologist.
Its not so much that you want evil to happen, you just turn a blind eye to it and don't want difficult choices to defeat it. You do this regularly with Putin, you did it with Corbyn too.
Easier for you to pretend evil doesn't exist, so we don't need to act, than to do an action you don't want like support one side in a war to continue a conflict until they're free, or stand up against a Labour leader promoting antisemitism.
I just think there is an unwillingness to accept nuance in geopolitical situations.
Is Putin bad? Yes. Is his vision of the Russian state bad? Also yes. Does this mean people who oppose him and the Russian state are automatically good? No.
You can say that Russia have no legitimate grounds for invading Ukraine, and that they should be defeated and at the same time argue that the USA is also a bad imperialist power whose history of antagonism to Russia potentially contributed to the situation we find ourselves in. The history of imperialism is long and complicated, and filled with evil and bad on all sides.
I think that we shouldn't invade and steal territory from
Abkhazia Afghanistan : Zambia Zimbabwe
I think that Russia shouldn't invade invade and steal territory from
Abkhazia Afghanistan : Zambia Zimbabwe
If that's not how things are, can I please have a list of the countries we *can* invade and steal territory from?
Just in case anyone was thinking it is worth negotiating with Russia, Medvedev reminds us why we shouldn't.
A new idea for Ukraine has emerged from the North Atlantic Alliance office: Ukraine will be able to join NATO if it gives up the disputed territories.
It does look like an interesting idea. The only problem is that all of – supposedly – their territories are highly disputable. And to enter the bloc, the Kiev authorities will have to give up even Kiev itself, the capital of Ancient Rus.
Only defeat has a chance of ridding Russia of its imperialist delusions and consequently creating a lasting peace.
There is not currently a route to a suitable place with Russia via negotiations. They choose to settle this via war and we have to ensure that they lose this war of their choosing.
How do you defeat a nuclear power who has suggested they might use nukes? And what happens to Russia after defeat?
Like, I agree that Russia needs to lose this war, but I don't see how that can happen with the situation as it is. It's not even like getting rid of Putin sorts anything out, because most of the people likely to take over in that scenario are more hard line than Putin.
A defeat in a war of aggression is a failure to hold on to the territory that is the target of the aggression. I don't think that leads to a nuclear response, as it didn't when Russia lost Kherson city.
Obviously you can't march on Moscow. So you might have to defend yourself against repeated wars of aggression until they get the message. But that's preferable to negotiating away more and more of Eastern Europe and providing Russia with the evidence that we don't have the resolve to stop them.
I would prefer a lasting peace - and that would likely involve understanding and helping fix Russia rather than continuing its pariah status. The neoliberalisation of its post USSR economy and working with Putin (as many saw Putin in the 90s as the right man) obviously hasn't led to lasting post Cold War peace - so what will?
If Putin feels losing this war will lead to him losing his job, which is the only thing that means he won't lose his life, why wouldn't he be willing to consider nuclear weapons? If the situation starts looking like unrest at home, if more Russian men are conscripted or losses increase, how will they make up for that? They could surrender, or they could push the button. I hope they would chose surrender, but then what the terms of that surrender are need to be something that is both a pathway to long term peace and also not so egregious to those in charge that fighting to the death isn't preferable. I don't know what that looks like; I cannot see something that would be enough to appease those who lead in Russia and also make it clear we won't have to do this all over again in two or three decades.
We would all prefer a lasting peace, but that's not our choice. It's Russia's. We can't control what happens in Russia. We can only choose how to react to it.
I think the international community have an obligation to try to work with Russia after its defeat to try and create a lasting peace.
First things first - defeat them comprehensively and liberate every single part of occupied Ukraine.
Once Russia surrenders, then we can consider working with them.
I doubt that's going to happen. It's looking increasingly as though the current situation is going to become a stalemate, with Russia illegally holding on to approximately the territory it currently occupies. It is clearly militarily difficult to dislodge such well dug-in troops, we can't attack Russia directly in any significant way, and Russia has enough economic support from third countries to withstand Western sanctions. The only real chance that I can see is political change within Russia leading to a voluntary withdrawal from the occupied territory.
