It’s over. The war is done. Ukraine has run out of men and Russia has run out of mojo. A muddy armistice beckons
Is disclose.tv a legit source ?
The tweet cites Bild which is (a) paywalled, and (b) in German.
But you can read the first paragraphs
Looks legit to me
A foreign policy guy analyses:
“German newspaper BILD reports that there is a "secret German-American Ukraine Plan" whereby Zelensky would not be forced directly to negotiate, but moved into that realisation by continuing to deliberately give him just enough arms, in type and quantity, for him to hold the current de facto line of contact, but deliberately never enough for him to be able to recapture the occupied territories. BILD notes a particularly cynical aspect of this alleged plan: that the U.S. and Germany could largely decide this course of action by themselves and impose it, given that they are the two largest suppliers of materiel to Ukraine in terms of volume. BILD goes on to say that the aim would be to guide the war, through the policy tool of Western arms supplies, into a de facto Minsk 3 situation, but without ever saying it, as it would be Ukraine itself that would choose that outcome, because it would not be in a position to achieve anything better. BILD states that it has a source inside the German government, and that this way of thinking comes from inside the Chancellor's Office, not from the Defence Ministry, and that Defence Minister Pistorius would like to assist Ukraine more, if he had the authority to do so. BILD also suggests that Berlin and Washington have the same view and the same goal regarding the trajectory to give to the war.
My comment: sadly, it is plausible that there is a lot of truth to those revelations and that they will be half-denied very quickly. But in the end, we all see the chosen behaviours of the relevant states, in particular the reluctance to supply longer-range weapons, which is consistent with the alleged plan. Of course any such plan would be dishonour and stupidity of absolutely historic proportions. Completely unacceptable and wrong-headed. Immoral, too.”
if it is 'secret' it isn't in Bild. if it is in Bild it isn't secret.
Bild is a tabloid. They want clicks
But they generally don’t lie, especially about big stuff like this
How on earth does this 'plan' fit with Trump taking office?
Dunno. Maybe Biden wants the war ‘over’ before the election so Trump can’t use it as leverage?
That would be even more daft. The idea that you could reliably engineer such an outcome is risible.
The reality is that if Biden could get the funding bill though Congress, he would now be arming Ukraine to win the war, not lose it. And it's ammunition rather than men that Ukraine is rapidly running out of, thanks to GOP Representatives blocking a House vote
Sounds more like kite flying by the pro-Russia factions in Germany.
(The other reality, if course, is that the UK's ability to influence the outcome is seriously limited. We've largely shot our bolt.)
You can’t win a war against a nuclear power
That said, I agree this Bild article might be some complex psyops - perhaps to embarrass Biden and Scholz into greater effort?
Nonetheless my instinct is that this war is winding down into a sad ceasefire in the frozen mud
So why is Russia so worried about the beachhead over the Dnieper?
It’s over. The war is done. Ukraine has run out of men and Russia has run out of mojo. A muddy armistice beckons
And our job is to say that we will support Ukraine as long as they wish to fight.
Britain alone?
Brave
Has Putin got to you?
Kompromat?
Us alone if need be.
It’s in our interests. Russia is no real threat to America. It is a threat to Europe and the UK
The threat from Putin is no longer military. He can't even make progress in the Donbas, let alone invade us.
The threat is through inciting division and "Culture War" in the West, to weaken us internally. He has played a blinder there, and looks to be still on his game.
It’s over. The war is done. Ukraine has run out of men and Russia has run out of mojo. A muddy armistice beckons
And our job is to say that we will support Ukraine as long as they wish to fight.
Britain alone?
Brave
Has Putin got to you?
Kompromat?
Us alone if need be.
It’s in our interests. Russia is no real threat to America. It is a threat to Europe and the UK
And being a thorn in Russia’s side is part of our brand. The frankly ridiculous but still dangerous reactionary empire that is Putin’s Russia needs its beard singeing by someone.
Britain does have an opportunity to be on the right side of history here.
With Ukraine we can reprise the very well alone, lonely voice for freedom thing in the face of what will look initially like Western betrayal and later like Western naïveté, for little political cost, and retain the moral high ground. There might be the opportunity for a told you so moment a few minutes before the nukes detonate a few months into the third Ukraine war in 2029.
With Israel-Gaza if Cameron (and Starmer/Lammy, and Moran) can be the critical friend of Israel and then support some kind of longer term plan, then we might actually be a useful catalyst alongside the bigger powers like the US.
What can we actually *do* for the Ukrainians? We can i) give them money, ii) give them weapons, iii) persuade other countries to do likewise. Which of these three do you think we can sustain until March/May next year, when the Russian Presidential Election 2024 is over and Putin can conscript more people?
We can give them more weapons, and persuade other countries to do likewise. And if Putin sends more conscripts we can equip Ukraine to kill or capture them.
Because if Putin wins in Ukraine, how will we protect the Baltic states and other Eastern European countries in five years' time?
We won't and Putin will know that. He'll simply wait for Trump or a Trump-like President and do what he wants knowing that there will be no real pushback, any territory lost will be ceded.
It’s over. The war is done. Ukraine has run out of men and Russia has run out of mojo. A muddy armistice beckons
Is disclose.tv a legit source ?
The tweet cites Bild which is (a) paywalled, and (b) in German.
But you can read the first paragraphs
Looks legit to me
A foreign policy guy analyses:
“German newspaper BILD reports that there is a "secret German-American Ukraine Plan" whereby Zelensky would not be forced directly to negotiate, but moved into that realisation by continuing to deliberately give him just enough arms, in type and quantity, for him to hold the current de facto line of contact, but deliberately never enough for him to be able to recapture the occupied territories. BILD notes a particularly cynical aspect of this alleged plan: that the U.S. and Germany could largely decide this course of action by themselves and impose it, given that they are the two largest suppliers of materiel to Ukraine in terms of volume. BILD goes on to say that the aim would be to guide the war, through the policy tool of Western arms supplies, into a de facto Minsk 3 situation, but without ever saying it, as it would be Ukraine itself that would choose that outcome, because it would not be in a position to achieve anything better. BILD states that it has a source inside the German government, and that this way of thinking comes from inside the Chancellor's Office, not from the Defence Ministry, and that Defence Minister Pistorius would like to assist Ukraine more, if he had the authority to do so. BILD also suggests that Berlin and Washington have the same view and the same goal regarding the trajectory to give to the war.
My comment: sadly, it is plausible that there is a lot of truth to those revelations and that they will be half-denied very quickly. But in the end, we all see the chosen behaviours of the relevant states, in particular the reluctance to supply longer-range weapons, which is consistent with the alleged plan. Of course any such plan would be dishonour and stupidity of absolutely historic proportions. Completely unacceptable and wrong-headed. Immoral, too.”
if it is 'secret' it isn't in Bild. if it is in Bild it isn't secret.
Bild is a tabloid. They want clicks
But they generally don’t lie, especially about big stuff like this
How on earth does this 'plan' fit with Trump taking office?
Dunno. Maybe Biden wants the war ‘over’ before the election so Trump can’t use it as leverage?
That would be even more daft. The idea that you could reliably engineer such an outcome is risible.
The reality is that if Biden could get the funding bill though Congress, he would now be arming Ukraine to win the war, not lose it. And it's ammunition rather than men that Ukraine is rapidly running out of, thanks to GOP Representatives blocking a House vote
Sounds more like kite flying by the pro-Russia factions in Germany.
(The other reality, if course, is that the UK's ability to influence the outcome is seriously limited. We've largely shot our bolt.)
You can’t win a war against a nuclear power
That said, I agree this Bild article might be some complex psyops - perhaps to embarrass Biden and Scholz into greater effort?
Nonetheless my instinct is that this war is winding down into a sad ceasefire in the frozen mud
So why is Russia so worried about the beachhead over the Dnieper?
Is it?
Genuine question. Can Ukraine make any progress there, given its inadequate progress south of Orkhiv? For the past six months every advance (Ukraine and Russian) has dribbled into the sand, accompanied by copious blood. If Ukraine could retake Kherson Oblast it would make a massive difference, but can they really do anything at this point? They advance forward, they die, they stop advancing. What's changed?
About three months ago I began quietly pointing out that Ukraine’s counter offensive was actually going nowhere. Everyone on here shouted at me and told me I was a “fucking appeaser” and a “Putinist shill” and that any moment now Ukraine would sweep the Russians aside and cut the Bear in two on the shores of Azov
How did that work out?
Everyone didn’t say that.
Throughout this war people have all sat in their own positions on two spectrums: optimistic vs pessimistic, and pro- or anti-Russia. There is a difference between the will to victory and belief in victory, although human nature being what it is there is some correlation.
There have been some unrealistic optimists and some constant pessimists. Both have been wrong at times. The former this Autumn, the latter last year.
Personally I’ve turned from cautious optimist to borderline pessimist, but remain convinced this is an existential fight that must be fought until Putin is no more. Sadly it seems across the channel and Atlantic we have rather a lot of people eager to wave a piece of paper. If they do that then they are selling Ukraine down the river into oblivion, in the short or long term.
When I began pointing out the faltering nature of the Ukrainian counter offensive I can only recall @Dura_Ace and @DavidL agreeing with me, and saying Yeah it’s not great
But anyway it doesn’t matter
The point is Ukraine cannot win this war - not in terms of regaining all lost territory. Russia has found a method - laying billions of mines - which makes it impossible. Ukraine has lost too many men and is now sending women into battle - literally the wombs of the Ukrainian nation. The future
Perhaps it is time for us to say to Ukraine Ok this isn’t working any more. Sorry
And before I am accused of being Putin’s catamite the economist and the Wall Street journal have both pointed out that senior Ukrainian politicians and generals believe exactly this: Sadly, the war cannot be won, it is maybe time to cut losses and save lives
Someone genuinely perceptive said this back in January:
Indeed you have been realistic for some time. I only started being so around the summer. It’s hard to be realistic when you hope for the “right” result but all wars end in a way where nobody is really happy with the outcome.
There is a narrow line between 'being realistic' and 'defeatism'.
Putin (and perhaps Xi) would quite like us all to think: "Ukraine cannot win, let's get a peace"; as that 'peace' will be very much on Putin's terms - as he is the only single person who can stop this war. And Putin's terms in the medium and long term will be very bad for Europe and the world.
I'd argue that, the argument can be put the other way: we (the west) made some mistakes last year, in not giving Ukraine what it needed fast enough. We need to learn this lesson, and give Ukraine everything it needs to win.
Because if Putin wins in Ukraine, how will we protect the Baltic states and other Eastern European countries in five years' time?
The west definitely screwed up not arming Ukraine better, faster and harder earlier but that’s done.
Re your last sentence though those countries are in NATO - it’s a very different calculation for Putin than Ukraine was. He’s had a very bloody nose “just” with Ukraine and will know that invading NATO states will be beyond Russian capabilities.
In effect the blood sacrifice of Ukraine has already deterred Putin as he knows that it will be far worse v NATO. But ultimately it will be pointless for many more Ukrainians, and Russians, to die over another year of minefields and trenches. It’s not right, not good, not ideal but Ukraine already showed Russia their weakness at great cost.
Just make it clear to Russia that if they want readmission to polite society then they hand back annexed land and if not then the sanctions and exclusion continue indefinitely.
Britain does have an opportunity to be on the right side of history here.
With Ukraine we can reprise the very well alone, lonely voice for freedom thing in the face of what will look initially like Western betrayal and later like Western naïveté, for little political cost, and retain the moral high ground. There might be the opportunity for a told you so moment a few minutes before the nukes detonate a few months into the third Ukraine war in 2029.
With Israel-Gaza if Cameron (and Starmer/Lammy, and Moran) can be the critical friend of Israel and then support some kind of longer term plan, then we might actually be a useful catalyst alongside the bigger powers like the US.
What can we actually *do* for the Ukrainians? We can i) give them money, ii) give them weapons, iii) persuade other countries to do likewise. Which of these three do you think we can sustain until March/May next year, when the Russian Presidential Election 2024 is over and Putin can conscript more people?
We can give them more weapons, and persuade other countries to do likewise. And if Putin sends more conscripts we can equip Ukraine to kill or capture them.
We should give them more, yes. But that wasn't my point, which was "can we?". To wage a war you have to pay for weapons, manufacture them, and manufacture popular consent. I don't know if we have the money, I don't think we have the manufacturing base, and our politicians have been diverted to the Middle East. Given that, what promises can we realistically fulfil?
It’s fair to say that one Bild article has had more effect on morale than 10 weeks of Saturday morning PB trolls.
We are a forum of adults on a comment thread owned and run in a non-combatant country. We shouldn't have 'morale'; we should have an open and dispassionate discussion.
Everyone has morale. We're not vulcans. Being a non-combatant doesn't mean having no emotional investment in a conflict (just ask those marching on both sides over Israel- Hamas over recent weeks). We were a non-combatant country when Churchill was writing The Gathering Storm.
Morale has a very specific meaning. The maintenance of morale in the sense of public consent for continued participation in a conflict often involves the censorship of 'bad news' and the broadcasting of 'good news'. Discussing the desirability of maintaining good morale on PB is inappropriate bordering on faintly sinister.
Oh how ridiculous. Morale means morale. Or to quote the Cambridge dictionary
“the amount of confidence felt by a person or group of people, especially when in a dangerous or difficult situation”
Look, I just faintly praised your idol Liz Truss so take the win.
It isn't particularly ridiculous, given that, as Leon has mentioned, those of us whose views on the handling of this foreign policy issue depart from the PB mainstream have copped it big time from our armchair general division in the cause of policing the morale you want to maintain. It's been a less than enjoyable situation and those concerned should (but probably won't) be a bit embarrassed.
About three months ago I began quietly pointing out that Ukraine’s counter offensive was actually going nowhere. Everyone on here shouted at me and told me I was a “fucking appeaser” and a “Putinist shill” and that any moment now Ukraine would sweep the Russians aside and cut the Bear in two on the shores of Azov
How did that work out?
Everyone didn’t say that.
Throughout this war people have all sat in their own positions on two spectrums: optimistic vs pessimistic, and pro- or anti-Russia. There is a difference between the will to victory and belief in victory, although human nature being what it is there is some correlation.
There have been some unrealistic optimists and some constant pessimists. Both have been wrong at times. The former this Autumn, the latter last year.
Personally I’ve turned from cautious optimist to borderline pessimist, but remain convinced this is an existential fight that must be fought until Putin is no more. Sadly it seems across the channel and Atlantic we have rather a lot of people eager to wave a piece of paper. If they do that then they are selling Ukraine down the river into oblivion, in the short or long term.
When I began pointing out the faltering nature of the Ukrainian counter offensive I can only recall @Dura_Ace and @DavidL agreeing with me, and saying Yeah it’s not great
But anyway it doesn’t matter
The point is Ukraine cannot win this war - not in terms of regaining all lost territory. Russia has found a method - laying billions of mines - which makes it impossible. Ukraine has lost too many men and is now sending women into battle - literally the wombs of the Ukrainian nation. The future
Perhaps it is time for us to say to Ukraine Ok this isn’t working any more. Sorry
And before I am accused of being Putin’s catamite the economist and the Wall Street journal have both pointed out that senior Ukrainian politicians and generals believe exactly this: Sadly, the war cannot be won, it is maybe time to cut losses and save lives
Someone genuinely perceptive said this back in January:
Indeed you have been realistic for some time. I only started being so around the summer. It’s hard to be realistic when you hope for the “right” result but all wars end in a way where nobody is really happy with the outcome.
There is a narrow line between 'being realistic' and 'defeatism'.
Putin (and perhaps Xi) would quite like us all to think: "Ukraine cannot win, let's get a peace"; as that 'peace' will be very much on Putin's terms - as he is the only single person who can stop this war. And Putin's terms in the medium and long term will be very bad for Europe and the world.
I'd argue that, the argument can be put the other way: we (the west) made some mistakes last year, in not giving Ukraine what it needed fast enough. We need to learn this lesson, and give Ukraine everything it needs to win.
Because if Putin wins in Ukraine, how will we protect the Baltic states and other Eastern European countries in five years' time?
The west definitely screwed up not arming Ukraine better, faster and harder earlier but that’s done.
Re your last sentence though those countries are in NATO - it’s a very different calculation for Putin than Ukraine was. He’s had a very bloody nose “just” with Ukraine and will know that invading NATO states will be beyond Russian capabilities.
In effect the blood sacrifice of Ukraine has already deterred Putin as he knows that it will be far worse v NATO. But ultimately it will be pointless for many more Ukrainians, and Russians, to die over another year of minefields and trenches. It’s not right, not good, not ideal but Ukraine already showed Russia their weakness at great cost.
Just make it clear to Russia that if they want readmission to polite society then they hand back annexed land and if not then the sanctions and exclusion continue indefinitely.
I think those last 2 paragraphs are imposing Western norms on Russian thinking. Is Putin (and it’s not just him) really deterred? Do they really want to reenter polite society?
It’s over. The war is done. Ukraine has run out of men and Russia has run out of mojo. A muddy armistice beckons
And our job is to say that we will support Ukraine as long as they wish to fight.
Britain alone?
Brave
Has Putin got to you?
Kompromat?
Us alone if need be.
It’s in our interests. Russia is no real threat to America. It is a threat to Europe and the UK
And being a thorn in Russia’s side is part of our brand. The frankly ridiculous but still dangerous reactionary empire that is Putin’s Russia needs its beard singeing by someone.
That's true, but with some odd exceptions through history, like not giving refuge from the Bolsheviks to the Russian Royal family. It's funny that at the height of our Imperial pomp, we were apparently so concerned about a Bolshevik revolution here that we did what we did.
About three months ago I began quietly pointing out that Ukraine’s counter offensive was actually going nowhere. Everyone on here shouted at me and told me I was a “fucking appeaser” and a “Putinist shill” and that any moment now Ukraine would sweep the Russians aside and cut the Bear in two on the shores of Azov
How did that work out?
Everyone didn’t say that.
