I do love a bit of James, one of the bands that transports back to school days in a good way.
Many years back, at Reading, Liam Gallagher started insulting the crowd. Many were metal heads who’d come to see Metallica play Sunday night, and were doing the whole weekend. So quite a lot in the crowd were just watching out of interest. Not enough worship for Mr Gallagher…
Anyway, his insults got more stupid and stuff was flying at the stage. Just at that moment the set ended and James came on next. The crowd was in an ugly mood, but the lead guy said something like - “Sorry, but we have to do this…” and launched into Sit Down. Which was on every jukebox in the UK.
The crowd went from StormTheStage to WeLikeThese guys in about 30 seconds…
struggling to think of any festival where James would be playing after Liam Gallagher. Be like Dave, Dee, Mich and Tich playing after David Bowie.
Damn, I stopped watching the football 5 minutes before the end of normal time in the England match. It's Murphy's Law that all the interesting stuff has happened since then, including Georgia going ahead against Spain.
Why did you stop watching? Are you new to this live sport thing?
I had to go to a golf/swimming club with some other people.
Damn, I stopped watching the football 5 minutes before the end of normal time in the England match. It's Murphy's Law that all the interesting stuff has happened since then, including Georgia going ahead against Spain.
Why did you stop watching? Are you new to this live sport thing?
I had to go to a golf/swimming club with some other people.
Golf/swimming sounds like an interesting and challenging game.
After the rains of the last 18 months the water hazards are just something else.
Damn, I stopped watching the football 5 minutes before the end of normal time in the England match. It's Murphy's Law that all the interesting stuff has happened since then, including Georgia going ahead against Spain.
Why did you stop watching? Are you new to this live sport thing?
I had to go to a golf/swimming club with some other people.
I've played water polo but I'd never heard of golf swimming. Sounds both intriguing and difficult.
That's not a bunker, it's the seabed!
Damnit, I sliced badly and now it's on the abyssal plain, I think I'll take a mulligan.
Damn, I stopped watching the football 5 minutes before the end of normal time in the England match. It's Murphy's Law that all the interesting stuff has happened since then, including Georgia going ahead against Spain.
Why did you stop watching? Are you new to this live sport thing?
I had to go to a golf/swimming club with some other people.
I've played water polo but I'd never heard of golf swimming. Sounds both intriguing and difficult.
I have finally tracked down the article that Hitchins was quoting about ‘Russia being provoked.’ It was not easy because not only was what he quoted rather inaccurate but it was so ripped out of context anyway as to actually reverse the meaning of what was said.
Here are Kagan’s very precise words:
Although it is obscene to blame the United States for Putin’s inhumane attack on Ukraine, to insist that the invasion was entirely unprovoked is misleading. Just as Pearl Harbor was the consequence of U.S. efforts to blunt Japanese expansion on the Asian mainland, and just as the 9/11 attacks were partly a response to the United States’ dominant presence in the Middle East after the first Gulf War, so Russian decisions have been a response to the expanding post–Cold War hegemony of the United States and its allies in Europe. Putin alone is to blame for his actions, but the invasion of Ukraine is taking place in a historical and geopolitical context in which the United States has played and still plays the principal role, and Americans must grapple with this fact
The thrust of the article is that Putin was provoked by his inability to deal with how much the Russians were hated in their traditional sphere of influence, as demonstrated by the collapse of the Yanukovych government and the desperation of Eastern European states to join NATO as a guarantee against a relapse. He argues that the key provocation was how the United States’ response was clumsy and chaotic leading Russia and now China to think they could keep getting away with their crimes.
This was of course seized on by Kremlin propagandists and anti-American twits like Hitchins who claimed Kagan said the US provoked the invasion of Ukraine - when in fact he was saying pretty much the exact opposite.
So basically - Hitchins either lied, or is so stupid he should not be allowed near a keyboard. Or both, of course.
Hitchens is not stupid, so one should conclude that he is a deliberate liar.
One can only speculate as to why he would want to lie for Putin.
Well I have met Peter Hitchens socially a few times, and I have to say he does, at times, seem a little... slow.
I’ve always liked the “the Japanese were provoked” argument for WWII
Yes, the Americans and others cut off oil and steel supplies (among other things) - not an embargo, but refusing to sell. Refusing to sell to a country that was using these materials to attack an ally of the US (China) and threatening to use them to attack the US itself and allied countries. For being friends with China.
So the US was supposed to sell oil and steel so the Japanese could build more Yamato class battleships to attack… the US?
The bad joke is that the Japanese invasion of South East Asia netted them *three* shipments of oil from the conquered territories
There never was a Japanese war strategy. The Kwantung Army was defeated in Siberia, the war in China was going nowhere, and the navy wanted to show that it could do better than the army. After Midway, Japan had lost.
No, there was a war strategy.
Read the Hagakure. A weird fanatics worship of a past that never was. Hence the Japanese army manufacturing millions of crap, tin swords to play Samurai.
You think in terms of “strategy” something like a logical plan to achieve X. The Japanese leadership of the time believed in their version of hyper nationalism. In the Hagakure, the author berates the 47 Ronin for planning too much. A Real Samurai (TM) would have charged in to glorious defeat.
All through the war, there were instances of impossible orders - the Zeros at Pearl Harbour didn’t have enough range to get back to the carriers. Only because Nagumo steamed towards Hawaii during the attack did they get back (he broke orders). The initial attacks in Malaya and the Philippines only just worked - the logistics were non existent. Singapore (and others) only fell because the defense managed to be worse than the attack. The Japanese troops were running out of *food*….
At Midway, they had no way to hold Midway even if they had captured it. No logistics train for that. They knew this…..
They were rolling 6s non stop. Until it stopped.
The Japanese lost the war before it began.
A final thought - at Midway, for the first time, their carriers were hit. And turned out to be OneHitAndExplode - they had no effective damage control.
The whole thing was a paper tiger built up by lunatics who had no rational way to achieve their goals. They knew they had no rational way though. But went ahead anyway.
Damn, I stopped watching the football 5 minutes before the end of normal time in the England match. It's Murphy's Law that all the interesting stuff has happened since then, including Georgia going ahead against Spain.
Why did you stop watching? Are you new to this live sport thing?
I had to go to a golf/swimming club with some other people.
I've played water polo but I'd never heard of golf swimming. Sounds both intriguing and difficult.
I believe underwater cricket is a thing
Yeah they just finished the world cup of it the other day....
I have finally tracked down the article that Hitchins was quoting about ‘Russia being provoked.’ It was not easy because not only was what he quoted rather inaccurate but it was so ripped out of context anyway as to actually reverse the meaning of what was said.
Here are Kagan’s very precise words:
Although it is obscene to blame the United States for Putin’s inhumane attack on Ukraine, to insist that the invasion was entirely unprovoked is misleading. Just as Pearl Harbor was the consequence of U.S. efforts to blunt Japanese expansion on the Asian mainland, and just as the 9/11 attacks were partly a response to the United States’ dominant presence in the Middle East after the first Gulf War, so Russian decisions have been a response to the expanding post–Cold War hegemony of the United States and its allies in Europe. Putin alone is to blame for his actions, but the invasion of Ukraine is taking place in a historical and geopolitical context in which the United States has played and still plays the principal role, and Americans must grapple with this fact
The thrust of the article is that Putin was provoked by his inability to deal with how much the Russians were hated in their traditional sphere of influence, as demonstrated by the collapse of the Yanukovych government and the desperation of Eastern European states to join NATO as a guarantee against a relapse. He argues that the key provocation was how the United States’ response was clumsy and chaotic leading Russia and now China to think they could keep getting away with their crimes.
This was of course seized on by Kremlin propagandists and anti-American twits like Hitchins who claimed Kagan said the US provoked the invasion of Ukraine - when in fact he was saying pretty much the exact opposite.
So basically - Hitchins either lied, or is so stupid he should not be allowed near a keyboard. Or both, of course.
Hitchens is not stupid, so one should conclude that he is a deliberate liar.
One can only speculate as to why he would want to lie for Putin.
He isn't lying.
The guy said "Russian decisions have been a response to the expanding post–Cold War hegemony of the United States and its allies in Europe."
So he reacted much the same way that the US did when Kruschev decided to put missiles in Cuba.
I don't recall the USA invading Cuba recently.
MrBed is incapable of seeing nations having their own interests beyond those of the U.S. and Russia, apparently.
A key feature of this position is denying the Ukrainians have their own agency. Zelensky is just a puppet of Washington/NATO etc.
All hegemonic imperial powers treat neighbouring states as their back yard.
Watch what happens if China set up PLA bases in Mexico. It wouldn't be pretty.
Its not just, its just reality.
If the US invaded, that makes the US the aggressor. Mind you, the US hasn't needed anything like that big an excuse to meddle in other American states' business. It's wrong when America does it so why should it be ok for Russia?
It is wrong on both sides. But it is reality.
We've already seen a large portion of the world deciding that Russia shouldn't get its own way in Ukraine.
That's the most real part of realpolitik: in the end, people can only be pushed so far before someone takes aim at the bully. Russia has spend a little too long fucking about and it's got a little taste of find out. That's good.
Bollocks. China, India, Brazil South Africa, Saudi and half of South America, South Africa and the far east and middle east are all either supporting Russia actively or in a nudge nudge way.
The US and Europe isn't the world anymore.
And none of them are able to prevent Russia’s strategic defeat in Ukraine.
I have finally tracked down the article that Hitchins was quoting about ‘Russia being provoked.’ It was not easy because not only was what he quoted rather inaccurate but it was so ripped out of context anyway as to actually reverse the meaning of what was said.
Here are Kagan’s very precise words:
Although it is obscene to blame the United States for Putin’s inhumane attack on Ukraine, to insist that the invasion was entirely unprovoked is misleading. Just as Pearl Harbor was the consequence of U.S. efforts to blunt Japanese expansion on the Asian mainland, and just as the 9/11 attacks were partly a response to the United States’ dominant presence in the Middle East after the first Gulf War, so Russian decisions have been a response to the expanding post–Cold War hegemony of the United States and its allies in Europe. Putin alone is to blame for his actions, but the invasion of Ukraine is taking place in a historical and geopolitical context in which the United States has played and still plays the principal role, and Americans must grapple with this fact
The thrust of the article is that Putin was provoked by his inability to deal with how much the Russians were hated in their traditional sphere of influence, as demonstrated by the collapse of the Yanukovych government and the desperation of Eastern European states to join NATO as a guarantee against a relapse. He argues that the key provocation was how the United States’ response was clumsy and chaotic leading Russia and now China to think they could keep getting away with their crimes.