Until it happens Russia need to be pariahs like North Korea.
And as long as Ukrainians are willing to fight to liberate their territory, that is their choice, and we should completely and unequivocally support them with every single thing they want to aid them in that fight.
I take no pleasure in saying this - since I'm more on this side of the debate than the other 'realist' side - but you're posturing again.
No, I'm not.
You're just an apologist for evil.
You have a lot of form on this.
Mmm, my long track record of defending Putin and the like. It's a rare post from me that doesn't do that. Surprised I haven't been banned.
Far more egregious offenders than you haven't been banned. You're not a troll, you're just an apologist.
Its not so much that you want evil to happen, you just turn a blind eye to it and don't want difficult choices to defeat it. You do this regularly with Putin, you did it with Corbyn too.
Easier for you to pretend evil doesn't exist, so we don't need to act, than to do an action you don't want like support one side in a war to continue a conflict until they're free, or stand up against a Labour leader promoting antisemitism.
Sanctimonious bellicose talk is cheap. In fact it’s absolutely free.
Point of order, we are paying for supporting Ukraine. Not exactly free.
Just in case anyone was thinking it is worth negotiating with Russia, Medvedev reminds us why we shouldn't.
A new idea for Ukraine has emerged from the North Atlantic Alliance office: Ukraine will be able to join NATO if it gives up the disputed territories.
It does look like an interesting idea. The only problem is that all of – supposedly – their territories are highly disputable. And to enter the bloc, the Kiev authorities will have to give up even Kiev itself, the capital of Ancient Rus.
Only defeat has a chance of ridding Russia of its imperialist delusions and consequently creating a lasting peace.
There is not currently a route to a suitable place with Russia via negotiations. They choose to settle this via war and we have to ensure that they lose this war of their choosing.
How do you defeat a nuclear power who has suggested they might use nukes? And what happens to Russia after defeat?
Like, I agree that Russia needs to lose this war, but I don't see how that can happen with the situation as it is. It's not even like getting rid of Putin sorts anything out, because most of the people likely to take over in that scenario are more hard line than Putin.
A defeat in a war of aggression is a failure to hold on to the territory that is the target of the aggression. I don't think that leads to a nuclear response, as it didn't when Russia lost Kherson city.
Obviously you can't march on Moscow. So you might have to defend yourself against repeated wars of aggression until they get the message. But that's preferable to negotiating away more and more of Eastern Europe and providing Russia with the evidence that we don't have the resolve to stop them.
I would prefer a lasting peace - and that would likely involve understanding and helping fix Russia rather than continuing its pariah status. The neoliberalisation of its post USSR economy and working with Putin (as many saw Putin in the 90s as the right man) obviously hasn't led to lasting post Cold War peace - so what will?
If Putin feels losing this war will lead to him losing his job, which is the only thing that means he won't lose his life, why wouldn't he be willing to consider nuclear weapons? If the situation starts looking like unrest at home, if more Russian men are conscripted or losses increase, how will they make up for that? They could surrender, or they could push the button. I hope they would chose surrender, but then what the terms of that surrender are need to be something that is both a pathway to long term peace and also not so egregious to those in charge that fighting to the death isn't preferable. I don't know what that looks like; I cannot see something that would be enough to appease those who lead in Russia and also make it clear we won't have to do this all over again in two or three decades.
We would all prefer a lasting peace, but that's not our choice. It's Russia's. We can't control what happens in Russia. We can only choose how to react to it.
I think the international community have an obligation to try to work with Russia after its defeat to try and create a lasting peace.
First things first - defeat them comprehensively and liberate every single part of occupied Ukraine.
Once Russia surrenders, then we can consider working with them.