Throughout this war people have all sat in their own positions on two spectrums: optimistic vs pessimistic, and pro- or anti-Russia. There is a difference between the will to victory and belief in victory, although human nature being what it is there is some correlation.
There have been some unrealistic optimists and some constant pessimists. Both have been wrong at times. The former this Autumn, the latter last year.
Personally I’ve turned from cautious optimist to borderline pessimist, but remain convinced this is an existential fight that must be fought until Putin is no more. Sadly it seems across the channel and Atlantic we have rather a lot of people eager to wave a piece of paper. If they do that then they are selling Ukraine down the river into oblivion, in the short or long term.
When I began pointing out the faltering nature of the Ukrainian counter offensive I can only recall @Dura_Ace and @DavidL agreeing with me, and saying Yeah it’s not great
But anyway it doesn’t matter
The point is Ukraine cannot win this war - not in terms of regaining all lost territory. Russia has found a method - laying billions of mines - which makes it impossible. Ukraine has lost too many men and is now sending women into battle - literally the wombs of the Ukrainian nation. The future
Perhaps it is time for us to say to Ukraine Ok this isn’t working any more. Sorry
And before I am accused of being Putin’s catamite the economist and the Wall Street journal have both pointed out that senior Ukrainian politicians and generals believe exactly this: Sadly, the war cannot be won, it is maybe time to cut losses and save lives
Someone genuinely perceptive said this back in January:
Indeed you have been realistic for some time. I only started being so around the summer. It’s hard to be realistic when you hope for the “right” result but all wars end in a way where nobody is really happy with the outcome.
There is a narrow line between 'being realistic' and 'defeatism'.
Putin (and perhaps Xi) would quite like us all to think: "Ukraine cannot win, let's get a peace"; as that 'peace' will be very much on Putin's terms - as he is the only single person who can stop this war. And Putin's terms in the medium and long term will be very bad for Europe and the world.
I'd argue that, the argument can be put the other way: we (the west) made some mistakes last year, in not giving Ukraine what it needed fast enough. We need to learn this lesson, and give Ukraine everything it needs to win.
Because if Putin wins in Ukraine, how will we protect the Baltic states and other Eastern European countries in five years' time?
The west definitely screwed up not arming Ukraine better, faster and harder earlier but that’s done.
Re your last sentence though those countries are in NATO - it’s a very different calculation for Putin than Ukraine was. He’s had a very bloody nose “just” with Ukraine and will know that invading NATO states will be beyond Russian capabilities.
In effect the blood sacrifice of Ukraine has already deterred Putin as he knows that it will be far worse v NATO. But ultimately it will be pointless for many more Ukrainians, and Russians, to die over another year of minefields and trenches. It’s not right, not good, not ideal but Ukraine already showed Russia their weakness at great cost.
Just make it clear to Russia that if they want readmission to polite society then they hand back annexed land and if not then the sanctions and exclusion continue indefinitely.
I think those last 2 paragraphs are imposing Western norms on Russian thinking. Is Putin (and it’s not just him) really deterred? Do they really want to reenter polite society?
No. The Russians are brutal realists. They can survive isolation from the West for many years to come. Not indefinitely (I'm not sure their airline industry will survive, for example) but they aren't bothered emotionally.
It’s fair to say that one Bild article has had more effect on morale than 10 weeks of Saturday morning PB trolls.
We are a forum of adults on a comment thread owned and run in a non-combatant country. We shouldn't have 'morale'; we should have an open and dispassionate discussion.
Everyone has morale. We're not vulcans. Being a non-combatant doesn't mean having no emotional investment in a conflict (just ask those marching on both sides over Israel- Hamas over recent weeks). We were a non-combatant country when Churchill was writing The Gathering Storm.
Morale has a very specific meaning. The maintenance of morale in the sense of public consent for continued participation in a conflict often involves the censorship of 'bad news' and the broadcasting of 'good news'. Discussing the desirability of maintaining good morale on PB is inappropriate bordering on faintly sinister.
Oh how ridiculous. Morale means morale. Or to quote the Cambridge dictionary
“the amount of confidence felt by a person or group of people, especially when in a dangerous or difficult situation”
Look, I just faintly praised your idol Liz Truss so take the win.
It isn't particularly ridiculous, given that, as Leon has mentioned, those of us whose views on the handling of this foreign policy issue depart from the PB mainstream have copped it big time from our armchair general division in the cause of policing the morale you want to maintain. It's been a less than enjoyable situation and those concerned should (but probably won't) be a bit embarrassed.
You’ve had a consistent position from the start: this is someone else’s war, none of our business, we should stay out. Fair enough. I and a number of others have an equally strongly held position which is that Putin is a tyrant, he needs to be stopped, this is our war as much as Ukraine’s and what’s at stake is bigger than a few run down oblasts in the Donbas. And that “peace” means a few years for Russia to rearm before having another go. Just like giving Hamas a peace deal will mean the same.
None of that is being an armchair general. Most of us have never pretended to be experts on the tactics. A few have. But then so have several of the “realists”. Saying “this is heading for stalemate” is armchair generalism.
Putin should be given a choice. Either settle with the land he currently holds, and the rest of Ukraine joins NATO and the EU, or give back the bits of Ukraine you have captured, and Ukraine remains out of NATO and the EU.
About three months ago I began quietly pointing out that Ukraine’s counter offensive was actually going nowhere. Everyone on here shouted at me and told me I was a “fucking appeaser” and a “Putinist shill” and that any moment now Ukraine would sweep the Russians aside and cut the Bear in two on the shores of Azov
How did that work out?
Everyone didn’t say that.
Throughout this war people have all sat in their own positions on two spectrums: optimistic vs pessimistic, and pro- or anti-Russia. There is a difference between the will to victory and belief in victory, although human nature being what it is there is some correlation.
There have been some unrealistic optimists and some constant pessimists. Both have been wrong at times. The former this Autumn, the latter last year.
Personally I’ve turned from cautious optimist to borderline pessimist, but remain convinced this is an existential fight that must be fought until Putin is no more. Sadly it seems across the channel and Atlantic we have rather a lot of people eager to wave a piece of paper. If they do that then they are selling Ukraine down the river into oblivion, in the short or long term.
When I began pointing out the faltering nature of the Ukrainian counter offensive I can only recall @Dura_Ace and @DavidL agreeing with me, and saying Yeah it’s not great
But anyway it doesn’t matter
The point is Ukraine cannot win this war - not in terms of regaining all lost territory. Russia has found a method - laying billions of mines - which makes it impossible. Ukraine has lost too many men and is now sending women into battle - literally the wombs of the Ukrainian nation. The future
Perhaps it is time for us to say to Ukraine Ok this isn’t working any more. Sorry
And before I am accused of being Putin’s catamite the economist and the Wall Street journal have both pointed out that senior Ukrainian politicians and generals believe exactly this: Sadly, the war cannot be won, it is maybe time to cut losses and save lives
Someone genuinely perceptive said this back in January:
Indeed you have been realistic for some time. I only started being so around the summer. It’s hard to be realistic when you hope for the “right” result but all wars end in a way where nobody is really happy with the outcome.
There is a narrow line between 'being realistic' and 'defeatism'.
Putin (and perhaps Xi) would quite like us all to think: "Ukraine cannot win, let's get a peace"; as that 'peace' will be very much on Putin's terms - as he is the only single person who can stop this war. And Putin's terms in the medium and long term will be very bad for Europe and the world.
I'd argue that, the argument can be put the other way: we (the west) made some mistakes last year, in not giving Ukraine what it needed fast enough. We need to learn this lesson, and give Ukraine everything it needs to win.
Because if Putin wins in Ukraine, how will we protect the Baltic states and other Eastern European countries in five years' time?
The west definitely screwed up not arming Ukraine better, faster and harder earlier but that’s done.
Re your last sentence though those countries are in NATO - it’s a very different calculation for Putin than Ukraine was. He’s had a very bloody nose “just” with Ukraine and will know that invading NATO states will be beyond Russian capabilities.
In effect the blood sacrifice of Ukraine has already deterred Putin as he knows that it will be far worse v NATO. But ultimately it will be pointless for many more Ukrainians, and Russians, to die over another year of minefields and trenches. It’s not right, not good, not ideal but Ukraine already showed Russia their weakness at great cost.
Just make it clear to Russia that if they want readmission to polite society then they hand back annexed land and if not then the sanctions and exclusion continue indefinitely.
I think those last 2 paragraphs are imposing Western norms on Russian thinking. Is Putin (and it’s not just him) really deterred? Do they really want to reenter polite society?
No. The Russians are brutal realists. They can survive isolation from the West for many years to come. Not indefinitely (I'm not sure their airline industry will survive, for example) but they aren't bothered emotionally.
Bear in mind that if Trump wins, NATO falls for all practical purposes. Yes, it would still include two nuclear powers but not an awful lot in terms of conventional capacity or - more importantly - political will.
But the Baltic states wouldn't be next. Georgia and Moldova are next on Putin's menu.
About three months ago I began quietly pointing out that Ukraine’s counter offensive was actually going nowhere. Everyone on here shouted at me and told me I was a “fucking appeaser” and a “Putinist shill” and that any moment now Ukraine would sweep the Russians aside and cut the Bear in two on the shores of Azov
How did that work out?
Everyone didn’t say that.
Throughout this war people have all sat in their own positions on two spectrums: optimistic vs pessimistic, and pro- or anti-Russia. There is a difference between the will to victory and belief in victory, although human nature being what it is there is some correlation.
There have been some unrealistic optimists and some constant pessimists. Both have been wrong at times. The former this Autumn, the latter last year.
Personally I’ve turned from cautious optimist to borderline pessimist, but remain convinced this is an existential fight that must be fought until Putin is no more. Sadly it seems across the channel and Atlantic we have rather a lot of people eager to wave a piece of paper. If they do that then they are selling Ukraine down the river into oblivion, in the short or long term.
When I began pointing out the faltering nature of the Ukrainian counter offensive I can only recall @Dura_Ace and @DavidL agreeing with me, and saying Yeah it’s not great
But anyway it doesn’t matter
The point is Ukraine cannot win this war - not in terms of regaining all lost territory. Russia has found a method - laying billions of mines - which makes it impossible. Ukraine has lost too many men and is now sending women into battle - literally the wombs of the Ukrainian nation. The future
Perhaps it is time for us to say to Ukraine Ok this isn’t working any more. Sorry
And before I am accused of being Putin’s catamite the economist and the Wall Street journal have both pointed out that senior Ukrainian politicians and generals believe exactly this: Sadly, the war cannot be won, it is maybe time to cut losses and save lives
Someone genuinely perceptive said this back in January:
Indeed you have been realistic for some time. I only started being so around the summer. It’s hard to be realistic when you hope for the “right” result but all wars end in a way where nobody is really happy with the outcome.
There is a narrow line between 'being realistic' and 'defeatism'.
Putin (and perhaps Xi) would quite like us all to think: "Ukraine cannot win, let's get a peace"; as that 'peace' will be very much on Putin's terms - as he is the only single person who can stop this war. And Putin's terms in the medium and long term will be very bad for Europe and the world.
I'd argue that, the argument can be put the other way: we (the west) made some mistakes last year, in not giving Ukraine what it needed fast enough. We need to learn this lesson, and give Ukraine everything it needs to win.
Because if Putin wins in Ukraine, how will we protect the Baltic states and other Eastern European countries in five years' time?
The west definitely screwed up not arming Ukraine better, faster and harder earlier but that’s done.
Re your last sentence though those countries are in NATO - it’s a very different calculation for Putin than Ukraine was. He’s had a very bloody nose “just” with Ukraine and will know that invading NATO states will be beyond Russian capabilities.
In effect the blood sacrifice of Ukraine has already deterred Putin as he knows that it will be far worse v NATO. But ultimately it will be pointless for many more Ukrainians, and Russians, to die over another year of minefields and trenches. It’s not right, not good, not ideal but Ukraine already showed Russia their weakness at great cost.
Just make it clear to Russia that if they want readmission to polite society then they hand back annexed land and if not then the sanctions and exclusion continue indefinitely.
I think those last 2 paragraphs are imposing Western norms on Russian thinking. Is Putin (and it’s not just him) really deterred? Do they really want to reenter polite society?
No. The Russians are brutal realists. They can survive isolation from the West for many years to come. Not indefinitely (I'm not sure their airline industry will survive, for example) but they aren't bothered emotionally.
Star War The Third Gathers: Backstroke of the West
Whatever happens in Ukraine, for the sake of world peace, there needs to be a settlement before the presidential election, in case Trump wins, and destroys Europe, and not just America.
Britain does have an opportunity to be on the right side of history here.
With Ukraine we can reprise the very well alone, lonely voice for freedom thing in the face of what will look initially like Western betrayal and later like Western naïveté, for little political cost, and retain the moral high ground. There might be the opportunity for a told you so moment a few minutes before the nukes detonate a few months into the third Ukraine war in 2029.
With Israel-Gaza if Cameron (and Starmer/Lammy, and Moran) can be the critical friend of Israel and then support some kind of longer term plan, then we might actually be a useful catalyst alongside the bigger powers like the US.
What can we actually *do* for the Ukrainians? We can i) give them money, ii) give them weapons, iii) persuade other countries to do likewise. Which of these three do you think we can sustain until March/May next year, when the Russian Presidential Election 2024 is over and Putin can conscript more people?
It’s fair to say that one Bild article has had more effect on morale than 10 weeks of Saturday morning PB trolls.
We are a forum of adults on a comment thread owned and run in a non-combatant country. We shouldn't have 'morale'; we should have an open and dispassionate discussion.
Everyone has morale. We're not vulcans. Being a non-combatant doesn't mean having no emotional investment in a conflict (just ask those marching on both sides over Israel- Hamas over recent weeks). We were a non-combatant country when Churchill was writing The Gathering Storm.
Morale has a very specific meaning. The maintenance of morale in the sense of public consent for continued participation in a conflict often involves the censorship of 'bad news' and the broadcasting of 'good news'. Discussing the desirability of maintaining good morale on PB is inappropriate bordering on faintly sinister.
Oh how ridiculous. Morale means morale. Or to quote the Cambridge dictionary
“the amount of confidence felt by a person or group of people, especially when in a dangerous or difficult situation”
Look, I just faintly praised your idol Liz Truss so take the win.
It isn't particularly ridiculous, given that, as Leon has mentioned, those of us whose views on the handling of this foreign policy issue depart from the PB mainstream have copped it big time from our armchair general division in the cause of policing the morale you want to maintain. It's been a less than enjoyable situation and those concerned should (but probably won't) be a bit embarrassed.
You’ve had a consistent position from the start: this is someone else’s war, none of our business, we should stay out. Fair enough. I and a number of others have an equally strongly held position which is that Putin is a tyrant, he needs to be stopped, this is our war as much as Ukraine’s and what’s at stake is bigger than a few run down oblasts in the Donbas. And that “peace” means a few years for Russia to rearm before having another go. Just like giving Hamas a peace deal will mean the same.
None of that is being an armchair general. Most of us have never pretended to be experts on the tactics. A few have. But then so have several of the “realists”. Saying “this is heading for stalemate” is armchair generalism.
Quite, but nobody has called you a traitor in the pay of a foreign power for expressing your view.
Leaving that to one side and speaking of the future, I don't see that Putin being driven or not driven from Ukraine is key to his ability to regroup and try another attack. He can do that either whilst occupying some of Ukraine, or within the borders of Russia.
What will allow him to regroup is peace. So I see what you're arguing for as the indefinite continuation of the war, with its destruction of life and property, and its wider economical destabilisation, in order to put off a future attack. Perhaps that's a price worth paying, but I'm not sure.
Putin should be given a choice. Either settle with the land he currently holds, and the rest of Ukraine joins NATO and the EU, or give back the bits of Ukraine you have captured, and Ukraine remains out of NATO and the EU.
I fear he would count that as a win. Ukraine barred from the EU and NATO allows Putin to rebuild and do it all over again in a few years when the Western reaction will be either exactly the same or significantly worse depending on who the US president is.
It’s fair to say that one Bild article has had more effect on morale than 10 weeks of Saturday morning PB trolls.
We are a forum of adults on a comment thread owned and run in a non-combatant country. We shouldn't have 'morale'; we should have an open and dispassionate discussion.
Everyone has morale. We're not vulcans. Being a non-combatant doesn't mean having no emotional investment in a conflict (just ask those marching on both sides over Israel- Hamas over recent weeks). We were a non-combatant country when Churchill was writing The Gathering Storm.
Morale has a very specific meaning. The maintenance of morale in the sense of public consent for continued participation in a conflict often involves the censorship of 'bad news' and the broadcasting of 'good news'. Discussing the desirability of maintaining good morale on PB is inappropriate bordering on faintly sinister.
Oh how ridiculous. Morale means morale. Or to quote the Cambridge dictionary
“the amount of confidence felt by a person or group of people, especially when in a dangerous or difficult situation”
Look, I just faintly praised your idol Liz Truss so take the win.
It isn't particularly ridiculous, given that, as Leon has mentioned, those of us whose views on the handling of this foreign policy issue depart from the PB mainstream have copped it big time from our armchair general division in the cause of policing the morale you want to maintain. It's been a less than enjoyable situation and those concerned should (but probably won't) be a bit embarrassed.
You’ve had a consistent position from the start: this is someone else’s war, none of our business, we should stay out. Fair enough. I and a number of others have an equally strongly held position which is that Putin is a tyrant, he needs to be stopped, this is our war as much as Ukraine’s and what’s at stake is bigger than a few run down oblasts in the Donbas. And that “peace” means a few years for Russia to rearm before having another go. Just like giving Hamas a peace deal will mean the same.
None of that is being an armchair general. Most of us have never pretended to be experts on the tactics. A few have. But then so have several of the “realists”. Saying “this is heading for stalemate” is armchair generalism.
Quite, but nobody has called you a traitor in the pay of a foreign power for expressing your view.
Leaving that to one side and speaking of the future, I don't see that Putin being driven or not driven from Ukraine is key to his ability to regroup and try another attack. He can do that either whilst occupying some of Ukraine, or within the borders of Russia.