This was of course seized on by Kremlin propagandists and anti-American twits like Hitchins who claimed Kagan said the US provoked the invasion of Ukraine - when in fact he was saying pretty much the exact opposite.
So basically - Hitchins either lied, or is so stupid he should not be allowed near a keyboard. Or both, of course.
I have finally tracked down the article that Hitchins was quoting about ‘Russia being provoked.’ It was not easy because not only was what he quoted rather inaccurate but it was so ripped out of context anyway as to actually reverse the meaning of what was said.
Here are Kagan’s very precise words:
Although it is obscene to blame the United States for Putin’s inhumane attack on Ukraine, to insist that the invasion was entirely unprovoked is misleading. Just as Pearl Harbor was the consequence of U.S. efforts to blunt Japanese expansion on the Asian mainland, and just as the 9/11 attacks were partly a response to the United States’ dominant presence in the Middle East after the first Gulf War, so Russian decisions have been a response to the expanding post–Cold War hegemony of the United States and its allies in Europe. Putin alone is to blame for his actions, but the invasion of Ukraine is taking place in a historical and geopolitical context in which the United States has played and still plays the principal role, and Americans must grapple with this fact
The thrust of the article is that Putin was provoked by his inability to deal with how much the Russians were hated in their traditional sphere of influence, as demonstrated by the collapse of the Yanukovych government and the desperation of Eastern European states to join NATO as a guarantee against a relapse. He argues that the key provocation was how the United States’ response was clumsy and chaotic leading Russia and now China to think they could keep getting away with their crimes.
This was of course seized on by Kremlin propagandists and anti-American twits like Hitchins who claimed Kagan said the US provoked the invasion of Ukraine - when in fact he was saying pretty much the exact opposite.
So basically - Hitchins either lied, or is so stupid he should not be allowed near a keyboard. Or both, of course.
Hitchens is not stupid, so one should conclude that he is a deliberate liar.
One can only speculate as to why he would want to lie for Putin.
Well I have met Peter Hitchens socially a few times, and I have to say he does, at times, seem a little... slow.
I’ve always liked the “the Japanese were provoked” argument for WWII
Yes, the Americans and others cut off oil and steel supplies (among other things) - not an embargo, but refusing to sell. Refusing to sell to a country that was using these materials to attack an ally of the US (China) and threatening to use them to attack the US itself and allied countries. For being friends with China.
So the US was supposed to sell oil and steel so the Japanese could build more Yamato class battleships to attack… the US?
The bad joke is that the Japanese invasion of South East Asia netted them *three* shipments of oil from the conquered territories
There never was a Japanese war strategy. The Kwantung Army was defeated in Siberia, the war in China was going nowhere, and the navy wanted to show that it could do better than the army. After Midway, Japan had lost.
I'm trying to think of a WWII naval encounter between Allies and Axis that was decided by gunnery alone.
Struggling beyond the Battle of the River Plate.
You could argue the hunt for the Bismarck was, but that was ultimately settled by aircraft.
Narvik?
Oh, that's a point.
We actually did rather well at that and basically wiped out half the surface fleet of the Kriegsmarine.
One of PB’s quaint traditions is History-Today style discussions of military encounters on WW2. I learn a lot from them.
My grandfather was on HMS Dorsetshire during the battle of the Bismarck. He spoke of the sickening sight of hundreds of German crew being left to drown after the ships withdrew for fear of u-boats.
Narvik had a key role played by the spotter Swordfish from HMS Warspite, which provided advanced warning of all the Kriegsmarine destroyers, and itself dive-bombed and sunk a submarine. So that depends on the level of aeroplace involvement.
Also lots of torpedos used. Albeit a lot of the German ones from submarines wnet phut, just like the American ones. The poor Uboot commander had lots of opportunities to sink battleships, and his torpedos all failed to work.
I have finally tracked down the article that Hitchins was quoting about ‘Russia being provoked.’ It was not easy because not only was what he quoted rather inaccurate but it was so ripped out of context anyway as to actually reverse the meaning of what was said.
Here are Kagan’s very precise words:
Although it is obscene to blame the United States for Putin’s inhumane attack on Ukraine, to insist that the invasion was entirely unprovoked is misleading. Just as Pearl Harbor was the consequence of U.S. efforts to blunt Japanese expansion on the Asian mainland, and just as the 9/11 attacks were partly a response to the United States’ dominant presence in the Middle East after the first Gulf War, so Russian decisions have been a response to the expanding post–Cold War hegemony of the United States and its allies in Europe. Putin alone is to blame for his actions, but the invasion of Ukraine is taking place in a historical and geopolitical context in which the United States has played and still plays the principal role, and Americans must grapple with this fact
The thrust of the article is that Putin was provoked by his inability to deal with how much the Russians were hated in their traditional sphere of influence, as demonstrated by the collapse of the Yanukovych government and the desperation of Eastern European states to join NATO as a guarantee against a relapse. He argues that the key provocation was how the United States’ response was clumsy and chaotic leading Russia and now China to think they could keep getting away with their crimes.
This was of course seized on by Kremlin propagandists and anti-American twits like Hitchins who claimed Kagan said the US provoked the invasion of Ukraine - when in fact he was saying pretty much the exact opposite.
So basically - Hitchins either lied, or is so stupid he should not be allowed near a keyboard. Or both, of course.
Hitchens is not stupid, so one should conclude that he is a deliberate liar.
One can only speculate as to why he would want to lie for Putin.
He isn't lying.
The guy said "Russian decisions have been a response to the expanding post–Cold War hegemony of the United States and its allies in Europe."
So he reacted much the same way that the US did when Kruschev decided to put missiles in Cuba.
I don't recall the USA invading Cuba recently.
MrBed is incapable of seeing nations having their own interests beyond those of the U.S. and Russia, apparently.
A key feature of this position is denying the Ukrainians have their own agency. Zelensky is just a puppet of Washington/NATO etc.
All hegemonic imperial powers treat neighbouring states as their back yard.
Watch what happens if China set up PLA bases in Mexico. It wouldn't be pretty.
Its not just, its just reality.
If the US invaded, that makes the US the aggressor. Mind you, the US hasn't needed anything like that big an excuse to meddle in other American states' business. It's wrong when America does it so why should it be ok for Russia?
It is wrong on both sides. But it is reality.
We've already seen a large portion of the world deciding that Russia shouldn't get its own way in Ukraine.
That's the most real part of realpolitik: in the end, people can only be pushed so far before someone takes aim at the bully. Russia has spend a little too long fucking about and it's got a little taste of find out. That's good.
They still may come out 'ahead' in the short to medium term, but hopefully the world has learned something from it.
Maybe, but I'm grateful that we're all trying to a certain extent to stop them.
As a general rule, I'm supportive of resistance to murderous invasions. It doesn't matter to me who is doing it. We can all think of a favourite examples. We did one 20-odd years ago.
I have finally tracked down the article that Hitchins was quoting about ‘Russia being provoked.’ It was not easy because not only was what he quoted rather inaccurate but it was so ripped out of context anyway as to actually reverse the meaning of what was said.
Here are Kagan’s very precise words:
Although it is obscene to blame the United States for Putin’s inhumane attack on Ukraine, to insist that the invasion was entirely unprovoked is misleading. Just as Pearl Harbor was the consequence of U.S. efforts to blunt Japanese expansion on the Asian mainland, and just as the 9/11 attacks were partly a response to the United States’ dominant presence in the Middle East after the first Gulf War, so Russian decisions have been a response to the expanding post–Cold War hegemony of the United States and its allies in Europe. Putin alone is to blame for his actions, but the invasion of Ukraine is taking place in a historical and geopolitical context in which the United States has played and still plays the principal role, and Americans must grapple with this fact
The thrust of the article is that Putin was provoked by his inability to deal with how much the Russians were hated in their traditional sphere of influence, as demonstrated by the collapse of the Yanukovych government and the desperation of Eastern European states to join NATO as a guarantee against a relapse. He argues that the key provocation was how the United States’ response was clumsy and chaotic leading Russia and now China to think they could keep getting away with their crimes.
This was of course seized on by Kremlin propagandists and anti-American twits like Hitchins who claimed Kagan said the US provoked the invasion of Ukraine - when in fact he was saying pretty much the exact opposite.
So basically - Hitchins either lied, or is so stupid he should not be allowed near a keyboard. Or both, of course.
Hitchens is not stupid, so one should conclude that he is a deliberate liar.
One can only speculate as to why he would want to lie for Putin.
Well I have met Peter Hitchens socially a few times, and I have to say he does, at times, seem a little... slow.
I’ve always liked the “the Japanese were provoked” argument for WWII
Yes, the Americans and others cut off oil and steel supplies (among other things) - not an embargo, but refusing to sell. Refusing to sell to a country that was using these materials to attack an ally of the US (China) and threatening to use them to attack the US itself and allied countries. For being friends with China.
So the US was supposed to sell oil and steel so the Japanese could build more Yamato class battleships to attack… the US?
The bad joke is that the Japanese invasion of South East Asia netted them *three* shipments of oil from the conquered territories
There never was a Japanese war strategy. The Kwantung Army was defeated in Siberia, the war in China was going nowhere, and the navy wanted to show that it could do better than the army. After Midway, Japan had lost.
I'm trying to think of a WWII naval encounter between Allies and Axis that was decided by gunnery alone.
Struggling beyond the Battle of the River Plate.
You could argue the hunt for the Bismarck was, but that was ultimately settled by aircraft.
Surely these embargoes don't apply in other countries...
Isn't it Canada that has super strict embargoes for announcing results, but US citizens can't be forced to follow them, so people in the US just put up the results on websites hosted in US and they broadcast them on US regional radio that Canadians can pick up.
I have finally tracked down the article that Hitchins was quoting about ‘Russia being provoked.’ It was not easy because not only was what he quoted rather inaccurate but it was so ripped out of context anyway as to actually reverse the meaning of what was said.
Here are Kagan’s very precise words:
Although it is obscene to blame the United States for Putin’s inhumane attack on Ukraine, to insist that the invasion was entirely unprovoked is misleading. Just as Pearl Harbor was the consequence of U.S. efforts to blunt Japanese expansion on the Asian mainland, and just as the 9/11 attacks were partly a response to the United States’ dominant presence in the Middle East after the first Gulf War, so Russian decisions have been a response to the expanding post–Cold War hegemony of the United States and its allies in Europe. Putin alone is to blame for his actions, but the invasion of Ukraine is taking place in a historical and geopolitical context in which the United States has played and still plays the principal role, and Americans must grapple with this fact
The thrust of the article is that Putin was provoked by his inability to deal with how much the Russians were hated in their traditional sphere of influence, as demonstrated by the collapse of the Yanukovych government and the desperation of Eastern European states to join NATO as a guarantee against a relapse. He argues that the key provocation was how the United States’ response was clumsy and chaotic leading Russia and now China to think they could keep getting away with their crimes.