I doubt that's going to happen. It's looking increasingly as though the current situation is going to become a stalemate, with Russia illegally holding on to approximately the territory it currently occupies. It is clearly militarily difficult to dislodge such well dug-in troops, we can't attack Russia directly in any significant way, and Russia has enough economic support from third countries to withstand Western sanctions. The only real chance that I can see is political change within Russia leading to a voluntary withdrawal from the occupied territory.
Until it happens Russia need to be pariahs like North Korea.
And as long as Ukrainians are willing to fight to liberate their territory, that is their choice, and we should completely and unequivocally support them with every single thing they want to aid them in that fight.
I take no pleasure in saying this - since I'm more on this side of the debate than the other 'realist' side - but you're posturing again.
No, I'm not.
You're just an apologist for evil.
You have a lot of form on this.
Mmm, my long track record of defending Putin and the like. It's a rare post from me that doesn't do that. Surprised I haven't been banned.
Far more egregious offenders than you haven't been banned. You're not a troll, you're just an apologist.
Its not so much that you want evil to happen, you just turn a blind eye to it and don't want difficult choices to defeat it. You do this regularly with Putin, you did it with Corbyn too.
Easier for you to pretend evil doesn't exist, so we don't need to act, than to do an action you don't want like support one side in a war to continue a conflict until they're free, or stand up against a Labour leader promoting antisemitism.
I just think there is an unwillingness to accept nuance in geopolitical situations.
Is Putin bad? Yes. Is his vision of the Russian state bad? Also yes. Does this mean people who oppose him and the Russian state are automatically good? No.
You can say that Russia have no legitimate grounds for invading Ukraine, and that they should be defeated and at the same time argue that the USA is also a bad imperialist power whose history of antagonism to Russia potentially contributed to the situation we find ourselves in. The history of imperialism is long and complicated, and filled with evil and bad on all sides.
The US’s imperialist past is full of ills, but why should Ukraine pay for America’s actions? We can’t sacrifice Ukrainian land to appease our guilt over Iraq or Afghanistan or Iran or the Ottoman Empire or the Philippines or Afghanistan again or …
Comments
Politically, Polish troops taking direct part in either country will be massively difficult, for the reason above, and also because it would be 'NATO' involcement.
I think we differ on the question at the heart of this. Could Labour win from the Left in 2024 in a country that voted for a right populist project in 2016 and shortly thereafter delivered a landslide for Boris Johnson?
You, I infer, think they could. I think not. I think they need to win first, bed in, gain confidence, then inject the radicalism from a position of strength. They need to roll the pitch for it in government not in opposition. If they do the latter they won't get to see the former. Not in 2024 anyway, which is what counts right now.
The problem is there are so few ways to shake the conflict up. Mines and artillery are playing to Russian strengths.
https://pagesix.com/2022/07/18/shirtless-elon-musk-vacations-in-mykonos-on-luxury-yacht/
Elon Musk is worth approx $450 billion, at least pre-Twitter. His hair transplants were not brilliant and apparently he can't afford lipo and an abdominoplasty. It takes all the fun out of dreams of unlimited wealth, I'll tell you that.
Bright completely worked over there.
The Ukrainians are not stupid, whatever Russians make them out to be.
Also, our support should not be reliant on their willingness to 'negotiate'; for one thing, that just pressures them into early negotiations.
https://abcnews.go.com/US/meadows-seeks-move-fulton-county-election-case-federal/story?id=102295084
I said they were going to play games on procedure...
They also need a way to demine hundreds of miles of Ukranian countryside that doesn't involve driving or walking over them then picking up the screaming remains.
Following the men's team should have prepared me for this.
If Starmer was instead making clear that investment, Keynesianism, would be a good way to get out of our economic woes, and made that look closer to Biden's IRA with investment in green transition, insulating existing housing, building new housing using metrics for sustainability and energy efficiency, more green space and infrastructure spent on local amenities like new schools and GPs and roads etc. I think he could be popular to those who voted Johnson but now don't want to support the Tories AND popular amongst progressive (if not outright leftist) voters. He doesn't need to follow where the Tories lead on every culture war issue - doesn't need to try and seem tough on immigration or transpeople - when most voters disagree with the government on those culture war issues and it only appeals to the Tory base (and newspapers) who are unlikely to support Labour anyway.