What will allow him to regroup is peace. So I see what you're arguing for as the indefinite continuation of the war, with its destruction of life and property, and its wider economical destabilisation, in order to put off a future attack. Perhaps that's a price worth paying, but I'm not sure.
I am not sure even Putin could survive the war ending with him having lost all those hundreds of thousands of troops and vast amounts of equipment for no territorial gain. The army would not let him.
It’s fair to say that one Bild article has had more effect on morale than 10 weeks of Saturday morning PB trolls.
We are a forum of adults on a comment thread owned and run in a non-combatant country. We shouldn't have 'morale'; we should have an open and dispassionate discussion.
Everyone has morale. We're not vulcans. Being a non-combatant doesn't mean having no emotional investment in a conflict (just ask those marching on both sides over Israel- Hamas over recent weeks). We were a non-combatant country when Churchill was writing The Gathering Storm.
Morale has a very specific meaning. The maintenance of morale in the sense of public consent for continued participation in a conflict often involves the censorship of 'bad news' and the broadcasting of 'good news'. Discussing the desirability of maintaining good morale on PB is inappropriate bordering on faintly sinister.
Oh how ridiculous. Morale means morale. Or to quote the Cambridge dictionary
“the amount of confidence felt by a person or group of people, especially when in a dangerous or difficult situation”
Look, I just faintly praised your idol Liz Truss so take the win.
It isn't particularly ridiculous, given that, as Leon has mentioned, those of us whose views on the handling of this foreign policy issue depart from the PB mainstream have copped it big time from our armchair general division in the cause of policing the morale you want to maintain. It's been a less than enjoyable situation and those concerned should (but probably won't) be a bit embarrassed.
You’ve had a consistent position from the start: this is someone else’s war, none of our business, we should stay out. Fair enough. I and a number of others have an equally strongly held position which is that Putin is a tyrant, he needs to be stopped, this is our war as much as Ukraine’s and what’s at stake is bigger than a few run down oblasts in the Donbas. And that “peace” means a few years for Russia to rearm before having another go. Just like giving Hamas a peace deal will mean the same.
None of that is being an armchair general. Most of us have never pretended to be experts on the tactics. A few have. But then so have several of the “realists”. Saying “this is heading for stalemate” is armchair generalism.
Quite, but nobody has called you a traitor in the pay of a foreign power for expressing your view.
Leaving that to one side and speaking of the future, I don't see that Putin being driven or not driven from Ukraine is key to his ability to regroup and try another attack. He can do that either whilst occupying some of Ukraine, or within the borders of Russia.
What will allow him to regroup is peace. So I see what you're arguing for as the indefinite continuation of the war, with its destruction of life and property, and its wider economical destabilisation, in order to put off a future attack. Perhaps that's a price worth paying, but I'm not sure.
I am not sure even Putin could survive the war ending with him having lost all those hundreds of thousands of troops and vast amounts of equipment for no territorial gain. The army would not let him.
Perhaps, but whoever is left in charge will be able to do all the regrouping they want.
About three months ago I began quietly pointing out that Ukraine’s counter offensive was actually going nowhere. Everyone on here shouted at me and told me I was a “fucking appeaser” and a “Putinist shill” and that any moment now Ukraine would sweep the Russians aside and cut the Bear in two on the shores of Azov
How did that work out?
Everyone didn’t say that.
Throughout this war people have all sat in their own positions on two spectrums: optimistic vs pessimistic, and pro- or anti-Russia. There is a difference between the will to victory and belief in victory, although human nature being what it is there is some correlation.
There have been some unrealistic optimists and some constant pessimists. Both have been wrong at times. The former this Autumn, the latter last year.
Personally I’ve turned from cautious optimist to borderline pessimist, but remain convinced this is an existential fight that must be fought until Putin is no more. Sadly it seems across the channel and Atlantic we have rather a lot of people eager to wave a piece of paper. If they do that then they are selling Ukraine down the river into oblivion, in the short or long term.
When I began pointing out the faltering nature of the Ukrainian counter offensive I can only recall @Dura_Ace and @DavidL agreeing with me, and saying Yeah it’s not great
But anyway it doesn’t matter
The point is Ukraine cannot win this war - not in terms of regaining all lost territory. Russia has found a method - laying billions of mines - which makes it impossible. Ukraine has lost too many men and is now sending women into battle - literally the wombs of the Ukrainian nation. The future
Perhaps it is time for us to say to Ukraine Ok this isn’t working any more. Sorry
And before I am accused of being Putin’s catamite the economist and the Wall Street journal have both pointed out that senior Ukrainian politicians and generals believe exactly this: Sadly, the war cannot be won, it is maybe time to cut losses and save lives
Someone genuinely perceptive said this back in January:
Indeed you have been realistic for some time. I only started being so around the summer. It’s hard to be realistic when you hope for the “right” result but all wars end in a way where nobody is really happy with the outcome.
There is a narrow line between 'being realistic' and 'defeatism'.
Putin (and perhaps Xi) would quite like us all to think: "Ukraine cannot win, let's get a peace"; as that 'peace' will be very much on Putin's terms - as he is the only single person who can stop this war. And Putin's terms in the medium and long term will be very bad for Europe and the world.
I'd argue that, the argument can be put the other way: we (the west) made some mistakes last year, in not giving Ukraine what it needed fast enough. We need to learn this lesson, and give Ukraine everything it needs to win.
Because if Putin wins in Ukraine, how will we protect the Baltic states and other Eastern European countries in five years' time?
The west definitely screwed up not arming Ukraine better, faster and harder earlier but that’s done.
Re your last sentence though those countries are in NATO - it’s a very different calculation for Putin than Ukraine was. He’s had a very bloody nose “just” with Ukraine and will know that invading NATO states will be beyond Russian capabilities.
In effect the blood sacrifice of Ukraine has already deterred Putin as he knows that it will be far worse v NATO. But ultimately it will be pointless for many more Ukrainians, and Russians, to die over another year of minefields and trenches. It’s not right, not good, not ideal but Ukraine already showed Russia their weakness at great cost.
Just make it clear to Russia that if they want readmission to polite society then they hand back annexed land and if not then the sanctions and exclusion continue indefinitely.
I think those last 2 paragraphs are imposing Western norms on Russian thinking. Is Putin (and it’s not just him) really deterred? Do they really want to reenter polite society?
No. The Russians are brutal realists. They can survive isolation from the West for many years to come. Not indefinitely (I'm not sure their airline industry will survive, for example) but they aren't bothered emotionally.
Bear in mind that if Trump wins, NATO falls for all practical purposes. Yes, it would still include two nuclear powers but not an awful lot in terms of conventional capacity or - more importantly - political will.
But the Baltic states wouldn't be next. Georgia and Moldova are next on Putin's menu.
Meanwhile Trump will gift the Falklands to his new mate in Buenos Aires.
It’s fair to say that one Bild article has had more effect on morale than 10 weeks of Saturday morning PB trolls.
We are a forum of adults on a comment thread owned and run in a non-combatant country. We shouldn't have 'morale'; we should have an open and dispassionate discussion.
Everyone has morale. We're not vulcans. Being a non-combatant doesn't mean having no emotional investment in a conflict (just ask those marching on both sides over Israel- Hamas over recent weeks). We were a non-combatant country when Churchill was writing The Gathering Storm.
Morale has a very specific meaning. The maintenance of morale in the sense of public consent for continued participation in a conflict often involves the censorship of 'bad news' and the broadcasting of 'good news'. Discussing the desirability of maintaining good morale on PB is inappropriate bordering on faintly sinister.
Oh how ridiculous. Morale means morale. Or to quote the Cambridge dictionary
“the amount of confidence felt by a person or group of people, especially when in a dangerous or difficult situation”
Look, I just faintly praised your idol Liz Truss so take the win.
It isn't particularly ridiculous, given that, as Leon has mentioned, those of us whose views on the handling of this foreign policy issue depart from the PB mainstream have copped it big time from our armchair general division in the cause of policing the morale you want to maintain. It's been a less than enjoyable situation and those concerned should (but probably won't) be a bit embarrassed.
You’ve had a consistent position from the start: this is someone else’s war, none of our business, we should stay out. Fair enough. I and a number of others have an equally strongly held position which is that Putin is a tyrant, he needs to be stopped, this is our war as much as Ukraine’s and what’s at stake is bigger than a few run down oblasts in the Donbas. And that “peace” means a few years for Russia to rearm before having another go. Just like giving Hamas a peace deal will mean the same.
None of that is being an armchair general. Most of us have never pretended to be experts on the tactics. A few have. But then so have several of the “realists”. Saying “this is heading for stalemate” is armchair generalism.
Quite, but nobody has called you a traitor in the pay of a foreign power for expressing your view.
Leaving that to one side and speaking of the future, I don't see that Putin being driven or not driven from Ukraine is key to his ability to regroup and try another attack. He can do that either whilst occupying some of Ukraine, or within the borders of Russia.
What will allow him to regroup is peace. So I see what you're arguing for as the indefinite continuation of the war, with its destruction of life and property, and its wider economical destabilisation, in order to put off a future attack. Perhaps that's a price worth paying, but I'm not sure.
I am not sure even Putin could survive the war ending with him having lost all those hundreds of thousands of troops and vast amounts of equipment for no territorial gain. The army would not let him.
Perhaps, but whoever is left in charge will be able to do all the regrouping they want.
Russia hasn’t had the moments of truth that ends its stint as an imperial power. For the 19th century colonial powers it wasn’t the granting of independence to friendly states that did it, it was the loss of land they really wanted to keep. Britain had many of those moments: the loss of India, the loss of Ireland, the humiliation of Suez. France did too, with the horrendously bloody Algerian war, Suez, and the rapid ejection from Vietnam. I think strategic defeat in Ukraine (which would be anything as bad or worse than being pushed back to the 2014 borders) would be a second step on that path after the 1989-93 revolutions.
About three months ago I began quietly pointing out that Ukraine’s counter offensive was actually going nowhere. Everyone on here shouted at me and told me I was a “fucking appeaser” and a “Putinist shill” and that any moment now Ukraine would sweep the Russians aside and cut the Bear in two on the shores of Azov
How did that work out?
Everyone didn’t say that.
Throughout this war people have all sat in their own positions on two spectrums: optimistic vs pessimistic, and pro- or anti-Russia. There is a difference between the will to victory and belief in victory, although human nature being what it is there is some correlation.
There have been some unrealistic optimists and some constant pessimists. Both have been wrong at times. The former this Autumn, the latter last year.
Personally I’ve turned from cautious optimist to borderline pessimist, but remain convinced this is an existential fight that must be fought until Putin is no more. Sadly it seems across the channel and Atlantic we have rather a lot of people eager to wave a piece of paper. If they do that then they are selling Ukraine down the river into oblivion, in the short or long term.
When I began pointing out the faltering nature of the Ukrainian counter offensive I can only recall @Dura_Ace and @DavidL agreeing with me, and saying Yeah it’s not great
But anyway it doesn’t matter
The point is Ukraine cannot win this war - not in terms of regaining all lost territory. Russia has found a method - laying billions of mines - which makes it impossible. Ukraine has lost too many men and is now sending women into battle - literally the wombs of the Ukrainian nation. The future
Perhaps it is time for us to say to Ukraine Ok this isn’t working any more. Sorry
And before I am accused of being Putin’s catamite the economist and the Wall Street journal have both pointed out that senior Ukrainian politicians and generals believe exactly this: Sadly, the war cannot be won, it is maybe time to cut losses and save lives
Someone genuinely perceptive said this back in January:
Indeed you have been realistic for some time. I only started being so around the summer. It’s hard to be realistic when you hope for the “right” result but all wars end in a way where nobody is really happy with the outcome.
There is a narrow line between 'being realistic' and 'defeatism'.
Putin (and perhaps Xi) would quite like us all to think: "Ukraine cannot win, let's get a peace"; as that 'peace' will be very much on Putin's terms - as he is the only single person who can stop this war. And Putin's terms in the medium and long term will be very bad for Europe and the world.
I'd argue that, the argument can be put the other way: we (the west) made some mistakes last year, in not giving Ukraine what it needed fast enough. We need to learn this lesson, and give Ukraine everything it needs to win.
Because if Putin wins in Ukraine, how will we protect the Baltic states and other Eastern European countries in five years' time?
The west definitely screwed up not arming Ukraine better, faster and harder earlier but that’s done.
Re your last sentence though those countries are in NATO - it’s a very different calculation for Putin than Ukraine was. He’s had a very bloody nose “just” with Ukraine and will know that invading NATO states will be beyond Russian capabilities.
In effect the blood sacrifice of Ukraine has already deterred Putin as he knows that it will be far worse v NATO. But ultimately it will be pointless for many more Ukrainians, and Russians, to die over another year of minefields and trenches. It’s not right, not good, not ideal but Ukraine already showed Russia their weakness at great cost.
Just make it clear to Russia that if they want readmission to polite society then they hand back annexed land and if not then the sanctions and exclusion continue indefinitely.
I think those last 2 paragraphs are imposing Western norms on Russian thinking. Is Putin (and it’s not just him) really deterred? Do they really want to reenter polite society?
No. The Russians are brutal realists. They can survive isolation from the West for many years to come. Not indefinitely (I'm not sure their airline industry will survive, for example) but they aren't bothered emotionally.
Bear in mind that if Trump wins, NATO falls for all practical purposes. Yes, it would still include two nuclear powers but not an awful lot in terms of conventional capacity or - more importantly - political will.
But the Baltic states wouldn't be next. Georgia and Moldova are next on Putin's menu.
Meanwhile Trump will gift the Falklands to his new mate in Buenos Aires.
Nah, Trump isn't interested in the outside world, just his own vendetta.
About three months ago I began quietly pointing out that Ukraine’s counter offensive was actually going nowhere. Everyone on here shouted at me and told me I was a “fucking appeaser” and a “Putinist shill” and that any moment now Ukraine would sweep the Russians aside and cut the Bear in two on the shores of Azov
How did that work out?
Everyone didn’t say that.
Throughout this war people have all sat in their own positions on two spectrums: optimistic vs pessimistic, and pro- or anti-Russia. There is a difference between the will to victory and belief in victory, although human nature being what it is there is some correlation.
There have been some unrealistic optimists and some constant pessimists. Both have been wrong at times. The former this Autumn, the latter last year.
Personally I’ve turned from cautious optimist to borderline pessimist, but remain convinced this is an existential fight that must be fought until Putin is no more. Sadly it seems across the channel and Atlantic we have rather a lot of people eager to wave a piece of paper. If they do that then they are selling Ukraine down the river into oblivion, in the short or long term.
When I began pointing out the faltering nature of the Ukrainian counter offensive I can only recall @Dura_Ace and @DavidL agreeing with me, and saying Yeah it’s not great
But anyway it doesn’t matter
The point is Ukraine cannot win this war - not in terms of regaining all lost territory. Russia has found a method - laying billions of mines - which makes it impossible. Ukraine has lost too many men and is now sending women into battle - literally the wombs of the Ukrainian nation. The future
Perhaps it is time for us to say to Ukraine Ok this isn’t working any more. Sorry
And before I am accused of being Putin’s catamite the economist and the Wall Street journal have both pointed out that senior Ukrainian politicians and generals believe exactly this: Sadly, the war cannot be won, it is maybe time to cut losses and save lives
Someone genuinely perceptive said this back in January:
Indeed you have been realistic for some time. I only started being so around the summer. It’s hard to be realistic when you hope for the “right” result but all wars end in a way where nobody is really happy with the outcome.
There is a narrow line between 'being realistic' and 'defeatism'.
Putin (and perhaps Xi) would quite like us all to think: "Ukraine cannot win, let's get a peace"; as that 'peace' will be very much on Putin's terms - as he is the only single person who can stop this war. And Putin's terms in the medium and long term will be very bad for Europe and the world.
I'd argue that, the argument can be put the other way: we (the west) made some mistakes last year, in not giving Ukraine what it needed fast enough. We need to learn this lesson, and give Ukraine everything it needs to win.
Because if Putin wins in Ukraine, how will we protect the Baltic states and other Eastern European countries in five years' time?
The west definitely screwed up not arming Ukraine better, faster and harder earlier but that’s done.
Re your last sentence though those countries are in NATO - it’s a very different calculation for Putin than Ukraine was. He’s had a very bloody nose “just” with Ukraine and will know that invading NATO states will be beyond Russian capabilities.
In effect the blood sacrifice of Ukraine has already deterred Putin as he knows that it will be far worse v NATO. But ultimately it will be pointless for many more Ukrainians, and Russians, to die over another year of minefields and trenches. It’s not right, not good, not ideal but Ukraine already showed Russia their weakness at great cost.
Just make it clear to Russia that if they want readmission to polite society then they hand back annexed land and if not then the sanctions and exclusion continue indefinitely.
I think those last 2 paragraphs are imposing Western norms on Russian thinking. Is Putin (and it’s not just him) really deterred? Do they really want to reenter polite society?
No. The Russians are brutal realists. They can survive isolation from the West for many years to come. Not indefinitely (I'm not sure their airline industry will survive, for example) but they aren't bothered emotionally.
Bear in mind that if Trump wins, NATO falls for all practical purposes. Yes, it would still include two nuclear powers but not an awful lot in terms of conventional capacity or - more importantly - political will.
But the Baltic states wouldn't be next. Georgia and Moldova are next on Putin's menu.
Meanwhile Trump will gift the Falklands to his new mate in Buenos Aires.
Nah, Trump isn't interested in the outside world, just his own vendetta.
Nah. He’ll do anything to wind people up, not least an European ‘ally’ and maybe gain some oil.
It’s over. The war is done. Ukraine has run out of men and Russia has run out of mojo. A muddy armistice beckons
Is disclose.tv a legit source ?
The tweet cites Bild which is (a) paywalled, and (b) in German.