This was of course seized on by Kremlin propagandists and anti-American twits like Hitchins who claimed Kagan said the US provoked the invasion of Ukraine - when in fact he was saying pretty much the exact opposite.
So basically - Hitchins either lied, or is so stupid he should not be allowed near a keyboard. Or both, of course.
Hitchens is not stupid, so one should conclude that he is a deliberate liar.
One can only speculate as to why he would want to lie for Putin.
Well I have met Peter Hitchens socially a few times, and I have to say he does, at times, seem a little... slow.
I’ve always liked the “the Japanese were provoked” argument for WWII
Yes, the Americans and others cut off oil and steel supplies (among other things) - not an embargo, but refusing to sell. Refusing to sell to a country that was using these materials to attack an ally of the US (China) and threatening to use them to attack the US itself and allied countries. For being friends with China.
So the US was supposed to sell oil and steel so the Japanese could build more Yamato class battleships to attack… the US?
The bad joke is that the Japanese invasion of South East Asia netted them *three* shipments of oil from the conquered territories
There never was a Japanese war strategy. The Kwantung Army was defeated in Siberia, the war in China was going nowhere, and the navy wanted to show that it could do better than the army. After Midway, Japan had lost.
I'm trying to think of a WWII naval encounter between Allies and Axis that was decided by gunnery alone.
Struggling beyond the Battle of the River Plate.
You could argue the hunt for the Bismarck was, but that was ultimately settled by aircraft.
Narvik?
Oh, that's a point.
We actually did rather well at that and basically wiped out half the surface fleet of the Kriegsmarine.
One of PB’s quaint traditions is History-Today style discussions of military encounters on WW2. I learn a lot from them.
My grandfather was on HMS Dorsetshire during the battle of the Bismarck. He spoke of the sickening sight of hundreds of German crew being left to drown after the ships withdrew for fear of u-boats.
Damn, I stopped watching the football 5 minutes before the end of normal time in the England match. It's Murphy's Law that all the interesting stuff has happened since then, including Georgia going ahead against Spain.
Why did you stop watching? Are you new to this live sport thing?
I had to go to a golf/swimming club with some other people.
I've played water polo but I'd never heard of golf swimming. Sounds both intriguing and difficult.
I believe underwater cricket is a thing
With water resistance the bowling must be slower than Jeffrey Boycott in his heyday.
I have finally tracked down the article that Hitchins was quoting about ‘Russia being provoked.’ It was not easy because not only was what he quoted rather inaccurate but it was so ripped out of context anyway as to actually reverse the meaning of what was said.
Here are Kagan’s very precise words:
Although it is obscene to blame the United States for Putin’s inhumane attack on Ukraine, to insist that the invasion was entirely unprovoked is misleading. Just as Pearl Harbor was the consequence of U.S. efforts to blunt Japanese expansion on the Asian mainland, and just as the 9/11 attacks were partly a response to the United States’ dominant presence in the Middle East after the first Gulf War, so Russian decisions have been a response to the expanding post–Cold War hegemony of the United States and its allies in Europe. Putin alone is to blame for his actions, but the invasion of Ukraine is taking place in a historical and geopolitical context in which the United States has played and still plays the principal role, and Americans must grapple with this fact
The thrust of the article is that Putin was provoked by his inability to deal with how much the Russians were hated in their traditional sphere of influence, as demonstrated by the collapse of the Yanukovych government and the desperation of Eastern European states to join NATO as a guarantee against a relapse. He argues that the key provocation was how the United States’ response was clumsy and chaotic leading Russia and now China to think they could keep getting away with their crimes.
This was of course seized on by Kremlin propagandists and anti-American twits like Hitchins who claimed Kagan said the US provoked the invasion of Ukraine - when in fact he was saying pretty much the exact opposite.
So basically - Hitchins either lied, or is so stupid he should not be allowed near a keyboard. Or both, of course.
Hitchens is not stupid, so one should conclude that he is a deliberate liar.
One can only speculate as to why he would want to lie for Putin.
He isn't lying.
The guy said "Russian decisions have been a response to the expanding post–Cold War hegemony of the United States and its allies in Europe."
So he reacted much the same way that the US did when Kruschev decided to put missiles in Cuba.
Don't be a twat. He threw a strop over Ukraine wanting to join the EU. Which had nothing to do with US 'hegemony'.
And the Bag of Pigs, and Kruschev's ill considered move, were sixty years ago.
Was Kruschev's move "ill-considered"? It was, in my view, a strategic victory for the Soviets. It resulted in the protection of Cuba and the removal of US nuclear missiles from the Mediterranean.
Also, the Bay of Pigs episode was more akin to Putin's earlier interventions in Ukraine, using supported proxy forces to enable a veneer of deniability about it being a direct intervention. Not justified but equally not the all-out invasion of Feb 2022.
But this 'Putin was provoked' argument is basically wife-beater excuses. Whether he felt provoked or not, the rest of the world is not obliged to sacrifice sovereign states to assuage Putin's feelings. He doesn't get to say 'it's your fault for making me angry if you don't give me what I want'.
Gabriel Milland @gabrielmilland · 1h That awkward moment when you discover the idyllic bit of rural France where you booked the lovely gîte for this summer just voted massively for the fascists.
When people complain of British multiculturalism it is worth looking to see how the French get on with their specific refusal to acknowledge or record ethnic and religious diversity in favour of cultural Frenchness.
Surely these embargoes don't apply in other countries...
Isn't it Canada that has super strict embargoes for announcing results, but US citizens can't be forced to follow them, so people in the US just put up the results on websites hosted in US?
Damn, I stopped watching the football 5 minutes before the end of normal time in the England match. It's Murphy's Law that all the interesting stuff has happened since then, including Georgia going ahead against Spain.
Why did you stop watching? Are you new to this live sport thing?
I had to go to a golf/swimming club with some other people.
I've played water polo but I'd never heard of golf swimming. Sounds both intriguing and difficult.
I have finally tracked down the article that Hitchins was quoting about ‘Russia being provoked.’ It was not easy because not only was what he quoted rather inaccurate but it was so ripped out of context anyway as to actually reverse the meaning of what was said.
Here are Kagan’s very precise words:
Although it is obscene to blame the United States for Putin’s inhumane attack on Ukraine, to insist that the invasion was entirely unprovoked is misleading. Just as Pearl Harbor was the consequence of U.S. efforts to blunt Japanese expansion on the Asian mainland, and just as the 9/11 attacks were partly a response to the United States’ dominant presence in the Middle East after the first Gulf War, so Russian decisions have been a response to the expanding post–Cold War hegemony of the United States and its allies in Europe. Putin alone is to blame for his actions, but the invasion of Ukraine is taking place in a historical and geopolitical context in which the United States has played and still plays the principal role, and Americans must grapple with this fact
The thrust of the article is that Putin was provoked by his inability to deal with how much the Russians were hated in their traditional sphere of influence, as demonstrated by the collapse of the Yanukovych government and the desperation of Eastern European states to join NATO as a guarantee against a relapse. He argues that the key provocation was how the United States’ response was clumsy and chaotic leading Russia and now China to think they could keep getting away with their crimes.
This was of course seized on by Kremlin propagandists and anti-American twits like Hitchins who claimed Kagan said the US provoked the invasion of Ukraine - when in fact he was saying pretty much the exact opposite.
So basically - Hitchins either lied, or is so stupid he should not be allowed near a keyboard. Or both, of course.
Gabriel Milland @gabrielmilland · 1h That awkward moment when you discover the idyllic bit of rural France where you booked the lovely gîte for this summer just voted massively for the fascists.
Damn, I stopped watching the football 5 minutes before the end of normal time in the England match. It's Murphy's Law that all the interesting stuff has happened since then, including Georgia going ahead against Spain.
Why did you stop watching? Are you new to this live sport thing?
I had to go to a golf/swimming club with some other people.
I've played water polo but I'd never heard of golf swimming. Sounds both intriguing and difficult.
I believe underwater cricket is a thing
With water resistance the bowling must be slower than Jeffrey Boycott in his heyday.
The trick is to locate eddies and whirlpools to impart spin
Theresa May, door knocking and on a recording doorbell.
Say what you like about Britain and it’s politics .. but there ain’t many western democracies where you’d get a former Prime Minister leaving a lovely little message on your ring doorbell.
I have finally tracked down the article that Hitchins was quoting about ‘Russia being provoked.’ It was not easy because not only was what he quoted rather inaccurate but it was so ripped out of context anyway as to actually reverse the meaning of what was said.
Here are Kagan’s very precise words:
Although it is obscene to blame the United States for Putin’s inhumane attack on Ukraine, to insist that the invasion was entirely unprovoked is misleading. Just as Pearl Harbor was the consequence of U.S. efforts to blunt Japanese expansion on the Asian mainland, and just as the 9/11 attacks were partly a response to the United States’ dominant presence in the Middle East after the first Gulf War, so Russian decisions have been a response to the expanding post–Cold War hegemony of the United States and its allies in Europe. Putin alone is to blame for his actions, but the invasion of Ukraine is taking place in a historical and geopolitical context in which the United States has played and still plays the principal role, and Americans must grapple with this fact
The thrust of the article is that Putin was provoked by his inability to deal with how much the Russians were hated in their traditional sphere of influence, as demonstrated by the collapse of the Yanukovych government and the desperation of Eastern European states to join NATO as a guarantee against a relapse. He argues that the key provocation was how the United States’ response was clumsy and chaotic leading Russia and now China to think they could keep getting away with their crimes.
This was of course seized on by Kremlin propagandists and anti-American twits like Hitchins who claimed Kagan said the US provoked the invasion of Ukraine - when in fact he was saying pretty much the exact opposite.
So basically - Hitchins either lied, or is so stupid he should not be allowed near a keyboard. Or both, of course.
Hitchens is not stupid, so one should conclude that he is a deliberate liar.
One can only speculate as to why he would want to lie for Putin.
Well I have met Peter Hitchens socially a few times, and I have to say he does, at times, seem a little... slow.
I’ve always liked the “the Japanese were provoked” argument for WWII
Yes, the Americans and others cut off oil and steel supplies (among other things) - not an embargo, but refusing to sell. Refusing to sell to a country that was using these materials to attack an ally of the US (China) and threatening to use them to attack the US itself and allied countries. For being friends with China.