I'm actually a very good and fair manager and carried this guy for months, giving him lots of support (including working long hours to complete his work) and fedback where he could improve - and set fair targets. Eventually, I had to bring in people to do his job for him so we delivered for the client. I don't think he's committed (he used to work remotely much of the time with his camera off) and I have a question about his capability for the job. For now, he's on sick leave and I think the firm should performance manage the situation. I vented some of my frustration, sure, because it's created a lot of work for already overstretched people with no resolution in sight.
This discussion arose because we were talking about challenges with the UK workforce and long-term sickness. I shared a real-life example of my own experience. I could also add just how difficult, costly and time consuming it is to manage these cases once the person is employed.
I have not shared the firm I work for, or he works for, or any specifics or names on an anonymous forum so this is entirely unattributable.
You could argue that only historic cases should be mentioned on here (even if anonymous) and nothing vaguely contemporary or live should be even hinted at. But the only alternative would be that we never discuss any real life examples and just talk in generalities, which wouldn't necessarily contribute much to the discussion.
No other powers don't act that way. How does Ukraine determine what Georgia does? How does Latvia determine what Belarus does? How does Turkey determine what Bulgaria does?
Russia needs to comprehend its just a country, like any other, and that its neighbours are free to make their own choices.
Russia absolutely is a defensive coalition, that's exactly what it is. The continuation of NATO after the Cold War was because threats could still exist in the world even after the Cold War, so nations would still need to be able to defend themselves. Something proven by Russia's violence and aggression.
Russia needs to take responsibility for its own choices. No victim blaming. Russia is the abuser and aggressor here, not the victim, the only victim here is Ukraine.
However, cruise missiles give you greater accuracy.
You're a big man, but you're out of shape. For me this is a full time job, so behave yourself.
Street fights go the ground in about 5 seconds, then it's just about who gases out first and the extra height doesn't really mean much. Musk doesn't look in terrific shape or like a bloke who has been in many scraps.
I suspect Ukraine know that too.
In a democracy the ideology of elected government changes over time and is not fixed, so it shouldn't sway longer term constitutional questions.
You're just an apologist for evil.
You have a lot of form on this.
You want a casualty-low war. Not on the table. You want certainty in a war. None exists. You want lack of complicity in the war. Not available. That's not how wars work. You pick a side and support it until you can't. You can't plan them, you just fight them until you can't.
With equal-ish skill, physical dimensions make a big difference, but I daresay an MMA fighter half my weight would knock me on my arse and have me crying in seconds.
It'd be good happen.
In the football - Nearly a third there.
I'm actually a very good and fair manager and carried this guy for months, giving him lots of support (including working long hours to complete his work) and feedback. Eventually, I had to bring in people to do his job for him so we delivered for the client. It should be but time and time again we see how tactical and short-sighted that can be.
The Conservatives were very much in favour of the EU in the 1970s and early 80s because they saw it as buttressing the free market and business and protecting the UK and socialism. Labour then turned in favour in the late 80s after the Delors speech as he advocated a social Europe and a strong role for unions and worker protection.
British politics has a feature of trying to evade accountability to the electorate by playing structural games and then finger-pointing that 'something else' if there's any blowback.
We can see that the Ukrainians have been claiming an increased rate of Russian artillery losses since early May that correlates with this visual evidence. It's just that Russia has a lot of artillery, so this Ukrainian capability doesn't mean that all Russian artillery is instantly neutralised. But the attrition in the artillery war seems to be to Ukraine's advantage at present. A large difference compared with a year ago.
Hence the Trident test the US ran a few years back. The dummy warheads landed in an obviously designed pattern (not a smiley as rumoured, apparently) near Kwajalein. After impact, the dummy warheads inflate a ballon to bring them can to the surface of the ocean.