But you can read the first paragraphs
Looks legit to me
A foreign policy guy analyses:
“German newspaper BILD reports that there is a "secret German-American Ukraine Plan" whereby Zelensky would not be forced directly to negotiate, but moved into that realisation by continuing to deliberately give him just enough arms, in type and quantity, for him to hold the current de facto line of contact, but deliberately never enough for him to be able to recapture the occupied territories. BILD notes a particularly cynical aspect of this alleged plan: that the U.S. and Germany could largely decide this course of action by themselves and impose it, given that they are the two largest suppliers of materiel to Ukraine in terms of volume. BILD goes on to say that the aim would be to guide the war, through the policy tool of Western arms supplies, into a de facto Minsk 3 situation, but without ever saying it, as it would be Ukraine itself that would choose that outcome, because it would not be in a position to achieve anything better. BILD states that it has a source inside the German government, and that this way of thinking comes from inside the Chancellor's Office, not from the Defence Ministry, and that Defence Minister Pistorius would like to assist Ukraine more, if he had the authority to do so. BILD also suggests that Berlin and Washington have the same view and the same goal regarding the trajectory to give to the war.
My comment: sadly, it is plausible that there is a lot of truth to those revelations and that they will be half-denied very quickly. But in the end, we all see the chosen behaviours of the relevant states, in particular the reluctance to supply longer-range weapons, which is consistent with the alleged plan. Of course any such plan would be dishonour and stupidity of absolutely historic proportions. Completely unacceptable and wrong-headed. Immoral, too.”
if it is 'secret' it isn't in Bild. if it is in Bild it isn't secret.
Bild is a tabloid. They want clicks
But they generally don’t lie, especially about big stuff like this
How on earth does this 'plan' fit with Trump taking office?
Dunno. Maybe Biden wants the war ‘over’ before the election so Trump can’t use it as leverage?
That would be even more daft. The idea that you could reliably engineer such an outcome is risible.
The reality is that if Biden could get the funding bill though Congress, he would now be arming Ukraine to win the war, not lose it. And it's ammunition rather than men that Ukraine is rapidly running out of, thanks to GOP Representatives blocking a House vote
Sounds more like kite flying by the pro-Russia factions in Germany.
(The other reality, if course, is that the UK's ability to influence the outcome is seriously limited. We've largely shot our bolt.)
You can’t win a war against a nuclear power
That said, I agree this Bild article might be some complex psyops - perhaps to embarrass Biden and Scholz into greater effort?
Nonetheless my instinct is that this war is winding down into a sad ceasefire in the frozen mud
So why is Russia so worried about the beachhead over the Dnieper?
Is it?
Genuine question. Can Ukraine make any progress there, given its inadequate progress south of Orkhiv? For the past six months every advance (Ukraine and Russian) has dribbled into the sand, accompanied by copious blood. If Ukraine could retake Kherson Oblast it would make a massive difference, but can they really do anything at this point? They advance forward, they die, they stop advancing. What's changed?
The miliblog community is.
Essentially Russia threw all their defensive resources at preparing the route to Melitipol. They calculated that Ukraine couldn’t cross the Dnieper.
If Ukraine can hold the beachheads into the mud season and reinforce them during the hiatus they can then use it for a spring assault.
It’s over. The war is done. Ukraine has run out of men and Russia has run out of mojo. A muddy armistice beckons
Is disclose.tv a legit source ?
The tweet cites Bild which is (a) paywalled, and (b) in German.
But you can read the first paragraphs
Looks legit to me
A foreign policy guy analyses:
“German newspaper BILD reports that there is a "secret German-American Ukraine Plan" whereby Zelensky would not be forced directly to negotiate, but moved into that realisation by continuing to deliberately give him just enough arms, in type and quantity, for him to hold the current de facto line of contact, but deliberately never enough for him to be able to recapture the occupied territories. BILD notes a particularly cynical aspect of this alleged plan: that the U.S. and Germany could largely decide this course of action by themselves and impose it, given that they are the two largest suppliers of materiel to Ukraine in terms of volume. BILD goes on to say that the aim would be to guide the war, through the policy tool of Western arms supplies, into a de facto Minsk 3 situation, but without ever saying it, as it would be Ukraine itself that would choose that outcome, because it would not be in a position to achieve anything better. BILD states that it has a source inside the German government, and that this way of thinking comes from inside the Chancellor's Office, not from the Defence Ministry, and that Defence Minister Pistorius would like to assist Ukraine more, if he had the authority to do so. BILD also suggests that Berlin and Washington have the same view and the same goal regarding the trajectory to give to the war.
My comment: sadly, it is plausible that there is a lot of truth to those revelations and that they will be half-denied very quickly. But in the end, we all see the chosen behaviours of the relevant states, in particular the reluctance to supply longer-range weapons, which is consistent with the alleged plan. Of course any such plan would be dishonour and stupidity of absolutely historic proportions. Completely unacceptable and wrong-headed. Immoral, too.”
if it is 'secret' it isn't in Bild. if it is in Bild it isn't secret.
Bild is a tabloid. They want clicks
But they generally don’t lie, especially about big stuff like this
How on earth does this 'plan' fit with Trump taking office?
Dunno. Maybe Biden wants the war ‘over’ before the election so Trump can’t use it as leverage?
That would be even more daft. The idea that you could reliably engineer such an outcome is risible.
The reality is that if Biden could get the funding bill though Congress, he would now be arming Ukraine to win the war, not lose it. And it's ammunition rather than men that Ukraine is rapidly running out of, thanks to GOP Representatives blocking a House vote
Sounds more like kite flying by the pro-Russia factions in Germany.
(The other reality, if course, is that the UK's ability to influence the outcome is seriously limited. We've largely shot our bolt.)
You can’t win a war against a nuclear power
That said, I agree this Bild article might be some complex psyops - perhaps to embarrass Biden and Scholz into greater effort?
Nonetheless my instinct is that this war is winding down into a sad ceasefire in the frozen mud
So why is Russia so worried about the beachhead over the Dnieper?
Is it?
Genuine question. Can Ukraine make any progress there, given its inadequate progress south of Orkhiv? For the past six months every advance (Ukraine and Russian) has dribbled into the sand, accompanied by copious blood. If Ukraine could retake Kherson Oblast it would make a massive difference, but can they really do anything at this point? They advance forward, they die, they stop advancing. What's changed?
The miliblog community is.
Essentially Russia threw all their defensive resources at preparing the route to Melitipol. They calculated that Ukraine couldn’t cross the Dnieper.
If Ukraine can hold the beachheads into the mud season and reinforce them during the hiatus they can then use it for a spring assault.
The risk is that it gives Russia time to mine.
We'll probably best that Ukraine do it now, even if it's wet and muddy. We've already established that i) pausing is fatal and ii) you can't drive thru a minefield.
It’s over. The war is done. Ukraine has run out of men and Russia has run out of mojo. A muddy armistice beckons
Is disclose.tv a legit source ?
The tweet cites Bild which is (a) paywalled, and (b) in German.
But you can read the first paragraphs
Looks legit to me
A foreign policy guy analyses:
“German newspaper BILD reports that there is a "secret German-American Ukraine Plan" whereby Zelensky would not be forced directly to negotiate, but moved into that realisation by continuing to deliberately give him just enough arms, in type and quantity, for him to hold the current de facto line of contact, but deliberately never enough for him to be able to recapture the occupied territories. BILD notes a particularly cynical aspect of this alleged plan: that the U.S. and Germany could largely decide this course of action by themselves and impose it, given that they are the two largest suppliers of materiel to Ukraine in terms of volume. BILD goes on to say that the aim would be to guide the war, through the policy tool of Western arms supplies, into a de facto Minsk 3 situation, but without ever saying it, as it would be Ukraine itself that would choose that outcome, because it would not be in a position to achieve anything better. BILD states that it has a source inside the German government, and that this way of thinking comes from inside the Chancellor's Office, not from the Defence Ministry, and that Defence Minister Pistorius would like to assist Ukraine more, if he had the authority to do so. BILD also suggests that Berlin and Washington have the same view and the same goal regarding the trajectory to give to the war.
My comment: sadly, it is plausible that there is a lot of truth to those revelations and that they will be half-denied very quickly. But in the end, we all see the chosen behaviours of the relevant states, in particular the reluctance to supply longer-range weapons, which is consistent with the alleged plan. Of course any such plan would be dishonour and stupidity of absolutely historic proportions. Completely unacceptable and wrong-headed. Immoral, too.”
if it is 'secret' it isn't in Bild. if it is in Bild it isn't secret.
Bild is a tabloid. They want clicks
But they generally don’t lie, especially about big stuff like this
How on earth does this 'plan' fit with Trump taking office?
Dunno. Maybe Biden wants the war ‘over’ before the election so Trump can’t use it as leverage?
That would be even more daft. The idea that you could reliably engineer such an outcome is risible.
The reality is that if Biden could get the funding bill though Congress, he would now be arming Ukraine to win the war, not lose it. And it's ammunition rather than men that Ukraine is rapidly running out of, thanks to GOP Representatives blocking a House vote
Sounds more like kite flying by the pro-Russia factions in Germany.
(The other reality, if course, is that the UK's ability to influence the outcome is seriously limited. We've largely shot our bolt.)
You can’t win a war against a nuclear power
That said, I agree this Bild article might be some complex psyops - perhaps to embarrass Biden and Scholz into greater effort?
Nonetheless my instinct is that this war is winding down into a sad ceasefire in the frozen mud
So why is Russia so worried about the beachhead over the Dnieper?
Is it?
Genuine question. Can Ukraine make any progress there, given its inadequate progress south of Orkhiv? For the past six months every advance (Ukraine and Russian) has dribbled into the sand, accompanied by copious blood. If Ukraine could retake Kherson Oblast it would make a massive difference, but can they really do anything at this point? They advance forward, they die, they stop advancing. What's changed?
The miliblog community is.
Essentially Russia threw all their defensive resources at preparing the route to Melitipol. They calculated that Ukraine couldn’t cross the Dnieper.
If Ukraine can hold the beachheads into the mud season and reinforce them during the hiatus they can then use it for a spring assault.
The risk is that it gives Russia time to mine.
We'll probably best that Ukraine do it now, even if it's wet and muddy. We've already established that i) pausing is fatal and ii) you can't drive thru a minefield.
[Edit: which sources are you looking at?]
In the public environment I look at ISW for a quick synopsis
It’s over. The war is done. Ukraine has run out of men and Russia has run out of mojo. A muddy armistice beckons
Is disclose.tv a legit source ?
The tweet cites Bild which is (a) paywalled, and (b) in German.
But you can read the first paragraphs
Looks legit to me
A foreign policy guy analyses:
“German newspaper BILD reports that there is a "secret German-American Ukraine Plan" whereby Zelensky would not be forced directly to negotiate, but moved into that realisation by continuing to deliberately give him just enough arms, in type and quantity, for him to hold the current de facto line of contact, but deliberately never enough for him to be able to recapture the occupied territories. BILD notes a particularly cynical aspect of this alleged plan: that the U.S. and Germany could largely decide this course of action by themselves and impose it, given that they are the two largest suppliers of materiel to Ukraine in terms of volume. BILD goes on to say that the aim would be to guide the war, through the policy tool of Western arms supplies, into a de facto Minsk 3 situation, but without ever saying it, as it would be Ukraine itself that would choose that outcome, because it would not be in a position to achieve anything better. BILD states that it has a source inside the German government, and that this way of thinking comes from inside the Chancellor's Office, not from the Defence Ministry, and that Defence Minister Pistorius would like to assist Ukraine more, if he had the authority to do so. BILD also suggests that Berlin and Washington have the same view and the same goal regarding the trajectory to give to the war.
My comment: sadly, it is plausible that there is a lot of truth to those revelations and that they will be half-denied very quickly. But in the end, we all see the chosen behaviours of the relevant states, in particular the reluctance to supply longer-range weapons, which is consistent with the alleged plan. Of course any such plan would be dishonour and stupidity of absolutely historic proportions. Completely unacceptable and wrong-headed. Immoral, too.”
It’s over. The war is done. Ukraine has run out of men and Russia has run out of mojo. A muddy armistice beckons
And our job is to say that we will support Ukraine as long as they wish to fight.
Britain alone?
Brave
Has Putin got to you?
Kompromat?
Us alone if need be.
It’s in our interests. Russia is no real threat to America. It is a threat to Europe and the UK
The threat from Putin is no longer military. He can't even make progress in the Donbas, let alone invade us.
The threat is through inciting division and "Culture War" in the West, to weaken us internally. He has played a blinder there, and looks to be still on his game.
Are the people responsble for mass migration into the West useful idiots or active agents of Putin?
About three months ago I began quietly pointing out that Ukraine’s counter offensive was actually going nowhere. Everyone on here shouted at me and told me I was a “fucking appeaser” and a “Putinist shill” and that any moment now Ukraine would sweep the Russians aside and cut the Bear in two on the shores of Azov
How did that work out?
Everyone didn’t say that.
Throughout this war people have all sat in their own positions on two spectrums: optimistic vs pessimistic, and pro- or anti-Russia. There is a difference between the will to victory and belief in victory, although human nature being what it is there is some correlation.
There have been some unrealistic optimists and some constant pessimists. Both have been wrong at times. The former this Autumn, the latter last year.
Personally I’ve turned from cautious optimist to borderline pessimist, but remain convinced this is an existential fight that must be fought until Putin is no more. Sadly it seems across the channel and Atlantic we have rather a lot of people eager to wave a piece of paper. If they do that then they are selling Ukraine down the river into oblivion, in the short or long term.
When I began pointing out the faltering nature of the Ukrainian counter offensive I can only recall @Dura_Ace and @DavidL agreeing with me, and saying Yeah it’s not great
But anyway it doesn’t matter
The point is Ukraine cannot win this war - not in terms of regaining all lost territory. Russia has found a method - laying billions of mines - which makes it impossible. Ukraine has lost too many men and is now sending women into battle - literally the wombs of the Ukrainian nation. The future
Perhaps it is time for us to say to Ukraine Ok this isn’t working any more. Sorry
And before I am accused of being Putin’s catamite the economist and the Wall Street journal have both pointed out that senior Ukrainian politicians and generals believe exactly this: Sadly, the war cannot be won, it is maybe time to cut losses and save lives
Someone genuinely perceptive said this back in January:
Indeed you have been realistic for some time. I only started being so around the summer. It’s hard to be realistic when you hope for the “right” result but all wars end in a way where nobody is really happy with the outcome.
There is a narrow line between 'being realistic' and 'defeatism'.
Putin (and perhaps Xi) would quite like us all to think: "Ukraine cannot win, let's get a peace"; as that 'peace' will be very much on Putin's terms - as he is the only single person who can stop this war. And Putin's terms in the medium and long term will be very bad for Europe and the world.
I'd argue that, the argument can be put the other way: we (the west) made some mistakes last year, in not giving Ukraine what it needed fast enough. We need to learn this lesson, and give Ukraine everything it needs to win.
Because if Putin wins in Ukraine, how will we protect the Baltic states and other Eastern European countries in five years' time?
The west definitely screwed up not arming Ukraine better, faster and harder earlier but that’s done.
Re your last sentence though those countries are in NATO - it’s a very different calculation for Putin than Ukraine was. He’s had a very bloody nose “just” with Ukraine and will know that invading NATO states will be beyond Russian capabilities.
In effect the blood sacrifice of Ukraine has already deterred Putin as he knows that it will be far worse v NATO. But ultimately it will be pointless for many more Ukrainians, and Russians, to die over another year of minefields and trenches. It’s not right, not good, not ideal but Ukraine already showed Russia their weakness at great cost.
Just make it clear to Russia that if they want readmission to polite society then they hand back annexed land and if not then the sanctions and exclusion continue indefinitely.
I think those last 2 paragraphs are imposing Western norms on Russian thinking. Is Putin (and it’s not just him) really deterred? Do they really want to reenter polite society?
No. The Russians are brutal realists. They can survive isolation from the West for many years to come. Not indefinitely (I'm not sure their airline industry will survive, for example) but they aren't bothered emotionally.
Bear in mind that if Trump wins, NATO falls for all practical purposes. Yes, it would still include two nuclear powers but not an awful lot in terms of conventional capacity or - more importantly - political will.
But the Baltic states wouldn't be next. Georgia and Moldova are next on Putin's menu.
Meanwhile Trump will gift the Falklands to his new mate in Buenos Aires.
Milei's position on the Falklands is the most pro-British it's possible to be within the context of Argentinian politics.
It’s over. The war is done. Ukraine has run out of men and Russia has run out of mojo. A muddy armistice beckons
And our job is to say that we will support Ukraine as long as they wish to fight.
Britain alone?
Brave
Has Putin got to you?
Kompromat?
Us alone if need be.
It’s in our interests. Russia is no real threat to America. It is a threat to Europe and the UK
The threat from Putin is no longer military. He can't even make progress in the Donbas, let alone invade us.
The threat is through inciting division and "Culture War" in the West, to weaken us internally. He has played a blinder there, and looks to be still on his game.
Are the people responsble for mass migration into the West useful idiots or active agents of Putin?
I see you are tempted by the Great Replacement Theory.
It’s over. The war is done. Ukraine has run out of men and Russia has run out of mojo. A muddy armistice beckons
And our job is to say that we will support Ukraine as long as they wish to fight.
Britain alone?
Brave
Has Putin got to you?
Kompromat?
Us alone if need be.
It’s in our interests. Russia is no real threat to America. It is a threat to Europe and the UK
The threat from Putin is no longer military. He can't even make progress in the Donbas, let alone invade us.
The threat is through inciting division and "Culture War" in the West, to weaken us internally. He has played a blinder there, and looks to be still on his game.
Are the people responsble for mass migration into the West useful idiots or active agents of Putin?
About three months ago I began quietly pointing out that Ukraine’s counter offensive was actually going nowhere. Everyone on here shouted at me and told me I was a “fucking appeaser” and a “Putinist shill” and that any moment now Ukraine would sweep the Russians aside and cut the Bear in two on the shores of Azov
How did that work out?
Everyone didn’t say that.
Throughout this war people have all sat in their own positions on two spectrums: optimistic vs pessimistic, and pro- or anti-Russia. There is a difference between the will to victory and belief in victory, although human nature being what it is there is some correlation.