So the US was supposed to sell oil and steel so the Japanese could build more Yamato class battleships to attack… the US?
The bad joke is that the Japanese invasion of South East Asia netted them *three* shipments of oil from the conquered territories
There never was a Japanese war strategy. The Kwantung Army was defeated in Siberia, the war in China was going nowhere, and the navy wanted to show that it could do better than the army. After Midway, Japan had lost.
I'm trying to think of a WWII naval encounter between Allies and Axis that was decided by gunnery alone.
Struggling beyond the Battle of the River Plate.
You could argue the hunt for the Bismarck was, but that was ultimately settled by aircraft.
Scharnhorst. Finished off with torpedos but guns did the crippling.
Stacked Regression and Poststratification (SRP) and Multilevel Regression and Poststratification (MRP) differ in the way they make predictions. The main difference is that the former uses more than one model, including but not limited to Multilevel Regression, to make predictions whilst the latter relies solely on the Multilevel Regression model. The second major difference is that SRP uses non-parametric Machine Learning Models as part of its architecture which offers advantages over parametric alternatives.
The use of stacking, combining estimates from many models into a single final estimate, underpins algorithms like Random Forests and Neural Networks. The main advantage of this kind of stacking is that we can use different models to probe different parts of the data giving a more holistic set of predictions that consider many different facets of the data. This includes models that are superior at unpicking the constituency level predictors whilst other models can investigate the individual level effects in much more detail. Some models, like Multilevel Regression, can analyse both the individual level and constituency level data simultaneously. The combination of these models then produces estimates that more accurately represent the nuances in the underlying data.
The majority of models used in our stacking procedure are “non-parametric”. One of the major inputs that goes into any MRP is the underlying structure of the model that link the predictors chosen by the modeller to the vote intention of individuals. This underlying structure is ultimately arbitrary and there are theoretically many trillions of possible underlying models that could be used. This is what makes MRP parametric – the modeller decides the interactions and relationship. Furthermore, MRP is inherently linear (unless otherwise specified) which can ignore more complex relationships in the data. A non-parametric model, like a random forest, can approximate the true underlying relationship that links the predictor variables to vote intention without input from the modeller. All the modeller does is select the variables used for prediction.
This offers obvious advantages. It reduces the number of assumptions that the modeller has to make in terms of selecting the parameterisation of the model whilst also allowing the model to find the best possible, arbitrary, combination of parameters.
The inclusion of multiple non-parametric models offers advantages to making seat estimates as it hugely reduces the effect of modeller-based decisions. It also offers improved accuracy in terms of fitting the underlying data and uses the most up-to-date methods for classification problems.
Had a 11-1 on Spain winning 3-1 and the buggers just went and scored another one :-(
There's a tale of a City fan betting on a 9-1 win v Huddersfield at 10000-1 some time in the Eighties. Standing to win a six figure sum, he couldn't contain his excitement in the final minute, till David White scored the tenth in the final seconds. "Bloody City. Always let you f***ing down!"
I have finally tracked down the article that Hitchins was quoting about ‘Russia being provoked.’ It was not easy because not only was what he quoted rather inaccurate but it was so ripped out of context anyway as to actually reverse the meaning of what was said.
Here are Kagan’s very precise words:
Although it is obscene to blame the United States for Putin’s inhumane attack on Ukraine, to insist that the invasion was entirely unprovoked is misleading. Just as Pearl Harbor was the consequence of U.S. efforts to blunt Japanese expansion on the Asian mainland, and just as the 9/11 attacks were partly a response to the United States’ dominant presence in the Middle East after the first Gulf War, so Russian decisions have been a response to the expanding post–Cold War hegemony of the United States and its allies in Europe. Putin alone is to blame for his actions, but the invasion of Ukraine is taking place in a historical and geopolitical context in which the United States has played and still plays the principal role, and Americans must grapple with this fact
The thrust of the article is that Putin was provoked by his inability to deal with how much the Russians were hated in their traditional sphere of influence, as demonstrated by the collapse of the Yanukovych government and the desperation of Eastern European states to join NATO as a guarantee against a relapse. He argues that the key provocation was how the United States’ response was clumsy and chaotic leading Russia and now China to think they could keep getting away with their crimes.
This was of course seized on by Kremlin propagandists and anti-American twits like Hitchins who claimed Kagan said the US provoked the invasion of Ukraine - when in fact he was saying pretty much the exact opposite.
So basically - Hitchins either lied, or is so stupid he should not be allowed near a keyboard. Or both, of course.
Hitchens is not stupid, so one should conclude that he is a deliberate liar.
One can only speculate as to why he would want to lie for Putin.
He isn't lying.
The guy said "Russian decisions have been a response to the expanding post–Cold War hegemony of the United States and its allies in Europe."
So he reacted much the same way that the US did when Kruschev decided to put missiles in Cuba.
I don't recall the USA invading Cuba recently.
MrBed is incapable of seeing nations having their own interests beyond those of the U.S. and Russia, apparently.
A key feature of this position is denying the Ukrainians have their own agency. Zelensky is just a puppet of Washington/NATO etc.
All hegemonic imperial powers treat neighbouring states as their back yard.
Watch what happens if China set up PLA bases in Mexico. It wouldn't be pretty.
Its not just, its just reality.
If the US invaded, that makes the US the aggressor. Mind you, the US hasn't needed anything like that big an excuse to meddle in other American states' business. It's wrong when America does it so why should it be ok for Russia?
It is wrong on both sides. But it is reality.
We've already seen a large portion of the world deciding that Russia shouldn't get its own way in Ukraine.
That's the most real part of realpolitik: in the end, people can only be pushed so far before someone takes aim at the bully. Russia has spend a little too long fucking about and it's got a little taste of find out. That's good.
Bollocks. China, India, Brazil South Africa, Saudi and half of South America, South Africa and the far east and middle east are all either supporting Russia actively or in a nudge nudge way.
The US and Europe are a large portion of the world, especially militarily.
Your list is weird. You mention South Africa twice, you mention the middle east and Saudi Arabia, you mention Brazil and "half of South America, and you mention China and the far east. Are you aware that you're repeating yourself a fair bit there? Are you aware that you're repeating yourself a fair bit there?
Looks like Le Pen's far right nationalist party is heading for power in France for the first time in a national election. Even if they fall short of a majority, the exit poll and early results suggest they have certainly won most votes and seats and will have more seats than Melenchon's left block and the combined seats of Macron's liberal centrist block and the centre right Les Republicains do after the second round
I do love a bit of James, one of the bands that transports back to school days in a good way.
Many years back, at Reading, Liam Gallagher started insulting the crowd. Many were metal heads who’d come to see Metallica play Sunday night, and were doing the whole weekend. So quite a lot in the crowd were just watching out of interest. Not enough worship for Mr Gallagher…
Anyway, his insults got more stupid and stuff was flying at the stage. Just at that moment the set ended and James came on next. The crowd was in an ugly mood, but the lead guy said something like - “Sorry, but we have to do this…” and launched into Sit Down. Which was on every jukebox in the UK.
The crowd went from StormTheStage to WeLikeThese guys in about 30 seconds…
struggling to think of any festival where James would be playing after Liam Gallagher. Be like Dave, Dee, Mich and Tich playing after David Bowie.
James are a pretty underrated band imvho.
Agree it’s a weird order though. Must’ve been early Oasis.
Gabriel Milland @gabrielmilland · 1h That awkward moment when you discover the idyllic bit of rural France where you booked the lovely gîte for this summer just voted massively for the fascists.
Chelsea have agreed a £30m fee with Leicester for midfielder Kiernan Dewsbury-Hall.
How the f##k are Chelsea within financial fair play. They have spent like £1bn and still spending.
Bonkers. Maybe they are happy to just take the points penalty? Also, £30m for KDH? Really?
Chelsea already have about 50 players that aren't exactly world beaters. They just keep adding to that list. What's KDH going to do, stand in the wall or be there to do shape for training?
He will start. Maresca is very stubborn with his system. KDH will play inside left.
Get used to some very one dimensional football Chelsea fans, Maresca makes Southgate seem flexible.
Which is why Leicester fans were happy to see him go, despite taking us up as Champions. His football is tedious to watch, and ultimately atkick off we want to see some entertainment.
There are going to be some very angry international footballers at Chelsea if that is the case.
I have finally tracked down the article that Hitchins was quoting about ‘Russia being provoked.’ It was not easy because not only was what he quoted rather inaccurate but it was so ripped out of context anyway as to actually reverse the meaning of what was said.
Here are Kagan’s very precise words:
Although it is obscene to blame the United States for Putin’s inhumane attack on Ukraine, to insist that the invasion was entirely unprovoked is misleading. Just as Pearl Harbor was the consequence of U.S. efforts to blunt Japanese expansion on the Asian mainland, and just as the 9/11 attacks were partly a response to the United States’ dominant presence in the Middle East after the first Gulf War, so Russian decisions have been a response to the expanding post–Cold War hegemony of the United States and its allies in Europe. Putin alone is to blame for his actions, but the invasion of Ukraine is taking place in a historical and geopolitical context in which the United States has played and still plays the principal role, and Americans must grapple with this fact
The thrust of the article is that Putin was provoked by his inability to deal with how much the Russians were hated in their traditional sphere of influence, as demonstrated by the collapse of the Yanukovych government and the desperation of Eastern European states to join NATO as a guarantee against a relapse. He argues that the key provocation was how the United States’ response was clumsy and chaotic leading Russia and now China to think they could keep getting away with their crimes.
This was of course seized on by Kremlin propagandists and anti-American twits like Hitchins who claimed Kagan said the US provoked the invasion of Ukraine - when in fact he was saying pretty much the exact opposite.
So basically - Hitchins either lied, or is so stupid he should not be allowed near a keyboard. Or both, of course.
Hitchens is not stupid, so one should conclude that he is a deliberate liar.
One can only speculate as to why he would want to lie for Putin.
He isn't lying.
The guy said "Russian decisions have been a response to the expanding post–Cold War hegemony of the United States and its allies in Europe."
So he reacted much the same way that the US did when Kruschev decided to put missiles in Cuba.
I don't recall the USA invading Cuba recently.
MrBed is incapable of seeing nations having their own interests beyond those of the U.S. and Russia, apparently.
A key feature of this position is denying the Ukrainians have their own agency. Zelensky is just a puppet of Washington/NATO etc.
All hegemonic imperial powers treat neighbouring states as their back yard.
Watch what happens if China set up PLA bases in Mexico. It wouldn't be pretty.
Its not just, its just reality.
Russia is a failing imperial power. That's the reality.