This was timed so that that Russian and Chinese satellites could see the warhead landing points. A way of sending a message...
The main reasons for not using ballistic missiles with conventional warheads are expense (A Trident is $80 million a shot or not far off) and the fact that if someone sees a ballistic inbound on radar, they might think it is nuclear and the party really gets started.
Plus, Musk is as tubby as f*ck.
It's coming home, just like the men in rugby & cricket world cups this year.
A cheap drone boat every couple of weeks must be really annoying them though, they will have hundreds of men tied up on bridge security, who would otherwise be attacking Ukrainians.
Great break by Hemp; she's been phenomenal in this game. Finals beckon!
My position is Russia is a right wing imperialist nation that should not be allowed to invade or impose its will on its neighbouring countries. But considering that the USA is also a right wing imperialist nation that does impose its will on neighbouring countries, as is China, and historically most imperial powers have been right wing and imposed their will on other countries - this is not an act specific to or particularly surprising from Russia. If we want to stop conflict in the future, it would be good to stop having imperialist powers full stop. Right now that requires defeating Russia. But I think it should also require active efforts to deescalate global tensions, a reduction in militarisation across the globe, and considerations for how to do better diplomacy so things like this don't become more common, especially as climate catastrophe puts more strain on resources within nations and will require more cooperation between nations.
TBF Australia should have scored at least one of their chances; England then hitting on the break was always going to be a risk with that level of pressure.
Its not so much that you want evil to happen, you just turn a blind eye to it and don't want difficult choices to defeat it. You do this regularly with Putin, you did it with Corbyn too.
Easier for you to pretend evil doesn't exist, so we don't need to act, than to do an action you don't want like support one side in a war to continue a conflict until they're free, or stand up against a Labour leader promoting antisemitism.
He's a left hating disgrace you say? ... damn right he is!
1. Initial rapid advances slowing down over time as reserves are exhausted, logistic lines stretched and defences bolstered.
2. Slow initial advances that accelerate once the defensive reserves are exhausted or a key defensive line is broken.
3. Essentially little or no movement in the grand scheme of things.
We don't know whether (2) or (3) applies yet. I think there are reasons to be cautiously optimistic that Ukraine may cause enough attrition to the Russian defence that we will see (2) before winter.
Your analysis is all straight lines. That's not how this war has gone.
Is Putin bad? Yes. Is his vision of the Russian state bad? Also yes. Does this mean people who oppose him and the Russian state are automatically good? No.
You can say that Russia have no legitimate grounds for invading Ukraine, and that they should be defeated and at the same time argue that the USA is also a bad imperialist power whose history of antagonism to Russia potentially contributed to the situation we find ourselves in. The history of imperialism is long and complicated, and filled with evil and bad on all sides.
In fact it’s absolutely free.
Great game - Australia were strong but England played like winners.
Should we support them for as long as it takes, with as much as it takes, as long as they're prepared to fight? Yes.
Is NATO a defensive organisation? Yes.
Is the world a better place for NATO existing? Yes.
There has been absolutely NO antagonism to Russia to lead to this situation, the situation is because of appeasement of Russia, letting them get away with prior invasions and continuing to buy oil and gas from them, continuing to allow developments like Nordstream despite what they were doing.
As for your analysis, I agree with it, but your three points reduce to "1: slow down", "2: speed up", or "3: stop". I hope that 2 will happen in the future, but I can only tell you about the present.
Ukraine appear very recently to have committed some significant reserves (note the Challengers, Leopards, Marders etc) around Robotyne.
The next few weeks will settle whether it's 2 or 3.
Abkhazia
Afghanistan
:
Zambia
Zimbabwe
I think that Russia shouldn't invade invade and steal territory from
Abkhazia
Afghanistan
:
Zambia
Zimbabwe
If that's not how things are, can I please have a list of the countries we *can* invade and steal territory from?