There have been some unrealistic optimists and some constant pessimists. Both have been wrong at times. The former this Autumn, the latter last year.
Personally I’ve turned from cautious optimist to borderline pessimist, but remain convinced this is an existential fight that must be fought until Putin is no more. Sadly it seems across the channel and Atlantic we have rather a lot of people eager to wave a piece of paper. If they do that then they are selling Ukraine down the river into oblivion, in the short or long term.
When I began pointing out the faltering nature of the Ukrainian counter offensive I can only recall @Dura_Ace and @DavidL agreeing with me, and saying Yeah it’s not great
But anyway it doesn’t matter
The point is Ukraine cannot win this war - not in terms of regaining all lost territory. Russia has found a method - laying billions of mines - which makes it impossible. Ukraine has lost too many men and is now sending women into battle - literally the wombs of the Ukrainian nation. The future
Perhaps it is time for us to say to Ukraine Ok this isn’t working any more. Sorry
And before I am accused of being Putin’s catamite the economist and the Wall Street journal have both pointed out that senior Ukrainian politicians and generals believe exactly this: Sadly, the war cannot be won, it is maybe time to cut losses and save lives
Someone genuinely perceptive said this back in January:
Indeed you have been realistic for some time. I only started being so around the summer. It’s hard to be realistic when you hope for the “right” result but all wars end in a way where nobody is really happy with the outcome.
There is a narrow line between 'being realistic' and 'defeatism'.
Putin (and perhaps Xi) would quite like us all to think: "Ukraine cannot win, let's get a peace"; as that 'peace' will be very much on Putin's terms - as he is the only single person who can stop this war. And Putin's terms in the medium and long term will be very bad for Europe and the world.
I'd argue that, the argument can be put the other way: we (the west) made some mistakes last year, in not giving Ukraine what it needed fast enough. We need to learn this lesson, and give Ukraine everything it needs to win.
Because if Putin wins in Ukraine, how will we protect the Baltic states and other Eastern European countries in five years' time?
The west definitely screwed up not arming Ukraine better, faster and harder earlier but that’s done.
Re your last sentence though those countries are in NATO - it’s a very different calculation for Putin than Ukraine was. He’s had a very bloody nose “just” with Ukraine and will know that invading NATO states will be beyond Russian capabilities.
In effect the blood sacrifice of Ukraine has already deterred Putin as he knows that it will be far worse v NATO. But ultimately it will be pointless for many more Ukrainians, and Russians, to die over another year of minefields and trenches. It’s not right, not good, not ideal but Ukraine already showed Russia their weakness at great cost.
Just make it clear to Russia that if they want readmission to polite society then they hand back annexed land and if not then the sanctions and exclusion continue indefinitely.
I think those last 2 paragraphs are imposing Western norms on Russian thinking. Is Putin (and it’s not just him) really deterred? Do they really want to reenter polite society?
No. The Russians are brutal realists. They can survive isolation from the West for many years to come. Not indefinitely (I'm not sure their airline industry will survive, for example) but they aren't bothered emotionally.
Bear in mind that if Trump wins, NATO falls for all practical purposes. Yes, it would still include two nuclear powers but not an awful lot in terms of conventional capacity or - more importantly - political will.
But the Baltic states wouldn't be next. Georgia and Moldova are next on Putin's menu.
Meanwhile Trump will gift the Falklands to his new mate in Buenos Aires.
It is not in his gift, they are British overseas territories and he is not going to invade the Falklands and go to war with the UK on Argentina's behalf, not that Milei is that focused on the Falklands anyway.
If he tried we could try another war of 1812 and use Canada to invade the USA
It’s over. The war is done. Ukraine has run out of men and Russia has run out of mojo. A muddy armistice beckons
Is disclose.tv a legit source ?
The tweet cites Bild which is (a) paywalled, and (b) in German.
But you can read the first paragraphs
Looks legit to me
A foreign policy guy analyses:
“German newspaper BILD reports that there is a "secret German-American Ukraine Plan" whereby Zelensky would not be forced directly to negotiate, but moved into that realisation by continuing to deliberately give him just enough arms, in type and quantity, for him to hold the current de facto line of contact, but deliberately never enough for him to be able to recapture the occupied territories. BILD notes a particularly cynical aspect of this alleged plan: that the U.S. and Germany could largely decide this course of action by themselves and impose it, given that they are the two largest suppliers of materiel to Ukraine in terms of volume. BILD goes on to say that the aim would be to guide the war, through the policy tool of Western arms supplies, into a de facto Minsk 3 situation, but without ever saying it, as it would be Ukraine itself that would choose that outcome, because it would not be in a position to achieve anything better. BILD states that it has a source inside the German government, and that this way of thinking comes from inside the Chancellor's Office, not from the Defence Ministry, and that Defence Minister Pistorius would like to assist Ukraine more, if he had the authority to do so. BILD also suggests that Berlin and Washington have the same view and the same goal regarding the trajectory to give to the war.
My comment: sadly, it is plausible that there is a lot of truth to those revelations and that they will be half-denied very quickly. But in the end, we all see the chosen behaviours of the relevant states, in particular the reluctance to supply longer-range weapons, which is consistent with the alleged plan. Of course any such plan would be dishonour and stupidity of absolutely historic proportions. Completely unacceptable and wrong-headed. Immoral, too.”
It would be more of a crisis for Comic Relief if either the talent or BBC walked away. No doubt Eric Salama feels strongly but you'd have thought the last couple of days might have changed things. There is a temporary ceasefire, and hostages are being released.
It’s over. The war is done. Ukraine has run out of men and Russia has run out of mojo. A muddy armistice beckons
And our job is to say that we will support Ukraine as long as they wish to fight.
Britain alone?
Brave
Has Putin got to you?
Kompromat?
Us alone if need be.
It’s in our interests. Russia is no real threat to America. It is a threat to Europe and the UK
The threat from Putin is no longer military. He can't even make progress in the Donbas, let alone invade us.
The threat is through inciting division and "Culture War" in the West, to weaken us internally. He has played a blinder there, and looks to be still on his game.
Are the people responsble for mass migration into the West useful idiots or active agents of Putin?
It's hard not to compare Western Europe's political class now, with their counterparts in the Fifth Century. Enervated, decadent, no longer willing to defend themselves from external threats, rather, just sucking up to their enemies, at the expense of the lower classes.
It’s over. The war is done. Ukraine has run out of men and Russia has run out of mojo. A muddy armistice beckons
Is disclose.tv a legit source ?
The tweet cites Bild which is (a) paywalled, and (b) in German.
But you can read the first paragraphs
Looks legit to me
A foreign policy guy analyses:
“German newspaper BILD reports that there is a "secret German-American Ukraine Plan" whereby Zelensky would not be forced directly to negotiate, but moved into that realisation by continuing to deliberately give him just enough arms, in type and quantity, for him to hold the current de facto line of contact, but deliberately never enough for him to be able to recapture the occupied territories. BILD notes a particularly cynical aspect of this alleged plan: that the U.S. and Germany could largely decide this course of action by themselves and impose it, given that they are the two largest suppliers of materiel to Ukraine in terms of volume. BILD goes on to say that the aim would be to guide the war, through the policy tool of Western arms supplies, into a de facto Minsk 3 situation, but without ever saying it, as it would be Ukraine itself that would choose that outcome, because it would not be in a position to achieve anything better. BILD states that it has a source inside the German government, and that this way of thinking comes from inside the Chancellor's Office, not from the Defence Ministry, and that Defence Minister Pistorius would like to assist Ukraine more, if he had the authority to do so. BILD also suggests that Berlin and Washington have the same view and the same goal regarding the trajectory to give to the war.
My comment: sadly, it is plausible that there is a lot of truth to those revelations and that they will be half-denied very quickly. But in the end, we all see the chosen behaviours of the relevant states, in particular the reluctance to supply longer-range weapons, which is consistent with the alleged plan. Of course any such plan would be dishonour and stupidity of absolutely historic proportions. Completely unacceptable and wrong-headed. Immoral, too.”
Is this “Russia’s positively last territorial demand?”
It’s like reliving 1933/39. That nice Mr. Hitler/Putin only wants to live in peace with us.
If you look at the main motivating factors of the players involved, not only is the BILD report plausible but also probable.
Germany is becoming the weak man of Europe again and needs the war to end so it can restart - sooner than later - its relationship with Russia. The SPD is also conscious it is losing votes because of the war.
The US - or rather the Biden Administration - needs this to end because the latter is behind in the polls with an election coming up and this risks being an electoral milestone in a year's time.
Unfortunately, Ukraine will be thrown under the bus to satisfy the domestic needs of both,
As others have pointed out, this smacks of 1933-39 all over again.
The one (extremely small)_ silver lining will be that those on here that try to tell us that Joe Biden is the 'Greatest President since FDR' / 'Is such a noble being' and who generally can't stick their tongues so far up his arse in praise might actually be forced to admit that he actually is a self-serving barsteward only concerned about himself.
Actually forget that. They will be too bothered deleting their posts telling us how a Trump victory would mean Putin winning in Ukraine - which is exactly what it looks as though will happen under the current Administration.
Having read "How America Lost Its Secrets" by Edward Jay Epstein, and learned how Putin was able to use respected newspapers, including the WaPo, and -- by far the most important -- the Guardian, to spread his propaganda, I have no trouble believing a German newspaper might get conned by someone working for Putin. (Conciously or unconciously.) https://www.penguinrandomhouse.com/books/547346/how-america-lost-its-secrets-by-edward-jay-epstein/
Anyone know what Glenn Greenwald and company are doing these days?
It’s over. The war is done. Ukraine has run out of men and Russia has run out of mojo. A muddy armistice beckons
Is disclose.tv a legit source ?
The tweet cites Bild which is (a) paywalled, and (b) in German.
But you can read the first paragraphs
Looks legit to me
A foreign policy guy analyses:
“German newspaper BILD reports that there is a "secret German-American Ukraine Plan" whereby Zelensky would not be forced directly to negotiate, but moved into that realisation by continuing to deliberately give him just enough arms, in type and quantity, for him to hold the current de facto line of contact, but deliberately never enough for him to be able to recapture the occupied territories. BILD notes a particularly cynical aspect of this alleged plan: that the U.S. and Germany could largely decide this course of action by themselves and impose it, given that they are the two largest suppliers of materiel to Ukraine in terms of volume. BILD goes on to say that the aim would be to guide the war, through the policy tool of Western arms supplies, into a de facto Minsk 3 situation, but without ever saying it, as it would be Ukraine itself that would choose that outcome, because it would not be in a position to achieve anything better. BILD states that it has a source inside the German government, and that this way of thinking comes from inside the Chancellor's Office, not from the Defence Ministry, and that Defence Minister Pistorius would like to assist Ukraine more, if he had the authority to do so. BILD also suggests that Berlin and Washington have the same view and the same goal regarding the trajectory to give to the war.
My comment: sadly, it is plausible that there is a lot of truth to those revelations and that they will be half-denied very quickly. But in the end, we all see the chosen behaviours of the relevant states, in particular the reluctance to supply longer-range weapons, which is consistent with the alleged plan. Of course any such plan would be dishonour and stupidity of absolutely historic proportions. Completely unacceptable and wrong-headed. Immoral, too.”
Is this “Russia’s positively last territorial demand?”
It’s like reliving 1933/39. That nice Mr. Hitler/Putin only wants to live in peace with us.
If you look at the main motivating factors of the players involved, not only is the BILD report plausible but also probable.
Germany is becoming the weak man of Europe again and needs the war to end so it can restart - sooner than later - its relationship with Russia. The SPD is also conscious it is losing votes because of the war.
The US - or rather the Biden Administration - needs this to end because the latter is behind in the polls with an election coming up and this risks being an electoral milestone in a year's time.
Unfortunately, Ukraine will be thrown under the bus to satisfy the domestic needs of both,
As others have pointed out, this smacks of 1933-39 all over again.
The one (extremely small)_ silver lining will be that those on here that try to tell us that Joe Biden is the 'Greatest President since FDR' / 'Is such a noble being' and who generally can't stick their tongues so far up his arse in praise might actually be forced to admit that he actually is a self-serving barsteward only concerned about himself.
Actually forget that. They will be too bothered deleting their posts telling us how a Trump victory would mean Putin winning in Ukraine - which is exactly what it looks as though will happen under the current Administration.
When I hear the words “self-serving barsteward only concerned about himself” in the context of US politics, it is hard not to think of one man in particular, the man whose entire policy platform is going after people who have slighted him, Donald Trump.
It’s over. The war is done. Ukraine has run out of men and Russia has run out of mojo. A muddy armistice beckons
Is disclose.tv a legit source ?
The tweet cites Bild which is (a) paywalled, and (b) in German.
But you can read the first paragraphs
Looks legit to me
A foreign policy guy analyses:
“German newspaper BILD reports that there is a "secret German-American Ukraine Plan" whereby Zelensky would not be forced directly to negotiate, but moved into that realisation by continuing to deliberately give him just enough arms, in type and quantity, for him to hold the current de facto line of contact, but deliberately never enough for him to be able to recapture the occupied territories. BILD notes a particularly cynical aspect of this alleged plan: that the U.S. and Germany could largely decide this course of action by themselves and impose it, given that they are the two largest suppliers of materiel to Ukraine in terms of volume. BILD goes on to say that the aim would be to guide the war, through the policy tool of Western arms supplies, into a de facto Minsk 3 situation, but without ever saying it, as it would be Ukraine itself that would choose that outcome, because it would not be in a position to achieve anything better. BILD states that it has a source inside the German government, and that this way of thinking comes from inside the Chancellor's Office, not from the Defence Ministry, and that Defence Minister Pistorius would like to assist Ukraine more, if he had the authority to do so. BILD also suggests that Berlin and Washington have the same view and the same goal regarding the trajectory to give to the war.
My comment: sadly, it is plausible that there is a lot of truth to those revelations and that they will be half-denied very quickly. But in the end, we all see the chosen behaviours of the relevant states, in particular the reluctance to supply longer-range weapons, which is consistent with the alleged plan. Of course any such plan would be dishonour and stupidity of absolutely historic proportions. Completely unacceptable and wrong-headed. Immoral, too.”
Is this “Russia’s positively last territorial demand?”
It’s like reliving 1933/39. That nice Mr. Hitler/Putin only wants to live in peace with us.
If you look at the main motivating factors of the players involved, not only is the BILD report plausible but also probable.
Germany is becoming the weak man of Europe again and needs the war to end so it can restart - sooner than later - its relationship with Russia. The SPD is also conscious it is losing votes because of the war.
The US - or rather the Biden Administration - needs this to end because the latter is behind in the polls with an election coming up and this risks being an electoral milestone in a year's time.
Unfortunately, Ukraine will be thrown under the bus to satisfy the domestic needs of both,
As others have pointed out, this smacks of 1933-39 all over again.
The one (extremely small)_ silver lining will be that those on here that try to tell us that Joe Biden is the 'Greatest President since FDR' / 'Is such a noble being' and who generally can't stick their tongues so far up his arse in praise might actually be forced to admit that he actually is a self-serving barsteward only concerned about himself.
Actually forget that. They will be too bothered deleting their posts telling us how a Trump victory would mean Putin winning in Ukraine - which is exactly what it looks as though will happen under the current Administration.
That's a rather foul mouthed smokescreen to cover those who are actively opposing support for Ukraine - Trump and his acolytes in Congress.
About three months ago I began quietly pointing out that Ukraine’s counter offensive was actually going nowhere. Everyone on here shouted at me and told me I was a “fucking appeaser” and a “Putinist shill” and that any moment now Ukraine would sweep the Russians aside and cut the Bear in two on the shores of Azov
How did that work out?
Everyone didn’t say that.
Throughout this war people have all sat in their own positions on two spectrums: optimistic vs pessimistic, and pro- or anti-Russia. There is a difference between the will to victory and belief in victory, although human nature being what it is there is some correlation.
There have been some unrealistic optimists and some constant pessimists. Both have been wrong at times. The former this Autumn, the latter last year.
Personally I’ve turned from cautious optimist to borderline pessimist, but remain convinced this is an existential fight that must be fought until Putin is no more. Sadly it seems across the channel and Atlantic we have rather a lot of people eager to wave a piece of paper. If they do that then they are selling Ukraine down the river into oblivion, in the short or long term.
When I began pointing out the faltering nature of the Ukrainian counter offensive I can only recall @Dura_Ace and @DavidL agreeing with me, and saying Yeah it’s not great
But anyway it doesn’t matter
The point is Ukraine cannot win this war - not in terms of regaining all lost territory. Russia has found a method - laying billions of mines - which makes it impossible. Ukraine has lost too many men and is now sending women into battle - literally the wombs of the Ukrainian nation. The future
Perhaps it is time for us to say to Ukraine Ok this isn’t working any more. Sorry
And before I am accused of being Putin’s catamite the economist and the Wall Street journal have both pointed out that senior Ukrainian politicians and generals believe exactly this: Sadly, the war cannot be won, it is maybe time to cut losses and save lives
Someone genuinely perceptive said this back in January:
Indeed you have been realistic for some time. I only started being so around the summer. It’s hard to be realistic when you hope for the “right” result but all wars end in a way where nobody is really happy with the outcome.
There is a narrow line between 'being realistic' and 'defeatism'.
Putin (and perhaps Xi) would quite like us all to think: "Ukraine cannot win, let's get a peace"; as that 'peace' will be very much on Putin's terms - as he is the only single person who can stop this war. And Putin's terms in the medium and long term will be very bad for Europe and the world.
I'd argue that, the argument can be put the other way: we (the west) made some mistakes last year, in not giving Ukraine what it needed fast enough. We need to learn this lesson, and give Ukraine everything it needs to win.
Because if Putin wins in Ukraine, how will we protect the Baltic states and other Eastern European countries in five years' time?
The west definitely screwed up not arming Ukraine better, faster and harder earlier but that’s done.