So is the US. But far less down the path. Crossover with China is coming. Much as there was Crossover between US and UK after WW1.
The question is will the UK just accept it (as the UK did) or will they go down with a big war, as is the norm.
Crossover with China seems much less likely now than it did a decade ago.
China has appalling demographics. Its birth rate is plummeting. Its crony capitalism is stifling innovation, and its aggressive foreign policy means it now has a harder time exporting. It’s an ethno-nationalist state with no meaningful working age immigration. It’s in the middle income trap.
The US has major problems of gun ownership, drug use, obesity and inequality, but it has decent demographics and much healthier immigration, and an extremely vibrant corporate sector. And it’s the world’s largest oil producer.
Surely these embargoes don't apply in other countries...
Isn't it Canada that has super strict embargoes for announcing results, but US citizens can't be forced to follow them, so people in the US just put up the results on websites hosted in US and they broadcast them on US regional radio that Canadians can pick up.
Yep. It's believed to be the reason BC votes quite so NDP. Result of the election is known, so folk are free to vote with their heart not head.
I do love a bit of James, one of the bands that transports back to school days in a good way.
Many years back, at Reading, Liam Gallagher started insulting the crowd. Many were metal heads who’d come to see Metallica play Sunday night, and were doing the whole weekend. So quite a lot in the crowd were just watching out of interest. Not enough worship for Mr Gallagher…
Anyway, his insults got more stupid and stuff was flying at the stage. Just at that moment the set ended and James came on next. The crowd was in an ugly mood, but the lead guy said something like - “Sorry, but we have to do this…” and launched into Sit Down. Which was on every jukebox in the UK.
The crowd went from StormTheStage to WeLikeThese guys in about 30 seconds…
struggling to think of any festival where James would be playing after Liam Gallagher. Be like Dave, Dee, Mich and Tich playing after David Bowie.
James were big before Oasis. There must have been a time when James were big and Oasis still quite small. Circa 1994, I would guess. (I saw Oasis in the Leadmill in Sheffield in 1994, just after Definitely Maybe came out. Competent musicians with good tunes, but you couldn't help taking an instant dislike to them. First gig I'd ever felt so unenthused that I'd gone for a piss to make the end come quicker.)
Weren't Dave Dee Dozy Beaky Mick and Titch actually the most successful bamd of the 60s?
Gabriel Milland @gabrielmilland · 1h That awkward moment when you discover the idyllic bit of rural France where you booked the lovely gîte for this summer just voted massively for the fascists.
When people complain of British multiculturalism it is worth looking to see how the French get on with their specific refusal to acknowledge or record ethnic and religious diversity in favour of cultural Frenchness.
French people are allowed to say “we don’t want any more Muslims in France as that will fundamentally alter the culture of the country”
That is a valid opinion and not racist - merely a democratic statement of cultural preference
For the same reason it is perfectly reasonable for Saudi Arabians to say: we do not want Saudi Arabia to become in any way Christian - that will profoundly change our country - keep it Muslim
I have finally tracked down the article that Hitchins was quoting about ‘Russia being provoked.’ It was not easy because not only was what he quoted rather inaccurate but it was so ripped out of context anyway as to actually reverse the meaning of what was said.
Here are Kagan’s very precise words:
Although it is obscene to blame the United States for Putin’s inhumane attack on Ukraine, to insist that the invasion was entirely unprovoked is misleading. Just as Pearl Harbor was the consequence of U.S. efforts to blunt Japanese expansion on the Asian mainland, and just as the 9/11 attacks were partly a response to the United States’ dominant presence in the Middle East after the first Gulf War, so Russian decisions have been a response to the expanding post–Cold War hegemony of the United States and its allies in Europe. Putin alone is to blame for his actions, but the invasion of Ukraine is taking place in a historical and geopolitical context in which the United States has played and still plays the principal role, and Americans must grapple with this fact
The thrust of the article is that Putin was provoked by his inability to deal with how much the Russians were hated in their traditional sphere of influence, as demonstrated by the collapse of the Yanukovych government and the desperation of Eastern European states to join NATO as a guarantee against a relapse. He argues that the key provocation was how the United States’ response was clumsy and chaotic leading Russia and now China to think they could keep getting away with their crimes.
This was of course seized on by Kremlin propagandists and anti-American twits like Hitchins who claimed Kagan said the US provoked the invasion of Ukraine - when in fact he was saying pretty much the exact opposite.
So basically - Hitchins either lied, or is so stupid he should not be allowed near a keyboard. Or both, of course.
Hitchens is not stupid, so one should conclude that he is a deliberate liar.
One can only speculate as to why he would want to lie for Putin.
He isn't lying.
The guy said "Russian decisions have been a response to the expanding post–Cold War hegemony of the United States and its allies in Europe."
So he reacted much the same way that the US did when Kruschev decided to put missiles in Cuba.
Don't be a twat. He threw a strop over Ukraine wanting to join the EU. Which had nothing to do with US 'hegemony'.
And the Bag of Pigs, and Kruschev's ill considered move, were sixty years ago.
Was Kruschev's move "ill-considered"? It was, in my view, a strategic victory for the Soviets. It resulted in the protection of Cuba and the removal of US nuclear missiles from the Mediterranean.
Also, the Bay of Pigs episode was more akin to Putin's earlier interventions in Ukraine, using supported proxy forces to enable a veneer of deniability about it being a direct intervention. Not justified but equally not the all-out invasion of Feb 2022.
But this 'Putin was provoked' argument is basically wife-beater excuses. Whether he felt provoked or not, the rest of the world is not obliged to sacrifice sovereign states to assuage Putin's feelings. He doesn't get to say 'it's your fault for making me angry if you don't give me what I want'.
You say "wife"; MisterBedfordshite says "sphere of influence".
I have finally tracked down the article that Hitchins was quoting about ‘Russia being provoked.’ It was not easy because not only was what he quoted rather inaccurate but it was so ripped out of context anyway as to actually reverse the meaning of what was said.
Here are Kagan’s very precise words:
Although it is obscene to blame the United States for Putin’s inhumane attack on Ukraine, to insist that the invasion was entirely unprovoked is misleading. Just as Pearl Harbor was the consequence of U.S. efforts to blunt Japanese expansion on the Asian mainland, and just as the 9/11 attacks were partly a response to the United States’ dominant presence in the Middle East after the first Gulf War, so Russian decisions have been a response to the expanding post–Cold War hegemony of the United States and its allies in Europe. Putin alone is to blame for his actions, but the invasion of Ukraine is taking place in a historical and geopolitical context in which the United States has played and still plays the principal role, and Americans must grapple with this fact
The thrust of the article is that Putin was provoked by his inability to deal with how much the Russians were hated in their traditional sphere of influence, as demonstrated by the collapse of the Yanukovych government and the desperation of Eastern European states to join NATO as a guarantee against a relapse. He argues that the key provocation was how the United States’ response was clumsy and chaotic leading Russia and now China to think they could keep getting away with their crimes.
This was of course seized on by Kremlin propagandists and anti-American twits like Hitchins who claimed Kagan said the US provoked the invasion of Ukraine - when in fact he was saying pretty much the exact opposite.
So basically - Hitchins either lied, or is so stupid he should not be allowed near a keyboard. Or both, of course.
Hitchens is not stupid, so one should conclude that he is a deliberate liar.
One can only speculate as to why he would want to lie for Putin.
He isn't lying.
The guy said "Russian decisions have been a response to the expanding post–Cold War hegemony of the United States and its allies in Europe."
So he reacted much the same way that the US did when Kruschev decided to put missiles in Cuba.
I don't recall the USA invading Cuba recently.
MrBed is incapable of seeing nations having their own interests beyond those of the U.S. and Russia, apparently.
A key feature of this position is denying the Ukrainians have their own agency. Zelensky is just a puppet of Washington/NATO etc.
All hegemonic imperial powers treat neighbouring states as their back yard.
Watch what happens if China set up PLA bases in Mexico. It wouldn't be pretty.
Its not just, its just reality.
If the US invaded, that makes the US the aggressor. Mind you, the US hasn't needed anything like that big an excuse to meddle in other American states' business. It's wrong when America does it so why should it be ok for Russia?
It is wrong on both sides. But it is reality.
We've already seen a large portion of the world deciding that Russia shouldn't get its own way in Ukraine.
That's the most real part of realpolitik: in the end, people can only be pushed so far before someone takes aim at the bully. Russia has spend a little too long fucking about and it's got a little taste of find out. That's good.
Bollocks. China, India, Brazil South Africa, Saudi and half of South America, South Africa and the far east and middle east are all either supporting Russia actively or in a nudge nudge way.
I do love a bit of James, one of the bands that transports back to school days in a good way.
Many years back, at Reading, Liam Gallagher started insulting the crowd. Many were metal heads who’d come to see Metallica play Sunday night, and were doing the whole weekend. So quite a lot in the crowd were just watching out of interest. Not enough worship for Mr Gallagher…
Anyway, his insults got more stupid and stuff was flying at the stage. Just at that moment the set ended and James came on next. The crowd was in an ugly mood, but the lead guy said something like - “Sorry, but we have to do this…” and launched into Sit Down. Which was on every jukebox in the UK.
The crowd went from StormTheStage to WeLikeThese guys in about 30 seconds…
struggling to think of any festival where James would be playing after Liam Gallagher. Be like Dave, Dee, Mich and Tich playing after David Bowie.
James were big before Oasis. There must have been a time when James were big and Oasis still quite small. Circa 1994, I would guess. (I saw Oasis in the Leadmill in Sheffield in 1994, just after Definitely Maybe came out. Competent musicians with good tunes, but you couldn't help taking an instant dislike to them. First gig I'd ever felt so unenthused that I'd gone for a piss to make the end come quicker.)
Weren't Dave Dee Dozy Beaky Mick and Titch actually the most successful bamd of the 60s?
I have finally tracked down the article that Hitchins was quoting about ‘Russia being provoked.’ It was not easy because not only was what he quoted rather inaccurate but it was so ripped out of context anyway as to actually reverse the meaning of what was said.
Here are Kagan’s very precise words:
Although it is obscene to blame the United States for Putin’s inhumane attack on Ukraine, to insist that the invasion was entirely unprovoked is misleading. Just as Pearl Harbor was the consequence of U.S. efforts to blunt Japanese expansion on the Asian mainland, and just as the 9/11 attacks were partly a response to the United States’ dominant presence in the Middle East after the first Gulf War, so Russian decisions have been a response to the expanding post–Cold War hegemony of the United States and its allies in Europe. Putin alone is to blame for his actions, but the invasion of Ukraine is taking place in a historical and geopolitical context in which the United States has played and still plays the principal role, and Americans must grapple with this fact
The thrust of the article is that Putin was provoked by his inability to deal with how much the Russians were hated in their traditional sphere of influence, as demonstrated by the collapse of the Yanukovych government and the desperation of Eastern European states to join NATO as a guarantee against a relapse. He argues that the key provocation was how the United States’ response was clumsy and chaotic leading Russia and now China to think they could keep getting away with their crimes.
This was of course seized on by Kremlin propagandists and anti-American twits like Hitchins who claimed Kagan said the US provoked the invasion of Ukraine - when in fact he was saying pretty much the exact opposite.
So basically - Hitchins either lied, or is so stupid he should not be allowed near a keyboard. Or both, of course.
Hitchens is not stupid, so one should conclude that he is a deliberate liar.
One can only speculate as to why he would want to lie for Putin.
Well I have met Peter Hitchens socially a few times, and I have to say he does, at times, seem a little... slow.
I’ve always liked the “the Japanese were provoked” argument for WWII
Yes, the Americans and others cut off oil and steel supplies (among other things) - not an embargo, but refusing to sell. Refusing to sell to a country that was using these materials to attack an ally of the US (China) and threatening to use them to attack the US itself and allied countries. For being friends with China.
So the US was supposed to sell oil and steel so the Japanese could build more Yamato class battleships to attack… the US?
The bad joke is that the Japanese invasion of South East Asia netted them *three* shipments of oil from the conquered territories
There never was a Japanese war strategy. The Kwantung Army was defeated in Siberia, the war in China was going nowhere, and the navy wanted to show that it could do better than the army. After Midway, Japan had lost.
I'm trying to think of a WWII naval encounter between Allies and Axis that was decided by gunnery alone.
Struggling beyond the Battle of the River Plate.
You could argue the hunt for the Bismarck was, but that was ultimately settled by aircraft.
Narvik?
Oh, that's a point.
We actually did rather well at that and basically wiped out half the surface fleet of the Kriegsmarine.
One of PB’s quaint traditions is History-Today style discussions of military encounters on WW2. I learn a lot from them.
My grandfather was on HMS Dorsetshire during the battle of the Bismarck. He spoke of the sickening sight of hundreds of German crew being left to drown after the ships withdrew for fear of u-boats.
Narvik had a key role played by the spotter Swordfish from HMS Warspite, which provided advanced warning of all the Kriegsmarine destroyers, and itself dive-bombed and sunk a submarine. So that depends on the level of aeroplace involvement.
Also lots of torpedos used. Albeit a lot of the German ones from submarines wnet phut, just like the American ones. The poor Uboot commander had lots of opportunities to sink battleships, and his torpedos all failed to work.
The sinking of HMS Glorious didn't involve aircraft. Even though she was an aircraft carrier.
I do love a bit of James, one of the bands that transports back to school days in a good way.
Many years back, at Reading, Liam Gallagher started insulting the crowd. Many were metal heads who’d come to see Metallica play Sunday night, and were doing the whole weekend. So quite a lot in the crowd were just watching out of interest. Not enough worship for Mr Gallagher…
Anyway, his insults got more stupid and stuff was flying at the stage. Just at that moment the set ended and James came on next. The crowd was in an ugly mood, but the lead guy said something like - “Sorry, but we have to do this…” and launched into Sit Down. Which was on every jukebox in the UK.
The crowd went from StormTheStage to WeLikeThese guys in about 30 seconds…
struggling to think of any festival where James would be playing after Liam Gallagher. Be like Dave, Dee, Mich and Tich playing after David Bowie.
I have finally tracked down the article that Hitchins was quoting about ‘Russia being provoked.’ It was not easy because not only was what he quoted rather inaccurate but it was so ripped out of context anyway as to actually reverse the meaning of what was said.
Here are Kagan’s very precise words:
Although it is obscene to blame the United States for Putin’s inhumane attack on Ukraine, to insist that the invasion was entirely unprovoked is misleading. Just as Pearl Harbor was the consequence of U.S. efforts to blunt Japanese expansion on the Asian mainland, and just as the 9/11 attacks were partly a response to the United States’ dominant presence in the Middle East after the first Gulf War, so Russian decisions have been a response to the expanding post–Cold War hegemony of the United States and its allies in Europe. Putin alone is to blame for his actions, but the invasion of Ukraine is taking place in a historical and geopolitical context in which the United States has played and still plays the principal role, and Americans must grapple with this fact
The thrust of the article is that Putin was provoked by his inability to deal with how much the Russians were hated in their traditional sphere of influence, as demonstrated by the collapse of the Yanukovych government and the desperation of Eastern European states to join NATO as a guarantee against a relapse. He argues that the key provocation was how the United States’ response was clumsy and chaotic leading Russia and now China to think they could keep getting away with their crimes.
This was of course seized on by Kremlin propagandists and anti-American twits like Hitchins who claimed Kagan said the US provoked the invasion of Ukraine - when in fact he was saying pretty much the exact opposite.
So basically - Hitchins either lied, or is so stupid he should not be allowed near a keyboard. Or both, of course.
Hitchens is not stupid, so one should conclude that he is a deliberate liar.
One can only speculate as to why he would want to lie for Putin.
Well I have met Peter Hitchens socially a few times, and I have to say he does, at times, seem a little... slow.
I’ve always liked the “the Japanese were provoked” argument for WWII
Yes, the Americans and others cut off oil and steel supplies (among other things) - not an embargo, but refusing to sell. Refusing to sell to a country that was using these materials to attack an ally of the US (China) and threatening to use them to attack the US itself and allied countries. For being friends with China.
So the US was supposed to sell oil and steel so the Japanese could build more Yamato class battleships to attack… the US?
The bad joke is that the Japanese invasion of South East Asia netted them *three* shipments of oil from the conquered territories
There never was a Japanese war strategy. The Kwantung Army was defeated in Siberia, the war in China was going nowhere, and the navy wanted to show that it could do better than the army. After Midway, Japan had lost.
I'm trying to think of a WWII naval encounter between Allies and Axis that was decided by gunnery alone.
Struggling beyond the Battle of the River Plate.
You could argue the hunt for the Bismarck was, but that was ultimately settled by aircraft.
Narvik?
Oh, that's a point.
We actually did rather well at that and basically wiped out half the surface fleet of the Kriegsmarine.
One of PB’s quaint traditions is History-Today style discussions of military encounters on WW2. I learn a lot from them.
My grandfather was on HMS Dorsetshire during the battle of the Bismarck. He spoke of the sickening sight of hundreds of German crew being left to drown after the ships withdrew for fear of u-boats.
Narvik had a key role played by the spotter Swordfish from HMS Warspite, which provided advanced warning of all the Kriegsmarine destroyers, and itself dive-bombed and sunk a submarine. So that depends on the level of aeroplace involvement.
Also lots of torpedos used. Albeit a lot of the German ones from submarines wnet phut, just like the American ones. The poor Uboot commander had lots of opportunities to sink battleships, and his torpedos all failed to work.
I should also add - thanks for the account of your grandfather.
I have finally tracked down the article that Hitchins was quoting about ‘Russia being provoked.’ It was not easy because not only was what he quoted rather inaccurate but it was so ripped out of context anyway as to actually reverse the meaning of what was said.
Here are Kagan’s very precise words:
Although it is obscene to blame the United States for Putin’s inhumane attack on Ukraine, to insist that the invasion was entirely unprovoked is misleading. Just as Pearl Harbor was the consequence of U.S. efforts to blunt Japanese expansion on the Asian mainland, and just as the 9/11 attacks were partly a response to the United States’ dominant presence in the Middle East after the first Gulf War, so Russian decisions have been a response to the expanding post–Cold War hegemony of the United States and its allies in Europe. Putin alone is to blame for his actions, but the invasion of Ukraine is taking place in a historical and geopolitical context in which the United States has played and still plays the principal role, and Americans must grapple with this fact
The thrust of the article is that Putin was provoked by his inability to deal with how much the Russians were hated in their traditional sphere of influence, as demonstrated by the collapse of the Yanukovych government and the desperation of Eastern European states to join NATO as a guarantee against a relapse. He argues that the key provocation was how the United States’ response was clumsy and chaotic leading Russia and now China to think they could keep getting away with their crimes.
This was of course seized on by Kremlin propagandists and anti-American twits like Hitchins who claimed Kagan said the US provoked the invasion of Ukraine - when in fact he was saying pretty much the exact opposite.
So basically - Hitchins either lied, or is so stupid he should not be allowed near a keyboard. Or both, of course.
Hitchens is not stupid, so one should conclude that he is a deliberate liar.
One can only speculate as to why he would want to lie for Putin.
He isn't lying.
The guy said "Russian decisions have been a response to the expanding post–Cold War hegemony of the United States and its allies in Europe."
So he reacted much the same way that the US did when Kruschev decided to put missiles in Cuba.
Don't be a twat. He threw a strop over Ukraine wanting to join the EU. Which had nothing to do with US 'hegemony'.
And the Bag of Pigs, and Kruschev's ill considered move, were sixty years ago.
Was Kruschev's move "ill-considered"? It was, in my view, a strategic victory for the Soviets. It resulted in the protection of Cuba and the removal of US nuclear missiles from the Mediterranean.
Also, the Bay of Pigs episode was more akin to Putin's earlier interventions in Ukraine, using supported proxy forces to enable a veneer of deniability about it being a direct intervention. Not justified but equally not the all-out invasion of Feb 2022.
But this 'Putin was provoked' argument is basically wife-beater excuses. Whether he felt provoked or not, the rest of the world is not obliged to sacrifice sovereign states to assuage Putin's feelings. He doesn't get to say 'it's your fault for making me angry if you don't give me what I want'.
It's textbook gaslighting; " we had to invade you because you wanted to join NATO and the EU. You might be upset now but one day you'll thank us for it, it's for you own good".
I have finally tracked down the article that Hitchins was quoting about ‘Russia being provoked.’ It was not easy because not only was what he quoted rather inaccurate but it was so ripped out of context anyway as to actually reverse the meaning of what was said.