Re your last sentence though those countries are in NATO - it’s a very different calculation for Putin than Ukraine was. He’s had a very bloody nose “just” with Ukraine and will know that invading NATO states will be beyond Russian capabilities.
In effect the blood sacrifice of Ukraine has already deterred Putin as he knows that it will be far worse v NATO. But ultimately it will be pointless for many more Ukrainians, and Russians, to die over another year of minefields and trenches. It’s not right, not good, not ideal but Ukraine already showed Russia their weakness at great cost.
Just make it clear to Russia that if they want readmission to polite society then they hand back annexed land and if not then the sanctions and exclusion continue indefinitely.
I think those last 2 paragraphs are imposing Western norms on Russian thinking. Is Putin (and it’s not just him) really deterred? Do they really want to reenter polite society?
No. The Russians are brutal realists. They can survive isolation from the West for many years to come. Not indefinitely (I'm not sure their airline industry will survive, for example) but they aren't bothered emotionally.
Bear in mind that if Trump wins, NATO falls for all practical purposes. Yes, it would still include two nuclear powers but not an awful lot in terms of conventional capacity or - more importantly - political will.
But the Baltic states wouldn't be next. Georgia and Moldova are next on Putin's menu.
Meanwhile Trump will gift the Falklands to his new mate in Buenos Aires.
Milei's position on the Falklands is the most pro-British it's possible to be within the context of Argentinian politics.
I'm guessing that means he does officially want to take them over and will make noises about that domestically, but not as much as others?
About three months ago I began quietly pointing out that Ukraine’s counter offensive was actually going nowhere. Everyone on here shouted at me and told me I was a “fucking appeaser” and a “Putinist shill” and that any moment now Ukraine would sweep the Russians aside and cut the Bear in two on the shores of Azov
How did that work out?
Everyone didn’t say that.
Throughout this war people have all sat in their own positions on two spectrums: optimistic vs pessimistic, and pro- or anti-Russia. There is a difference between the will to victory and belief in victory, although human nature being what it is there is some correlation.
There have been some unrealistic optimists and some constant pessimists. Both have been wrong at times. The former this Autumn, the latter last year.
Personally I’ve turned from cautious optimist to borderline pessimist, but remain convinced this is an existential fight that must be fought until Putin is no more. Sadly it seems across the channel and Atlantic we have rather a lot of people eager to wave a piece of paper. If they do that then they are selling Ukraine down the river into oblivion, in the short or long term.
When I began pointing out the faltering nature of the Ukrainian counter offensive I can only recall @Dura_Ace and @DavidL agreeing with me, and saying Yeah it’s not great
But anyway it doesn’t matter
The point is Ukraine cannot win this war - not in terms of regaining all lost territory. Russia has found a method - laying billions of mines - which makes it impossible. Ukraine has lost too many men and is now sending women into battle - literally the wombs of the Ukrainian nation. The future
Perhaps it is time for us to say to Ukraine Ok this isn’t working any more. Sorry
And before I am accused of being Putin’s catamite the economist and the Wall Street journal have both pointed out that senior Ukrainian politicians and generals believe exactly this: Sadly, the war cannot be won, it is maybe time to cut losses and save lives
Someone genuinely perceptive said this back in January:
Indeed you have been realistic for some time. I only started being so around the summer. It’s hard to be realistic when you hope for the “right” result but all wars end in a way where nobody is really happy with the outcome.
There is a narrow line between 'being realistic' and 'defeatism'.
Putin (and perhaps Xi) would quite like us all to think: "Ukraine cannot win, let's get a peace"; as that 'peace' will be very much on Putin's terms - as he is the only single person who can stop this war. And Putin's terms in the medium and long term will be very bad for Europe and the world.
I'd argue that, the argument can be put the other way: we (the west) made some mistakes last year, in not giving Ukraine what it needed fast enough. We need to learn this lesson, and give Ukraine everything it needs to win.
Because if Putin wins in Ukraine, how will we protect the Baltic states and other Eastern European countries in five years' time?
The west definitely screwed up not arming Ukraine better, faster and harder earlier but that’s done.
Re your last sentence though those countries are in NATO - it’s a very different calculation for Putin than Ukraine was. He’s had a very bloody nose “just” with Ukraine and will know that invading NATO states will be beyond Russian capabilities.
In effect the blood sacrifice of Ukraine has already deterred Putin as he knows that it will be far worse v NATO. But ultimately it will be pointless for many more Ukrainians, and Russians, to die over another year of minefields and trenches. It’s not right, not good, not ideal but Ukraine already showed Russia their weakness at great cost.
Just make it clear to Russia that if they want readmission to polite society then they hand back annexed land and if not then the sanctions and exclusion continue indefinitely.
I think those last 2 paragraphs are imposing Western norms on Russian thinking. Is Putin (and it’s not just him) really deterred? Do they really want to reenter polite society?
No. The Russians are brutal realists. They can survive isolation from the West for many years to come. Not indefinitely (I'm not sure their airline industry will survive, for example) but they aren't bothered emotionally.
Bear in mind that if Trump wins, NATO falls for all practical purposes. Yes, it would still include two nuclear powers but not an awful lot in terms of conventional capacity or - more importantly - political will.
But the Baltic states wouldn't be next. Georgia and Moldova are next on Putin's menu.
Meanwhile Trump will gift the Falklands to his new mate in Buenos Aires.
Nah, Trump isn't interested in the outside world, just his own vendetta.
If a leader sucked up to him enough he'd be persuadable to do a lot, but even in an unleashed second term there would be limits.
One of the reasons that I come to PB is that I can make mistakes where it doesn't matter, so when it comes to real life I can look smart.
When I saw the Jonathan Portes graph that inspired the Goodwin fruitiness, I didn't spot the problem for a second. It's bloody obvious after a few seconds, but I'm supposed to be smarter than that. Ouch.
Meanwhile, whilst we warm our hands on the wreckage of Mr Portes's career, let us consider the Anscombe's Quartet. This is why we draw graphs. So we don't draw stupid conclusions from a model.
It’s over. The war is done. Ukraine has run out of men and Russia has run out of mojo. A muddy armistice beckons
Is disclose.tv a legit source ?
The tweet cites Bild which is (a) paywalled, and (b) in German.
But you can read the first paragraphs
Looks legit to me
A foreign policy guy analyses:
“German newspaper BILD reports that there is a "secret German-American Ukraine Plan" whereby Zelensky would not be forced directly to negotiate, but moved into that realisation by continuing to deliberately give him just enough arms, in type and quantity, for him to hold the current de facto line of contact, but deliberately never enough for him to be able to recapture the occupied territories. BILD notes a particularly cynical aspect of this alleged plan: that the U.S. and Germany could largely decide this course of action by themselves and impose it, given that they are the two largest suppliers of materiel to Ukraine in terms of volume. BILD goes on to say that the aim would be to guide the war, through the policy tool of Western arms supplies, into a de facto Minsk 3 situation, but without ever saying it, as it would be Ukraine itself that would choose that outcome, because it would not be in a position to achieve anything better. BILD states that it has a source inside the German government, and that this way of thinking comes from inside the Chancellor's Office, not from the Defence Ministry, and that Defence Minister Pistorius would like to assist Ukraine more, if he had the authority to do so. BILD also suggests that Berlin and Washington have the same view and the same goal regarding the trajectory to give to the war.
My comment: sadly, it is plausible that there is a lot of truth to those revelations and that they will be half-denied very quickly. But in the end, we all see the chosen behaviours of the relevant states, in particular the reluctance to supply longer-range weapons, which is consistent with the alleged plan. Of course any such plan would be dishonour and stupidity of absolutely historic proportions. Completely unacceptable and wrong-headed. Immoral, too.”
Is this “Russia’s positively last territorial demand?”
It’s like reliving 1933/39. That nice Mr. Hitler/Putin only wants to live in peace with us.
If you look at the main motivating factors of the players involved, not only is the BILD report plausible but also probable.
Germany is becoming the weak man of Europe again and needs the war to end so it can restart - sooner than later - its relationship with Russia. The SPD is also conscious it is losing votes because of the war.
The US - or rather the Biden Administration - needs this to end because the latter is behind in the polls with an election coming up and this risks being an electoral milestone in a year's time.
Unfortunately, Ukraine will be thrown under the bus to satisfy the domestic needs of both,
As others have pointed out, this smacks of 1933-39 all over again.
The one (extremely small)_ silver lining will be that those on here that try to tell us that Joe Biden is the 'Greatest President since FDR' / 'Is such a noble being' and who generally can't stick their tongues so far up his arse in praise might actually be forced to admit that he actually is a self-serving barsteward only concerned about himself.
Actually forget that. They will be too bothered deleting their posts telling us how a Trump victory would mean Putin winning in Ukraine - which is exactly what it looks as though will happen under the current Administration.
That's a rather foul mouthed smokescreen to cover those who are actively opposing support for Ukraine - Trump and his acolytes in Congress.
Biden and others may be more coldly calculating about a lot of things than people would like, that's the reality of geopolitics, but they aren't actively opposed to helping Ukraine or parrot Kremlin talking points. That results in a very big difference even if the administration is not as fulsome in support as it could be or will be moving forward. Even if the worst outcome, Russia winning/holding onto many gains, occurs now or later, that doesn't mean the support to slow or prevent more of it, which plenty in america at least oppose doing, is no different.
One of the reasons that I come to PB is that I can make mistakes where it doesn't matter, so when it comes to real life I can look smart.
When I saw the Jonathan Portes graph that inspired the Goodwin fruitiness, I didn't spot the problem for a second. It's bloody obvious after a few seconds, but I'm supposed to be smarter than that. Ouch.
Meanwhile, whilst we warm our hands on the wreckage of Mr Portes's career, let us consider the Anscombe's Quartet. This is why we draw graphs. So we don't draw stupid conclusions from a model.
It seems optimistic to think someone's career would be wrecked by data manipulation cock ups. So long as it was pleasing to their intended audience even being caught out would only see gentle chiding for even deliberate messing about. I'm sure I saw online someone criticising Portes but claiming Goodwin has done similar himself.
About three months ago I began quietly pointing out that Ukraine’s counter offensive was actually going nowhere. Everyone on here shouted at me and told me I was a “fucking appeaser” and a “Putinist shill” and that any moment now Ukraine would sweep the Russians aside and cut the Bear in two on the shores of Azov
How did that work out?
Everyone didn’t say that.
Throughout this war people have all sat in their own positions on two spectrums: optimistic vs pessimistic, and pro- or anti-Russia. There is a difference between the will to victory and belief in victory, although human nature being what it is there is some correlation.
There have been some unrealistic optimists and some constant pessimists. Both have been wrong at times. The former this Autumn, the latter last year.
Personally I’ve turned from cautious optimist to borderline pessimist, but remain convinced this is an existential fight that must be fought until Putin is no more. Sadly it seems across the channel and Atlantic we have rather a lot of people eager to wave a piece of paper. If they do that then they are selling Ukraine down the river into oblivion, in the short or long term.
When I began pointing out the faltering nature of the Ukrainian counter offensive I can only recall @Dura_Ace and @DavidL agreeing with me, and saying Yeah it’s not great
But anyway it doesn’t matter
The point is Ukraine cannot win this war - not in terms of regaining all lost territory. Russia has found a method - laying billions of mines - which makes it impossible. Ukraine has lost too many men and is now sending women into battle - literally the wombs of the Ukrainian nation. The future
Perhaps it is time for us to say to Ukraine Ok this isn’t working any more. Sorry
And before I am accused of being Putin’s catamite the economist and the Wall Street journal have both pointed out that senior Ukrainian politicians and generals believe exactly this: Sadly, the war cannot be won, it is maybe time to cut losses and save lives
Someone genuinely perceptive said this back in January:
Indeed you have been realistic for some time. I only started being so around the summer. It’s hard to be realistic when you hope for the “right” result but all wars end in a way where nobody is really happy with the outcome.
There is a narrow line between 'being realistic' and 'defeatism'.
Putin (and perhaps Xi) would quite like us all to think: "Ukraine cannot win, let's get a peace"; as that 'peace' will be very much on Putin's terms - as he is the only single person who can stop this war. And Putin's terms in the medium and long term will be very bad for Europe and the world.
I'd argue that, the argument can be put the other way: we (the west) made some mistakes last year, in not giving Ukraine what it needed fast enough. We need to learn this lesson, and give Ukraine everything it needs to win.
Because if Putin wins in Ukraine, how will we protect the Baltic states and other Eastern European countries in five years' time?
The west definitely screwed up not arming Ukraine better, faster and harder earlier but that’s done.
Re your last sentence though those countries are in NATO - it’s a very different calculation for Putin than Ukraine was. He’s had a very bloody nose “just” with Ukraine and will know that invading NATO states will be beyond Russian capabilities.
In effect the blood sacrifice of Ukraine has already deterred Putin as he knows that it will be far worse v NATO. But ultimately it will be pointless for many more Ukrainians, and Russians, to die over another year of minefields and trenches. It’s not right, not good, not ideal but Ukraine already showed Russia their weakness at great cost.
Just make it clear to Russia that if they want readmission to polite society then they hand back annexed land and if not then the sanctions and exclusion continue indefinitely.
I think those last 2 paragraphs are imposing Western norms on Russian thinking. Is Putin (and it’s not just him) really deterred? Do they really want to reenter polite society?
No. The Russians are brutal realists. They can survive isolation from the West for many years to come. Not indefinitely (I'm not sure their airline industry will survive, for example) but they aren't bothered emotionally.
Bear in mind that if Trump wins, NATO falls for all practical purposes. Yes, it would still include two nuclear powers but not an awful lot in terms of conventional capacity or - more importantly - political will.
But the Baltic states wouldn't be next. Georgia and Moldova are next on Putin's menu.
Meanwhile Trump will gift the Falklands to his new mate in Buenos Aires.
Milei's position on the Falklands is the most pro-British it's possible to be within the context of Argentinian politics.
I'm guessing that means he does officially want to take them over and will make noises about that domestically, but not as much as others?
He's said it needs to be approached by diplomacy and that the wishes of the islanders need to be taken into account, so in practice it means he supports the status quo.
Putin should be given a choice. Either settle with the land he currently holds, and the rest of Ukraine joins NATO and the EU, or give back the bits of Ukraine you have captured, and Ukraine remains out of NATO and the EU.
I fear he would count that as a win. Ukraine barred from the EU and NATO allows Putin to rebuild and do it all over again in a few years when the Western reaction will be either exactly the same or significantly worse depending on who the US president is.
Looks like we are going full circle to the start of the most recent invasion, given one of the principal demands of Putin (amidst many other justifications) was that Ukraine should not be allowed to pursue its own foreign policy and not be allowed to join the EU or NATO (never mind the latter looked pretty impossible and the former some ways off at best), and various 'pragmatic' souls like Kissinger were saying the same thing to start with.
Plenty of places will have been forced into that kind of scenario I'm sure, of doing what powerful neighbour x wants including officially being neutral, but it's obviously not real neutrality when your forced into doing it under threat of invasion, or in this case, continued invasion and occupation.
It’s over. The war is done. Ukraine has run out of men and Russia has run out of mojo. A muddy armistice beckons
Is disclose.tv a legit source ?
The tweet cites Bild which is (a) paywalled, and (b) in German.
But you can read the first paragraphs
Looks legit to me
A foreign policy guy analyses:
“German newspaper BILD reports that there is a "secret German-American Ukraine Plan" whereby Zelensky would not be forced directly to negotiate, but moved into that realisation by continuing to deliberately give him just enough arms, in type and quantity, for him to hold the current de facto line of contact, but deliberately never enough for him to be able to recapture the occupied territories. BILD notes a particularly cynical aspect of this alleged plan: that the U.S. and Germany could largely decide this course of action by themselves and impose it, given that they are the two largest suppliers of materiel to Ukraine in terms of volume. BILD goes on to say that the aim would be to guide the war, through the policy tool of Western arms supplies, into a de facto Minsk 3 situation, but without ever saying it, as it would be Ukraine itself that would choose that outcome, because it would not be in a position to achieve anything better. BILD states that it has a source inside the German government, and that this way of thinking comes from inside the Chancellor's Office, not from the Defence Ministry, and that Defence Minister Pistorius would like to assist Ukraine more, if he had the authority to do so. BILD also suggests that Berlin and Washington have the same view and the same goal regarding the trajectory to give to the war.
My comment: sadly, it is plausible that there is a lot of truth to those revelations and that they will be half-denied very quickly. But in the end, we all see the chosen behaviours of the relevant states, in particular the reluctance to supply longer-range weapons, which is consistent with the alleged plan. Of course any such plan would be dishonour and stupidity of absolutely historic proportions. Completely unacceptable and wrong-headed. Immoral, too.”
Is this “Russia’s positively last territorial demand?”
It’s like reliving 1933/39. That nice Mr. Hitler/Putin only wants to live in peace with us.
If you look at the main motivating factors of the players involved, not only is the BILD report plausible but also probable.
Germany is becoming the weak man of Europe again and needs the war to end so it can restart - sooner than later - its relationship with Russia. The SPD is also conscious it is losing votes because of the war.
The US - or rather the Biden Administration - needs this to end because the latter is behind in the polls with an election coming up and this risks being an electoral milestone in a year's time.
Unfortunately, Ukraine will be thrown under the bus to satisfy the domestic needs of both,
As others have pointed out, this smacks of 1933-39 all over again.
The one (extremely small)_ silver lining will be that those on here that try to tell us that Joe Biden is the 'Greatest President since FDR' / 'Is such a noble being' and who generally can't stick their tongues so far up his arse in praise might actually be forced to admit that he actually is a self-serving barsteward only concerned about himself.
Actually forget that. They will be too bothered deleting their posts telling us how a Trump victory would mean Putin winning in Ukraine - which is exactly what it looks as though will happen under the current Administration.
That's a rather foul mouthed smokescreen to cover those who are actively opposing support for Ukraine - Trump and his acolytes in Congress.