Here are Kagan’s very precise words:
Although it is obscene to blame the United States for Putin’s inhumane attack on Ukraine, to insist that the invasion was entirely unprovoked is misleading. Just as Pearl Harbor was the consequence of U.S. efforts to blunt Japanese expansion on the Asian mainland, and just as the 9/11 attacks were partly a response to the United States’ dominant presence in the Middle East after the first Gulf War, so Russian decisions have been a response to the expanding post–Cold War hegemony of the United States and its allies in Europe. Putin alone is to blame for his actions, but the invasion of Ukraine is taking place in a historical and geopolitical context in which the United States has played and still plays the principal role, and Americans must grapple with this fact
The thrust of the article is that Putin was provoked by his inability to deal with how much the Russians were hated in their traditional sphere of influence, as demonstrated by the collapse of the Yanukovych government and the desperation of Eastern European states to join NATO as a guarantee against a relapse. He argues that the key provocation was how the United States’ response was clumsy and chaotic leading Russia and now China to think they could keep getting away with their crimes.
This was of course seized on by Kremlin propagandists and anti-American twits like Hitchins who claimed Kagan said the US provoked the invasion of Ukraine - when in fact he was saying pretty much the exact opposite.
So basically - Hitchins either lied, or is so stupid he should not be allowed near a keyboard. Or both, of course.
Hitchens is not stupid, so one should conclude that he is a deliberate liar.
One can only speculate as to why he would want to lie for Putin.
Well I have met Peter Hitchens socially a few times, and I have to say he does, at times, seem a little... slow.
I’ve always liked the “the Japanese were provoked” argument for WWII
Yes, the Americans and others cut off oil and steel supplies (among other things) - not an embargo, but refusing to sell. Refusing to sell to a country that was using these materials to attack an ally of the US (China) and threatening to use them to attack the US itself and allied countries. For being friends with China.
So the US was supposed to sell oil and steel so the Japanese could build more Yamato class battleships to attack… the US?
The bad joke is that the Japanese invasion of South East Asia netted them *three* shipments of oil from the conquered territories
There never was a Japanese war strategy. The Kwantung Army was defeated in Siberia, the war in China was going nowhere, and the navy wanted to show that it could do better than the army. After Midway, Japan had lost.
I'm trying to think of a WWII naval encounter between Allies and Axis that was decided by gunnery alone.
Struggling beyond the Battle of the River Plate.
You could argue the hunt for the Bismarck was, but that was ultimately settled by aircraft.
I have finally tracked down the article that Hitchins was quoting about ‘Russia being provoked.’ It was not easy because not only was what he quoted rather inaccurate but it was so ripped out of context anyway as to actually reverse the meaning of what was said.
Here are Kagan’s very precise words:
Although it is obscene to blame the United States for Putin’s inhumane attack on Ukraine, to insist that the invasion was entirely unprovoked is misleading. Just as Pearl Harbor was the consequence of U.S. efforts to blunt Japanese expansion on the Asian mainland, and just as the 9/11 attacks were partly a response to the United States’ dominant presence in the Middle East after the first Gulf War, so Russian decisions have been a response to the expanding post–Cold War hegemony of the United States and its allies in Europe. Putin alone is to blame for his actions, but the invasion of Ukraine is taking place in a historical and geopolitical context in which the United States has played and still plays the principal role, and Americans must grapple with this fact
The thrust of the article is that Putin was provoked by his inability to deal with how much the Russians were hated in their traditional sphere of influence, as demonstrated by the collapse of the Yanukovych government and the desperation of Eastern European states to join NATO as a guarantee against a relapse. He argues that the key provocation was how the United States’ response was clumsy and chaotic leading Russia and now China to think they could keep getting away with their crimes.
This was of course seized on by Kremlin propagandists and anti-American twits like Hitchins who claimed Kagan said the US provoked the invasion of Ukraine - when in fact he was saying pretty much the exact opposite.
So basically - Hitchins either lied, or is so stupid he should not be allowed near a keyboard. Or both, of course.
Hitchens is not stupid, so one should conclude that he is a deliberate liar.
One can only speculate as to why he would want to lie for Putin.
Well I have met Peter Hitchens socially a few times, and I have to say he does, at times, seem a little... slow.
I’ve always liked the “the Japanese were provoked” argument for WWII
Yes, the Americans and others cut off oil and steel supplies (among other things) - not an embargo, but refusing to sell. Refusing to sell to a country that was using these materials to attack an ally of the US (China) and threatening to use them to attack the US itself and allied countries. For being friends with China.
So the US was supposed to sell oil and steel so the Japanese could build more Yamato class battleships to attack… the US?
The bad joke is that the Japanese invasion of South East Asia netted them *three* shipments of oil from the conquered territories
There never was a Japanese war strategy. The Kwantung Army was defeated in Siberia, the war in China was going nowhere, and the navy wanted to show that it could do better than the army. After Midway, Japan had lost.
I'm trying to think of a WWII naval encounter between Allies and Axis that was decided by gunnery alone.
Struggling beyond the Battle of the River Plate.
You could argue the hunt for the Bismarck was, but that was ultimately settled by aircraft.
Narvik?
Oh, that's a point.
We actually did rather well at that and basically wiped out half the surface fleet of the Kriegsmarine.
One of PB’s quaint traditions is History-Today style discussions of military encounters on WW2. I learn a lot from them.
My grandfather was on HMS Dorsetshire during the battle of the Bismarck. He spoke of the sickening sight of hundreds of German crew being left to drown after the ships withdrew for fear of u-boats.
Narvik had a key role played by the spotter Swordfish from HMS Warspite, which provided advanced warning of all the Kriegsmarine destroyers, and itself dive-bombed and sunk a submarine. So that depends on the level of aeroplace involvement.
Also lots of torpedos used. Albeit a lot of the German ones from submarines wnet phut, just like the American ones. The poor Uboot commander had lots of opportunities to sink battleships, and his torpedos all failed to work.
The sinking of HMS Glorious didn't involve aircraft. Even though she was an aircraft carrier.
Or the Courageous. Or the Ark Royal. Or the Shinano.
I have finally tracked down the article that Hitchins was quoting about ‘Russia being provoked.’ It was not easy because not only was what he quoted rather inaccurate but it was so ripped out of context anyway as to actually reverse the meaning of what was said.
Here are Kagan’s very precise words:
Although it is obscene to blame the United States for Putin’s inhumane attack on Ukraine, to insist that the invasion was entirely unprovoked is misleading. Just as Pearl Harbor was the consequence of U.S. efforts to blunt Japanese expansion on the Asian mainland, and just as the 9/11 attacks were partly a response to the United States’ dominant presence in the Middle East after the first Gulf War, so Russian decisions have been a response to the expanding post–Cold War hegemony of the United States and its allies in Europe. Putin alone is to blame for his actions, but the invasion of Ukraine is taking place in a historical and geopolitical context in which the United States has played and still plays the principal role, and Americans must grapple with this fact
The thrust of the article is that Putin was provoked by his inability to deal with how much the Russians were hated in their traditional sphere of influence, as demonstrated by the collapse of the Yanukovych government and the desperation of Eastern European states to join NATO as a guarantee against a relapse. He argues that the key provocation was how the United States’ response was clumsy and chaotic leading Russia and now China to think they could keep getting away with their crimes.
This was of course seized on by Kremlin propagandists and anti-American twits like Hitchins who claimed Kagan said the US provoked the invasion of Ukraine - when in fact he was saying pretty much the exact opposite.
So basically - Hitchins either lied, or is so stupid he should not be allowed near a keyboard. Or both, of course.
Hitchens is not stupid, so one should conclude that he is a deliberate liar.
One can only speculate as to why he would want to lie for Putin.
He isn't lying.
The guy said "Russian decisions have been a response to the expanding post–Cold War hegemony of the United States and its allies in Europe."
So he reacted much the same way that the US did when Kruschev decided to put missiles in Cuba.
Don't be a twat. He threw a strop over Ukraine wanting to join the EU. Which had nothing to do with US 'hegemony'.
And the Bag of Pigs, and Kruschev's ill considered move, were sixty years ago.
Was Kruschev's move "ill-considered"? It was, in my view, a strategic victory for the Soviets. It resulted in the protection of Cuba and the removal of US nuclear missiles from the Mediterranean.
But this 'Putin was provoked' argument is basically wife-beater excuses. Whether he felt provoked or not, the rest of the world is not obliged to sacrifice sovereign states to assuage Putin's feelings. He doesn't get to say 'it's your fault for making me angry if you don't give me what I want'.
It's astonishing to me how many people believe he does get to do that, and reject the idea that in supporting his reasoning they are not justifying it.
You can say you are not justifying something, but if your words have that effect then it is what it is.
Gabriel Milland @gabrielmilland · 1h That awkward moment when you discover the idyllic bit of rural France where you booked the lovely gîte for this summer just voted massively for the fascists.
I have finally tracked down the article that Hitchins was quoting about ‘Russia being provoked.’ It was not easy because not only was what he quoted rather inaccurate but it was so ripped out of context anyway as to actually reverse the meaning of what was said.
Here are Kagan’s very precise words:
Although it is obscene to blame the United States for Putin’s inhumane attack on Ukraine, to insist that the invasion was entirely unprovoked is misleading. Just as Pearl Harbor was the consequence of U.S. efforts to blunt Japanese expansion on the Asian mainland, and just as the 9/11 attacks were partly a response to the United States’ dominant presence in the Middle East after the first Gulf War, so Russian decisions have been a response to the expanding post–Cold War hegemony of the United States and its allies in Europe. Putin alone is to blame for his actions, but the invasion of Ukraine is taking place in a historical and geopolitical context in which the United States has played and still plays the principal role, and Americans must grapple with this fact
The thrust of the article is that Putin was provoked by his inability to deal with how much the Russians were hated in their traditional sphere of influence, as demonstrated by the collapse of the Yanukovych government and the desperation of Eastern European states to join NATO as a guarantee against a relapse. He argues that the key provocation was how the United States’ response was clumsy and chaotic leading Russia and now China to think they could keep getting away with their crimes.
This was of course seized on by Kremlin propagandists and anti-American twits like Hitchins who claimed Kagan said the US provoked the invasion of Ukraine - when in fact he was saying pretty much the exact opposite.
So basically - Hitchins either lied, or is so stupid he should not be allowed near a keyboard. Or both, of course.
Hitchens is not stupid, so one should conclude that he is a deliberate liar.
One can only speculate as to why he would want to lie for Putin.
Well I have met Peter Hitchens socially a few times, and I have to say he does, at times, seem a little... slow.
I’ve always liked the “the Japanese were provoked” argument for WWII
Yes, the Americans and others cut off oil and steel supplies (among other things) - not an embargo, but refusing to sell. Refusing to sell to a country that was using these materials to attack an ally of the US (China) and threatening to use them to attack the US itself and allied countries. For being friends with China.
So the US was supposed to sell oil and steel so the Japanese could build more Yamato class battleships to attack… the US?