Biden and others may be more coldly calculating about a lot of things than people would like, that's the reality of geopolitics, but they aren't actively opposed to helping Ukraine or parrot Kremlin talking points. That results in a very big difference even if the administration is not as fulsome in support as it could be or will be moving forward. Even if the worst outcome, Russia winning/holding onto many gains, occurs now or later, that doesn't mean the support to slow or prevent more of it, which plenty in america at least oppose doing, is no different.
Indeed - and his hesitancy on aid for Ukraine is something I've criticised him for before.
But it's also true that without his administration's efforts, Ukraine would probably have fallen to the initial invasion. And that Trump is actively hostile to Ukraine's defence (which makes kitchencabinet's comments seem somewhat bizarre).
About three months ago I began quietly pointing out that Ukraine’s counter offensive was actually going nowhere. Everyone on here shouted at me and told me I was a “fucking appeaser” and a “Putinist shill” and that any moment now Ukraine would sweep the Russians aside and cut the Bear in two on the shores of Azov
How did that work out?
Everyone didn’t say that.
Throughout this war people have all sat in their own positions on two spectrums: optimistic vs pessimistic, and pro- or anti-Russia. There is a difference between the will to victory and belief in victory, although human nature being what it is there is some correlation.
There have been some unrealistic optimists and some constant pessimists. Both have been wrong at times. The former this Autumn, the latter last year.
Personally I’ve turned from cautious optimist to borderline pessimist, but remain convinced this is an existential fight that must be fought until Putin is no more. Sadly it seems across the channel and Atlantic we have rather a lot of people eager to wave a piece of paper. If they do that then they are selling Ukraine down the river into oblivion, in the short or long term.
When I began pointing out the faltering nature of the Ukrainian counter offensive I can only recall @Dura_Ace and @DavidL agreeing with me, and saying Yeah it’s not great
But anyway it doesn’t matter
The point is Ukraine cannot win this war - not in terms of regaining all lost territory. Russia has found a method - laying billions of mines - which makes it impossible. Ukraine has lost too many men and is now sending women into battle - literally the wombs of the Ukrainian nation. The future
Perhaps it is time for us to say to Ukraine Ok this isn’t working any more. Sorry
And before I am accused of being Putin’s catamite the economist and the Wall Street journal have both pointed out that senior Ukrainian politicians and generals believe exactly this: Sadly, the war cannot be won, it is maybe time to cut losses and save lives
Someone genuinely perceptive said this back in January:
Indeed you have been realistic for some time. I only started being so around the summer. It’s hard to be realistic when you hope for the “right” result but all wars end in a way where nobody is really happy with the outcome.
There is a narrow line between 'being realistic' and 'defeatism'.
Putin (and perhaps Xi) would quite like us all to think: "Ukraine cannot win, let's get a peace"; as that 'peace' will be very much on Putin's terms - as he is the only single person who can stop this war. And Putin's terms in the medium and long term will be very bad for Europe and the world.
I'd argue that, the argument can be put the other way: we (the west) made some mistakes last year, in not giving Ukraine what it needed fast enough. We need to learn this lesson, and give Ukraine everything it needs to win.
Because if Putin wins in Ukraine, how will we protect the Baltic states and other Eastern European countries in five years' time?
The west definitely screwed up not arming Ukraine better, faster and harder earlier but that’s done.
Re your last sentence though those countries are in NATO - it’s a very different calculation for Putin than Ukraine was. He’s had a very bloody nose “just” with Ukraine and will know that invading NATO states will be beyond Russian capabilities.
In effect the blood sacrifice of Ukraine has already deterred Putin as he knows that it will be far worse v NATO. But ultimately it will be pointless for many more Ukrainians, and Russians, to die over another year of minefields and trenches. It’s not right, not good, not ideal but Ukraine already showed Russia their weakness at great cost.
Just make it clear to Russia that if they want readmission to polite society then they hand back annexed land and if not then the sanctions and exclusion continue indefinitely.
I think those last 2 paragraphs are imposing Western norms on Russian thinking. Is Putin (and it’s not just him) really deterred? Do they really want to reenter polite society?
No. The Russians are brutal realists. They can survive isolation from the West for many years to come. Not indefinitely (I'm not sure their airline industry will survive, for example) but they aren't bothered emotionally.
Bear in mind that if Trump wins, NATO falls for all practical purposes. Yes, it would still include two nuclear powers but not an awful lot in terms of conventional capacity or - more importantly - political will.
But the Baltic states wouldn't be next. Georgia and Moldova are next on Putin's menu.
Meanwhile Trump will gift the Falklands to his new mate in Buenos Aires.
Milei's position on the Falklands is the most pro-British it's possible to be within the context of Argentinian politics.
I'm guessing that means he does officially want to take them over and will make noises about that domestically, but not as much as others?
He's said it needs to be approached by diplomacy and that the wishes of the islanders need to be taken into account, so in practice it means he supports the status quo.
Blimey, they must be very desperate to elect someone with that cavalier view about it.
Though ever since first learning the rather technical, legal basis of the argentinian claim the emotional rhetoric has never really made much sense to me, inasmuch as any emotional national claims around the globe make any sense, including ours.
It’s fair to say that one Bild article has had more effect on morale than 10 weeks of Saturday morning PB trolls.
We are a forum of adults on a comment thread owned and run in a non-combatant country. We shouldn't have 'morale'; we should have an open and dispassionate discussion.
Everyone has morale. We're not vulcans. Being a non-combatant doesn't mean having no emotional investment in a conflict (just ask those marching on both sides over Israel- Hamas over recent weeks). We were a non-combatant country when Churchill was writing The Gathering Storm.
Morale has a very specific meaning. The maintenance of morale in the sense of public consent for continued participation in a conflict often involves the censorship of 'bad news' and the broadcasting of 'good news'. Discussing the desirability of maintaining good morale on PB is inappropriate bordering on faintly sinister.
Oh how ridiculous. Morale means morale. Or to quote the Cambridge dictionary
“the amount of confidence felt by a person or group of people, especially when in a dangerous or difficult situation”
Look, I just faintly praised your idol Liz Truss so take the win.
It isn't particularly ridiculous, given that, as Leon has mentioned, those of us whose views on the handling of this foreign policy issue depart from the PB mainstream have copped it big time from our armchair general division in the cause of policing the morale you want to maintain. It's been a less than enjoyable situation and those concerned should (but probably won't) be a bit embarrassed.
You’ve had a consistent position from the start: this is someone else’s war, none of our business, we should stay out. Fair enough. I and a number of others have an equally strongly held position which is that Putin is a tyrant, he needs to be stopped, this is our war as much as Ukraine’s and what’s at stake is bigger than a few run down oblasts in the Donbas. And that “peace” means a few years for Russia to rearm before having another go. Just like giving Hamas a peace deal will mean the same.
None of that is being an armchair general. Most of us have never pretended to be experts on the tactics. A few have. But then so have several of the “realists”. Saying “this is heading for stalemate” is armchair generalism.
Quite, but nobody has called you a traitor in the pay of a foreign power for expressing your view.
Leaving that to one side and speaking of the future, I don't see that Putin being driven or not driven from Ukraine is key to his ability to regroup and try another attack. He can do that either whilst occupying some of Ukraine, or within the borders of Russia.
What will allow him to regroup is peace. So I see what you're arguing for as the indefinite continuation of the war, with its destruction of life and property, and its wider economical destabilisation, in order to put off a future attack. Perhaps that's a price worth paying, but I'm not sure.
I am not sure even Putin could survive the war ending with him having lost all those hundreds of thousands of troops and vast amounts of equipment for no territorial gain. The army would not let him.
Perhaps, but whoever is left in charge will be able to do all the regrouping they want.
Russia hasn’t had the moments of truth that ends its stint as an imperial power. For the 19th century colonial powers it wasn’t the granting of independence to friendly states that did it, it was the loss of land they really wanted to keep. Britain had many of those moments: the loss of India, the loss of Ireland, the humiliation of Suez. France did too, with the horrendously bloody Algerian war, Suez, and the rapid ejection from Vietnam. I think strategic defeat in Ukraine (which would be anything as bad or worse than being pushed back to the 2014 borders) would be a second step on that path after the 1989-93 revolutions.
People talk about Britain not having gotten over its change of status, its harkening after imperial ambitions, and there's some degree of that (though I would argue wildly inflated), but Russia seems a case where that's definitely the case. Hard to judge of course, but such opposition as there might be to the war it mostly seems to come from those angry it's not being fought hard enough.
I have, as I said earlier, a certain skepticism about anything sensational that appears in the Guardian. But this story seems plausible:
According to The Guardian — which obtained a copy of the upcoming book The Kingdom, the Power, and the Glory: American Evangelicals in an Age of Extremism by Tim Alberta — Trump bashed Iowa evangelicals in the throes of the 2016 Republican primary while he was battling Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX). The comments came during the fallout from the former president’s infamous gaffe when he referred to a Bible verse from “two Corinthians.”
Alberta writes that Trump “began to speculate that there was a conspiracy among powerful evangelicals to deny him the GOP nomination. When Cruz’s allies began using the ‘Two Corinthians’ line to attack him in the final days before the Iowa caucuses, Trump told one Iowa Republican official, ‘You know, these so-called Christians hanging around with Ted are some real pieces of shit.’” source: https://www.mediaite.com/news/trump-trashed-iowa-evangelicals-as-so-called-christians-and-real-pieces-of-sht-new-book/
And according to the article, his comments became even worse, later.
To explain further. I think Portes has slapped data into Excel or whatever and created a line of best fit. But the line when graphed is conspicuously not the best fit IRL. This is caused (I think) by the line minimising the vertical errors, not the absolute errors. If he swapped the X and Y axes around the line would have gone thru the points directly and shown that there was no real relationship.
Lessons from this are:
Modelling, or an Excel line of best fit, does not discover a relationship, it creates one. Even if there is no relationship it will still find a line. The relationship is a semantic interpretation you put on the data, not a real thing, and it's entirely possible you are wrong. That is why it is important to graph the data.
It’s over. The war is done. Ukraine has run out of men and Russia has run out of mojo. A muddy armistice beckons
And our job is to say that we will support Ukraine as long as they wish to fight.
Britain alone?
Brave
Has Putin got to you?
Kompromat?
Us alone if need be.
It’s in our interests. Russia is no real threat to America. It is a threat to Europe and the UK
The threat from Putin is no longer military. He can't even make progress in the Donbas, let alone invade us.
The threat is through inciting division and "Culture War" in the West, to weaken us internally. He has played a blinder there, and looks to be still on his game.
Are the people responsble for mass migration into the West useful idiots or active agents of Putin?
It's hard not to compare Western Europe's political class now, with their counterparts in the Fifth Century. Enervated, decadent, no longer willing to defend themselves from external threats, rather, just sucking up to their enemies, at the expense of the lower classes.
To explain further. I think Portes has slapped data into Excel or whatever and created a line of best fit. But the line when graphed is conspicuously not the best fit IRL. This is caused (I think) by the line minimising the vertical errors, not the absolute errors. If he swapped the X and Y axes around the line would have gone thru the points directly and shown that there was no real relationship.
Lessons from this are:
Modelling, or an Excel line of best fit, does not discover a relationship, it creates one. Even if there is no relationship it will still find a line. The relationship is a semantic interpretation you put on the data, not a real thing, and it's entirely possible you are wrong. That is why it is important to graph the data.
I'm beginning to be a bit scared by this. The line just doesn't match the data. You can see it. I went on Twitter expecting him to be shaking his head, going "silly me, eh" and hurriedly redrafting it. But instead I find his colleagues defending him
The point is not whether the data are fake, it's whether the line is right for the data, AND IT OBVIOUSLY ISN'T. Has nobody spotted this? I feel like Will Ferrell in Zoolander, pointing out the bloody obvious.
I find it tiresome reading how the poor cancelled or alleged down trodden need to be understood . Perhaps the riots were just bad people looking for an excuse to riot and loot. Not every act of violence needs an article of how the alleged chattering classes look down on people.
O’Neill is one of the most miserable and bitter individuals I’ve ever seen . I’m sure if he ever smiled his head would explode !
To explain further. I think Portes has slapped data into Excel or whatever and created a line of best fit. But the line when graphed is conspicuously not the best fit IRL. This is caused (I think) by the line minimising the vertical errors, not the absolute errors. If he swapped the X and Y axes around the line would have gone thru the points directly and shown that there was no real relationship.
Lessons from this are:
Modelling, or an Excel line of best fit, does not discover a relationship, it creates one. Even if there is no relationship it will still find a line. The relationship is a semantic interpretation you put on the data, not a real thing, and it's entirely possible you are wrong. That is why it is important to graph the data.
I'm beginning to be a bit scared by this. The line just doesn't match the data. You can see it. I went on Twitter expecting him to be shaking his head, going "silly me, eh" and hurriedly redrafting it. But instead I find his colleagues defending him
The point is not whether the data are fake, it's whether the line is right for the data, AND IT OBVIOUSLY ISN'T. Has nobody spotted this? I feel like Will Ferrell in Zoolander, pointing out the bloody obvious.
People defending their academic friends, nothing to see there.
The Anscombe's Quartet was designed to illustrate the folly of drawing conclusions from numbers without looking at the graph.
Portes has embarrassed himself. There is clearly no significant relationship between the variables. Yes, there's a "best fit", but the R-squared is going to indicate that any correlation is negligible.
The Anscombe's Quartet was designed to illustrate the folly of drawing conclusions from numbers without looking at the graph.
Portes has embarrassed himself. There is clearly no significant relationship between the variables. Yes, there's a "best fit", but the R-squared is going to indicate that any correlation is negligible.
I know that. You know that. A child with a crayon knows that. But his colleagues are defending him. Which is... not good.
Thanks to nico679 for recommending the O'Neill article. Interesting piece -- and I was surprised to learn just how many immigrants there are now, in Ireland.
To explain further. I think Portes has slapped data into Excel or whatever and created a line of best fit. But the line when graphed is conspicuously not the best fit IRL. This is caused (I think) by the line minimising the vertical errors, not the absolute errors. If he swapped the X and Y axes around the line would have gone thru the points directly and shown that there was no real relationship.
One mistake was to force his line to go through the origin. Of all such lines it may well be the one that minimises absolute errors.
The other mistake was to fail to realise that *NO* seriously chosen line of best fit for these data is going to yield a significant level of correlation.
One of the reasons that I come to PB is that I can make mistakes where it doesn't matter, so when it comes to real life I can look smart.
When I saw the Jonathan Portes graph that inspired the Goodwin fruitiness, I didn't spot the problem for a second. It's bloody obvious after a few seconds, but I'm supposed to be smarter than that. Ouch.
Meanwhile, whilst we warm our hands on the wreckage of Mr Portes's career, let us consider the Anscombe's Quartet. This is why we draw graphs. So we don't draw stupid conclusions from a model.
The Anscombe's Quartet was designed to illustrate the folly of drawing conclusions from numbers without looking at the graph.
Belatedly, I had never heard of Anscombe's Quartet, but will now share it with my entire data science team. (Who will roll their eyes that some old bloke is telling them something that already know.)
"PC Paul Fisher, 46, made a “split-second error” when he lost control of his unmarked BMW X5 and ran into the back of a taxi driver’s Toyota before hitting a Ford Fiesta and a wall en route to the scene of stabbings carried out by Sudesh Amman in Streatham, south London, in February 2020.
He was accused of dangerous driving but was acquitted on Friday after a trial at Southwark crown court, almost four years after being charged."
Surely the police should not be speeding when pursuing terrorists?
The Anscombe's Quartet was designed to illustrate the folly of drawing conclusions from numbers without looking at the graph.
He says there is "some evidence of a positive association" which I read as "they are positively correlated but it's probably not significant". Clearly the relationship is not statistically significant, looking at the chart. But he is using highly aggregated sectoral data with a limited number of observations in any case, so this would always simply be a first look at the numbers. I interpreted his tweet as saying "there might be something here but it needs further investigation" not "I've discovered clear proof of a significant relationship". This really isn't the gotcha that Goodwin thinks it is. Portes is a far better researcher than he is.
To explain further. I think Portes has slapped data into Excel or whatever and created a line of best fit. But the line when graphed is conspicuously not the best fit IRL. This is caused (I think) by the line minimising the vertical errors, not the absolute errors. If he swapped the X and Y axes around the line would have gone thru the points directly and shown that there was no real relationship.
Lessons from this are:
Modelling, or an Excel line of best fit, does not discover a relationship, it creates one. Even if there is no relationship it will still find a line. The relationship is a semantic interpretation you put on the data, not a real thing, and it's entirely possible you are wrong. That is why it is important to graph the data.
I find it tiresome reading how the poor cancelled or alleged down trodden need to be understood . Perhaps the riots were just bad people looking for an excuse to riot and loot. Not every act of violence needs an article of how the alleged chattering classes look down on people.
O’Neill is one of the most miserable and bitter individuals I’ve ever seen . I’m sure if he ever smiled his head would explode !
It is a persuasive article - his point that rioting is supported when it is BLM but criminal now is well made. Failing to address rioting in 2020 reinforces a view that 'they are all as bad as each other'.
In the end, if the "far right" want to burn cars then it is in the same category as the rioters in Bristol pulling down statues or environmental protesters trashing government offices. If you want to preserve 'liberal democracy' you can't just tolerate rioting because you support the reasons for it.
To explain further. I think Portes has slapped data into Excel or whatever and created a line of best fit. But the line when graphed is conspicuously not the best fit IRL. This is caused (I think) by the line minimising the vertical errors, not the absolute errors. If he swapped the X and Y axes around the line would have gone thru the points directly and shown that there was no real relationship.
Lessons from this are:
Modelling, or an Excel line of best fit, does not discover a relationship, it creates one. Even if there is no relationship it will still find a line. The relationship is a semantic interpretation you put on the data, not a real thing, and it's entirely possible you are wrong. That is why it is important to graph the data.
A regression line always minimises the vertical distances, it's based on OLS regression, ie assumes a linear relationship y=a+bx+e and minimises the sum of the squares of the e's. The slope of the line shows b, the coefficient relating x to y that minimises the errors in the relationship. It makes sense to minimise these vertical errors because it is the y variable that you are trying to explain via the x variable, not the other way round. If the line slopes upwards, there is a positive correlation, but it may not be statistically significant, and in this case I am sure isn't. Portes makes no claim for significance, he simply graphs the data and says there's a positive correlation. I am struggling to understand your outrage.
One of the reasons that I come to PB is that I can make mistakes where it doesn't matter, so when it comes to real life I can look smart.
When I saw the Jonathan Portes graph that inspired the Goodwin fruitiness, I didn't spot the problem for a second. It's bloody obvious after a few seconds, but I'm supposed to be smarter than that. Ouch.
Meanwhile, whilst we warm our hands on the wreckage of Mr Portes's career, let us consider the Anscombe's Quartet. This is why we draw graphs. So we don't draw stupid conclusions from a model.
I find it tiresome reading how the poor cancelled or alleged down trodden need to be understood . Perhaps the riots were just bad people looking for an excuse to riot and loot. Not every act of violence needs an article of how the alleged chattering classes look down on people.
O’Neill is one of the most miserable and bitter individuals I’ve ever seen . I’m sure if he ever smiled his head would explode !
It is a persuasive article - his point that rioting is supported when it is BLM but criminal now is well made. Failing to address rioting in 2020 reinforces a view that 'they are all as bad as each other'.
In the end, if the "far right" want to burn cars then it is in the same category as the rioters in Bristol pulling down statues or environmental protesters trashing government offices. If you want to preserve 'liberal democracy' you can't just tolerate rioting because you support the reasons for it.
The point might be more convincing if the BLM crowd had also looted a load of shops and torched some buses and trams, rather than simply removed a statue of a genocidal people trafficker whose continued presence was an offence to human decency.
I find it tiresome reading how the poor cancelled or alleged down trodden need to be understood . Perhaps the riots were just bad people looking for an excuse to riot and loot. Not every act of violence needs an article of how the alleged chattering classes look down on people.
O’Neill is one of the most miserable and bitter individuals I’ve ever seen . I’m sure if he ever smiled his head would explode !
It is a persuasive article - his point that rioting is supported when it is BLM but criminal now is well made. Failing to address rioting in 2020 reinforces a view that 'they are all as bad as each other'.
In the end, if the "far right" want to burn cars then it is in the same category as the rioters in Bristol pulling down statues or environmental protesters trashing government offices. If you want to preserve 'liberal democracy' you can't just tolerate rioting because you support the reasons for it.
The point might be more convincing if the BLM crowd had also looted a load of shops and torched some buses and trams, rather than simply removed a statue of a genocidal people trafficker whose continued presence was an offence to human decency.
Looting and torching stuff was a characteristic of the 2020 US riots though.
The point here is that once you cross the threshold where rioting is found to be justified, as was the case in 2020, you just trigger an escalating cycle of polarisation and reaction. That is the problem. All the establishment wisdom of the post war era about rioting not being a good idea was essentially lost in 2020.
The Anscombe's Quartet was designed to illustrate the folly of drawing conclusions from numbers without looking at the graph.
He says there is "some evidence of a positive association" which I read as "they are positively correlated but it's probably not significant". Clearly the relationship is not statistically significant, looking at the chart. But he is using highly aggregated sectoral data with a limited number of observations in any case, so this would always simply be a first look at the numbers. I interpreted his tweet as saying "there might be something here but it needs further investigation" not "I've discovered clear proof of a significant relationship". This really isn't the gotcha that Goodwin thinks it is. Portes is a far better researcher than he is.
Portes is an arse on Twitter, however
A few months ago I noticed he had made an historical mistake and pointed it out - politely!
He responded with lofty sneering and then - when he realised I was right - just called me names. Tut
It was quite eye-opening - especially as before this i had rather respected him as an interesting and fairly neutral voice of reason. He strikes me as one of those thin-skinned, oddly insecure people who - despite obvious intelligence - can’t cope with any criticism. Probably should avoid social media but is addicted to it
I find it tiresome reading how the poor cancelled or alleged down trodden need to be understood . Perhaps the riots were just bad people looking for an excuse to riot and loot. Not every act of violence needs an article of how the alleged chattering classes look down on people.
O’Neill is one of the most miserable and bitter individuals I’ve ever seen . I’m sure if he ever smiled his head would explode !
It is a persuasive article - his point that rioting is supported when it is BLM but criminal now is well made. Failing to address rioting in 2020 reinforces a view that 'they are all as bad as each other'.
In the end, if the "far right" want to burn cars then it is in the same category as the rioters in Bristol pulling down statues or environmental protesters trashing government offices. If you want to preserve 'liberal democracy' you can't just tolerate rioting because you support the reasons for it.
The point might be more convincing if the BLM crowd had also looted a load of shops and torched some buses and trams, rather than simply removed a statue of a genocidal people trafficker whose continued presence was an offence to human decency.
Looting and torching stuff was a characteristic of the 2020 US riots though.
The point here is that once you cross the threshold where rioting is found to be justified, as was the case in 2020, you just trigger an escalating cycle of polarisation and reaction. That is the problem. All the establishment wisdom of the post war era about rioting not being a good idea was essentially lost in 2020.
There is never any justification for damaging public transport infrastructure. I supported the removal of the slaver guy in Bristol though, because other avenues for effecting his removal had been tried and were met with stonewalling.
The Anscombe's Quartet was designed to illustrate the folly of drawing conclusions from numbers without looking at the graph.
He says there is "some evidence of a positive association" which I read as "they are positively correlated but it's probably not significant". Clearly the relationship is not statistically significant, looking at the chart. But he is using highly aggregated sectoral data with a limited number of observations in any case, so this would always simply be a first look at the numbers. I interpreted his tweet as saying "there might be something here but it needs further investigation" not "I've discovered clear proof of a significant relationship". This really isn't the gotcha that Goodwin thinks it is. Portes is a far better researcher than he is.
Portes is an arse on Twitter, however
A few months ago I noticed he had made an historical mistake and pointed it out - politely!
He responded with lofty sneering and then - when he realised I was right - just called me names. Tut
It was quite eye-opening - especially as before this i had rather respected him as an interesting and fairly neutral voice of reason. He strikes me as one of those thin-skinned, oddly insecure people who - despite obvious intelligence - can’t cope with any criticism. Probably should avoid social media but is addicted to it
That may well be true. Academics tend to have this kind of personality, and social media tends to bring out the worst in people. Portes generally does good work though. If you want to see some really dodgy charts you can't beat sell side (bank) research pieces in the financial sector.
To explain further. I think Portes has slapped data into Excel or whatever and created a line of best fit. But the line when graphed is conspicuously not the best fit IRL. This is caused (I think) by the line minimising the vertical errors, not the absolute errors. If he swapped the X and Y axes around the line would have gone thru the points directly and shown that there was no real relationship.
Lessons from this are:
Modelling, or an Excel line of best fit, does not discover a relationship, it creates one. Even if there is no relationship it will still find a line. The relationship is a semantic interpretation you put on the data, not a real thing, and it's entirely possible you are wrong. That is why it is important to graph the data.
He literally graphed the data.
And he literally didn't grasp that the "line of best fit" was not the line of best fit.
To explain further. I think Portes has slapped data into Excel or whatever and created a line of best fit. But the line when graphed is conspicuously not the best fit IRL. This is caused (I think) by the line minimising the vertical errors, not the absolute errors. If he swapped the X and Y axes around the line would have gone thru the points directly and shown that there was no real relationship.
Lessons from this are:
Modelling, or an Excel line of best fit, does not discover a relationship, it creates one. Even if there is no relationship it will still find a line. The relationship is a semantic interpretation you put on the data, not a real thing, and it's entirely possible you are wrong. That is why it is important to graph the data.
A regression line always minimises the vertical distances, it's based on OLS regression, ie assumes a linear relationship y=a+bx+e and minimises the sum of the squares of the e's. The slope of the line shows b, the coefficient relating x to y that minimises the errors in the relationship. It makes sense to minimise these vertical errors because it is the y variable that you are trying to explain via the x variable, not the other way round. If the line slopes upwards, there is a positive correlation, but it may not be statistically significant, and in this case I am sure isn't. Portes makes no claim for significance, he simply graphs the data and says there's a positive correlation. I am struggling to understand your outrage.
I am outraged because i) the "line of best fit" is not the line of best fit, ii) the putative positive correlation is obviously spurious, iii) the actual, real line of best fit would have gone near-vertically upwards demonstrating no real relationship, iv) he is inferring a relationship that does not exist, v) there is no way that the "a" in "y = a + bx + e" is positive.
However, thank you for explaining linear regression to me. I knew that (I said the bit about minimising vertical errors earlier!) but you put it better than I did, so thank you for that.
Comments
The threat is through inciting division and "Culture War" in the West, to weaken us internally. He has played a blinder there, and looks to be still on his game.
@DegenRolf
Scientists and policy practitioners are overly optimistic about the treatment effects of social interventions, especially if they consider themselves experts in the field. https://cambridge.org/core/journals/journal-of-experimental-political-science/article/inaccurate-forecasting-of-a-randomized-controlled-trial/0EA5DEE8430A3A066BE0E0654013CE0A"
https://twitter.com/DegenRolf/status/1728058882935734575
Genuine question. Can Ukraine make any progress there, given its inadequate progress south of Orkhiv? For the past six months every advance (Ukraine and Russian) has dribbled into the sand, accompanied by copious blood. If Ukraine could retake Kherson Oblast it would make a massive difference, but can they really do anything at this point? They advance forward, they die, they stop advancing. What's changed?
Re your last sentence though those countries are in NATO - it’s a very different calculation for Putin than Ukraine was. He’s had a very bloody nose “just” with Ukraine and will know that invading NATO states will be beyond Russian capabilities.
In effect the blood sacrifice of Ukraine has already deterred Putin as he knows that it will be far worse v NATO. But ultimately it will be pointless for many more Ukrainians, and Russians, to die over another year of minefields and trenches. It’s not right, not good, not ideal but Ukraine already showed Russia their weakness at great cost.
Just make it clear to Russia that if they want readmission to polite society then they hand back annexed land and if not then the sanctions and exclusion continue indefinitely.
None of that is being an armchair general. Most of us have never pretended to be experts on the tactics. A few have. But then so have several of the “realists”. Saying “this is heading for stalemate” is armchair generalism.
But the Baltic states wouldn't be next. Georgia and Moldova are next on Putin's menu.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XziLNeFm1ok
Leaving that to one side and speaking of the future, I don't see that Putin being driven or not driven from Ukraine is key to his ability to regroup and try another attack. He can do that either whilst occupying some of Ukraine, or within the borders of Russia.
What will allow him to regroup is peace. So I see what you're arguing for as the indefinite continuation of the war, with its destruction of life and property, and its wider economical destabilisation, in order to put off a future attack. Perhaps that's a price worth paying, but I'm not sure.
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_4irVuZamOhA/S6psJKUt18I/AAAAAAAAAxI/0WS6OJ5e8So/s1600/Blog+Sunday+7feb10+290.jpg
Essentially Russia threw all their defensive resources at preparing the route to Melitipol. They calculated that Ukraine couldn’t cross the Dnieper.
If Ukraine can hold the beachheads into the mud season and reinforce them during the hiatus they can then use it for a spring assault.
The risk is that it gives Russia time to mine.
[Edit: which sources are you looking at?]
It’s like reliving 1933/39. That nice Mr. Hitler/Putin only wants to live in peace with us.
"Matt Goodwin
@GoodwinMJ
Good to see others calling out the total bullshit artist otherwise known as Jonathan Portes."
https://twitter.com/GoodwinMJ/status/1728112116471603245
If he tried we could try another war of 1812 and use Canada to invade the USA
Germany is becoming the weak man of Europe again and needs the war to end so it can restart - sooner than later - its relationship with Russia. The SPD is also conscious it is losing votes because of the war.
The US - or rather the Biden Administration - needs this to end because the latter is behind in the polls with an election coming up and this risks being an electoral milestone in a year's time.
Unfortunately, Ukraine will be thrown under the bus to satisfy the domestic needs of both,
As others have pointed out, this smacks of 1933-39 all over again.
The one (extremely small)_ silver lining will be that those on here that try to tell us that Joe Biden is the 'Greatest President since FDR' / 'Is such a noble being' and who generally can't stick their tongues so far up his arse in praise might actually be forced to admit that he actually is a self-serving barsteward only concerned about himself.
Actually forget that. They will be too bothered deleting their posts telling us how a Trump victory would mean Putin winning in Ukraine - which is exactly what it looks as though will happen under the current Administration.
https://fullfact.org/crime/how-long-do-murderers-serve-prison/
In Pistorius' case though he was originally convicted only of culpable homicide, he was convicted of murder on appeal
https://www.penguinrandomhouse.com/books/547346/how-america-lost-its-secrets-by-edward-jay-epstein/
Anyone know what Glenn Greenwald and company are doing these days?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-67515001
When I saw the Jonathan Portes graph that inspired the Goodwin fruitiness, I didn't spot the problem for a second. It's bloody obvious after a few seconds, but I'm supposed to be smarter than that. Ouch.
Meanwhile, whilst we warm our hands on the wreckage of Mr Portes's career, let us consider the Anscombe's Quartet. This is why we draw graphs. So we don't draw stupid conclusions from a model.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anscombe's_quartet
Plenty of places will have been forced into that kind of scenario I'm sure, of doing what powerful neighbour x wants including officially being neutral, but it's obviously not real neutrality when your forced into doing it under threat of invasion, or in this case, continued invasion and occupation.
But it's also true that without his administration's efforts, Ukraine would probably have fallen to the initial invasion.
And that Trump is actively hostile to Ukraine's defence (which makes kitchencabinet's comments seem somewhat bizarre).
Though ever since first learning the rather technical, legal basis of the argentinian claim the emotional rhetoric has never really made much sense to me, inasmuch as any emotional national claims around the globe make any sense, including ours.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anscombe's_quartet
The Anscombe's Quartet was designed to illustrate the folly of drawing conclusions from numbers without looking at the graph.
According to The Guardian — which obtained a copy of the upcoming book The Kingdom, the Power, and the Glory: American Evangelicals in an Age of Extremism by Tim Alberta — Trump bashed Iowa evangelicals in the throes of the 2016 Republican primary while he was battling Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX). The comments came during the fallout from the former president’s infamous gaffe when he referred to a Bible verse from “two Corinthians.”
Alberta writes that Trump “began to speculate that there was a conspiracy among powerful evangelicals to deny him the GOP nomination. When Cruz’s allies began using the ‘Two Corinthians’ line to attack him in the final days before the Iowa caucuses, Trump told one Iowa Republican official, ‘You know, these so-called Christians hanging around with Ted are some real pieces of shit.’”
source: https://www.mediaite.com/news/trump-trashed-iowa-evangelicals-as-so-called-christians-and-real-pieces-of-sht-new-book/
And according to the article, his comments became even worse, later.
Lessons from this are:
Modelling, or an Excel line of best fit, does not discover a relationship, it creates one. Even if there is no relationship it will still find a line. The relationship is a semantic interpretation you put on the data, not a real thing, and it's entirely possible you are wrong. That is why it is important to graph the data.
https://nitter.net/GregoryFaletto/status/1728183328002711694#m
Piling Pelion upon Ossa, his enemies are attacking him by saying the data are fake
https://nitter.net/Dominic2306/status/1728074486409207953#m
The point is not whether the data are fake, it's whether the line is right for the data, AND IT OBVIOUSLY ISN'T. Has nobody spotted this? I feel like Will Ferrell in Zoolander, pointing out the bloody obvious.
Last night’s chaos in Dublin was a morbid symptom of Europe’s decaying technocracy
Brendan O'Neill"
https://www.spiked-online.com/2023/11/24/ireland-and-the-fury-of-the-cancelled/
O’Neill is one of the most miserable and bitter individuals I’ve ever seen . I’m sure if he ever smiled his head would explode !
"New Zealand’s smoking ban u-turn is bad news for Rishi Sunak
Kate Andrews"
https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/new-zealands-smoking-ban-u-turn-is-bad-news-for-rishi-sunak/
The other mistake was to fail to realise that *NO* seriously chosen line of best fit for these data is going to yield a significant level of correlation.
"Sonia Sodha
@soniasodha
Reeva Steenkamp was murdered. Shame on the BBC for forgetting"
https://twitter.com/soniasodha/status/1728104936058286327
"PC Paul Fisher, 46, made a “split-second error” when he lost control of his unmarked BMW X5 and ran into the back of a taxi driver’s Toyota before hitting a Ford Fiesta and a wall en route to the scene of stabbings carried out by Sudesh Amman in Streatham, south London, in February 2020.
He was accused of dangerous driving but was acquitted on Friday after a trial at Southwark crown court, almost four years after being charged."
Surely the police should not be speeding when pursuing terrorists?
In the end, if the "far right" want to burn cars then it is in the same category as the rioters in Bristol pulling down statues or environmental protesters trashing government offices. If you want to preserve 'liberal democracy' you can't just tolerate rioting because you support the reasons for it.
NEW THREAD
The point here is that once you cross the threshold where rioting is found to be justified, as was the case in 2020, you just trigger an escalating cycle of polarisation and reaction. That is the problem. All the establishment wisdom of the post war era about rioting not being a good idea was essentially lost in 2020.
Using drones from an Iranian state that not only prepresses its people, but also funds Hamas and Hezbollah.
And we - and especially the left so angry about Palestine - shrug our collective shoulders.
Shame on us.
A few months ago I noticed he had made an historical mistake and pointed it out - politely!
He responded with lofty sneering and then - when he realised I was right - just called me names. Tut
It was quite eye-opening - especially as before this i had rather respected him as an interesting and fairly neutral voice of reason. He strikes me as one of those thin-skinned, oddly insecure people who - despite obvious intelligence - can’t cope with any criticism. Probably should avoid social media but is addicted to it
However, thank you for explaining linear regression to me. I knew that (I said the bit about minimising vertical errors earlier!) but you put it better than I did, so thank you for that.