The bad joke is that the Japanese invasion of South East Asia netted them *three* shipments of oil from the conquered territories
There never was a Japanese war strategy. The Kwantung Army was defeated in Siberia, the war in China was going nowhere, and the navy wanted to show that it could do better than the army. After Midway, Japan had lost.
I'm trying to think of a WWII naval encounter between Allies and Axis that was decided by gunnery alone.
Struggling beyond the Battle of the River Plate.
You could argue the hunt for the Bismarck was, but that was ultimately settled by aircraft.
I have finally tracked down the article that Hitchins was quoting about ‘Russia being provoked.’ It was not easy because not only was what he quoted rather inaccurate but it was so ripped out of context anyway as to actually reverse the meaning of what was said.
Here are Kagan’s very precise words:
Although it is obscene to blame the United States for Putin’s inhumane attack on Ukraine, to insist that the invasion was entirely unprovoked is misleading. Just as Pearl Harbor was the consequence of U.S. efforts to blunt Japanese expansion on the Asian mainland, and just as the 9/11 attacks were partly a response to the United States’ dominant presence in the Middle East after the first Gulf War, so Russian decisions have been a response to the expanding post–Cold War hegemony of the United States and its allies in Europe. Putin alone is to blame for his actions, but the invasion of Ukraine is taking place in a historical and geopolitical context in which the United States has played and still plays the principal role, and Americans must grapple with this fact
The thrust of the article is that Putin was provoked by his inability to deal with how much the Russians were hated in their traditional sphere of influence, as demonstrated by the collapse of the Yanukovych government and the desperation of Eastern European states to join NATO as a guarantee against a relapse. He argues that the key provocation was how the United States’ response was clumsy and chaotic leading Russia and now China to think they could keep getting away with their crimes.
This was of course seized on by Kremlin propagandists and anti-American twits like Hitchins who claimed Kagan said the US provoked the invasion of Ukraine - when in fact he was saying pretty much the exact opposite.
So basically - Hitchins either lied, or is so stupid he should not be allowed near a keyboard. Or both, of course.
Hitchens is not stupid, so one should conclude that he is a deliberate liar.
One can only speculate as to why he would want to lie for Putin.
Well I have met Peter Hitchens socially a few times, and I have to say he does, at times, seem a little... slow.
I’ve always liked the “the Japanese were provoked” argument for WWII
Yes, the Americans and others cut off oil and steel supplies (among other things) - not an embargo, but refusing to sell. Refusing to sell to a country that was using these materials to attack an ally of the US (China) and threatening to use them to attack the US itself and allied countries. For being friends with China.
So the US was supposed to sell oil and steel so the Japanese could build more Yamato class battleships to attack… the US?
The bad joke is that the Japanese invasion of South East Asia netted them *three* shipments of oil from the conquered territories
There never was a Japanese war strategy. The Kwantung Army was defeated in Siberia, the war in China was going nowhere, and the navy wanted to show that it could do better than the army. After Midway, Japan had lost.
I'm trying to think of a WWII naval encounter between Allies and Axis that was decided by gunnery alone.
Struggling beyond the Battle of the River Plate.
You could argue the hunt for the Bismarck was, but that was ultimately settled by aircraft.
I have finally tracked down the article that Hitchins was quoting about ‘Russia being provoked.’ It was not easy because not only was what he quoted rather inaccurate but it was so ripped out of context anyway as to actually reverse the meaning of what was said.
Here are Kagan’s very precise words:
Although it is obscene to blame the United States for Putin’s inhumane attack on Ukraine, to insist that the invasion was entirely unprovoked is misleading. Just as Pearl Harbor was the consequence of U.S. efforts to blunt Japanese expansion on the Asian mainland, and just as the 9/11 attacks were partly a response to the United States’ dominant presence in the Middle East after the first Gulf War, so Russian decisions have been a response to the expanding post–Cold War hegemony of the United States and its allies in Europe. Putin alone is to blame for his actions, but the invasion of Ukraine is taking place in a historical and geopolitical context in which the United States has played and still plays the principal role, and Americans must grapple with this fact
The thrust of the article is that Putin was provoked by his inability to deal with how much the Russians were hated in their traditional sphere of influence, as demonstrated by the collapse of the Yanukovych government and the desperation of Eastern European states to join NATO as a guarantee against a relapse. He argues that the key provocation was how the United States’ response was clumsy and chaotic leading Russia and now China to think they could keep getting away with their crimes.
This was of course seized on by Kremlin propagandists and anti-American twits like Hitchins who claimed Kagan said the US provoked the invasion of Ukraine - when in fact he was saying pretty much the exact opposite.
So basically - Hitchins either lied, or is so stupid he should not be allowed near a keyboard. Or both, of course.
Hitchens is not stupid, so one should conclude that he is a deliberate liar.
One can only speculate as to why he would want to lie for Putin.
He isn't lying.
The guy said "Russian decisions have been a response to the expanding post–Cold War hegemony of the United States and its allies in Europe."
So he reacted much the same way that the US did when Kruschev decided to put missiles in Cuba.
Don't be a twat. He threw a strop over Ukraine wanting to join the EU. Which had nothing to do with US 'hegemony'.
And the Bag of Pigs, and Kruschev's ill considered move, were sixty years ago.
Was Kruschev's move "ill-considered"? It was, in my view, a strategic victory for the Soviets. It resulted in the protection of Cuba and the removal of US nuclear missiles from the Mediterranean.
Also, the Bay of Pigs episode was more akin to Putin's earlier interventions in Ukraine, using supported proxy forces to enable a veneer of deniability about it being a direct intervention. Not justified but equally not the all-out invasion of Feb 2022.
But this 'Putin was provoked' argument is basically wife-beater excuses. Whether he felt provoked or not, the rest of the world is not obliged to sacrifice sovereign states to assuage Putin's feelings. He doesn't get to say 'it's your fault for making me angry if you don't give me what I want'.
You say "wife"; MisterBedfordshite says "sphere of influence".
Sadly though I think we’re going to struggle to ignore this vein of thinking in the West in the next few years.
Putin and his BRICS friends represent a certain sort of lost masculinity, the certainty and mental surrender you get with the authoritarian strongman, and it’s quite appealing in a world that seems to be dissolving into chaos. And not good hard traditional chaos, but ambiguous, soft, confusingly digital chaos.
I have finally tracked down the article that Hitchins was quoting about ‘Russia being provoked.’ It was not easy because not only was what he quoted rather inaccurate but it was so ripped out of context anyway as to actually reverse the meaning of what was said.
Here are Kagan’s very precise words:
Although it is obscene to blame the United States for Putin’s inhumane attack on Ukraine, to insist that the invasion was entirely unprovoked is misleading. Just as Pearl Harbor was the consequence of U.S. efforts to blunt Japanese expansion on the Asian mainland, and just as the 9/11 attacks were partly a response to the United States’ dominant presence in the Middle East after the first Gulf War, so Russian decisions have been a response to the expanding post–Cold War hegemony of the United States and its allies in Europe. Putin alone is to blame for his actions, but the invasion of Ukraine is taking place in a historical and geopolitical context in which the United States has played and still plays the principal role, and Americans must grapple with this fact
The thrust of the article is that Putin was provoked by his inability to deal with how much the Russians were hated in their traditional sphere of influence, as demonstrated by the collapse of the Yanukovych government and the desperation of Eastern European states to join NATO as a guarantee against a relapse. He argues that the key provocation was how the United States’ response was clumsy and chaotic leading Russia and now China to think they could keep getting away with their crimes.
This was of course seized on by Kremlin propagandists and anti-American twits like Hitchins who claimed Kagan said the US provoked the invasion of Ukraine - when in fact he was saying pretty much the exact opposite.
So basically - Hitchins either lied, or is so stupid he should not be allowed near a keyboard. Or both, of course.
Hitchens is not stupid, so one should conclude that he is a deliberate liar.
One can only speculate as to why he would want to lie for Putin.
Well I have met Peter Hitchens socially a few times, and I have to say he does, at times, seem a little... slow.
I’ve always liked the “the Japanese were provoked” argument for WWII
Yes, the Americans and others cut off oil and steel supplies (among other things) - not an embargo, but refusing to sell. Refusing to sell to a country that was using these materials to attack an ally of the US (China) and threatening to use them to attack the US itself and allied countries. For being friends with China.
So the US was supposed to sell oil and steel so the Japanese could build more Yamato class battleships to attack… the US?
The bad joke is that the Japanese invasion of South East Asia netted them *three* shipments of oil from the conquered territories
There never was a Japanese war strategy. The Kwantung Army was defeated in Siberia, the war in China was going nowhere, and the navy wanted to show that it could do better than the army. After Midway, Japan had lost.
I'm trying to think of a WWII naval encounter between Allies and Axis that was decided by gunnery alone.
Struggling beyond the Battle of the River Plate.
You could argue the hunt for the Bismarck was, but that was ultimately settled by aircraft.
I have finally tracked down the article that Hitchins was quoting about ‘Russia being provoked.’ It was not easy because not only was what he quoted rather inaccurate but it was so ripped out of context anyway as to actually reverse the meaning of what was said.
Here are Kagan’s very precise words:
Although it is obscene to blame the United States for Putin’s inhumane attack on Ukraine, to insist that the invasion was entirely unprovoked is misleading. Just as Pearl Harbor was the consequence of U.S. efforts to blunt Japanese expansion on the Asian mainland, and just as the 9/11 attacks were partly a response to the United States’ dominant presence in the Middle East after the first Gulf War, so Russian decisions have been a response to the expanding post–Cold War hegemony of the United States and its allies in Europe. Putin alone is to blame for his actions, but the invasion of Ukraine is taking place in a historical and geopolitical context in which the United States has played and still plays the principal role, and Americans must grapple with this fact
The thrust of the article is that Putin was provoked by his inability to deal with how much the Russians were hated in their traditional sphere of influence, as demonstrated by the collapse of the Yanukovych government and the desperation of Eastern European states to join NATO as a guarantee against a relapse. He argues that the key provocation was how the United States’ response was clumsy and chaotic leading Russia and now China to think they could keep getting away with their crimes.
This was of course seized on by Kremlin propagandists and anti-American twits like Hitchins who claimed Kagan said the US provoked the invasion of Ukraine - when in fact he was saying pretty much the exact opposite.
So basically - Hitchins either lied, or is so stupid he should not be allowed near a keyboard. Or both, of course.
Hitchens is not stupid, so one should conclude that he is a deliberate liar.
One can only speculate as to why he would want to lie for Putin.
Well I have met Peter Hitchens socially a few times, and I have to say he does, at times, seem a little... slow.
I’ve always liked the “the Japanese were provoked” argument for WWII
Yes, the Americans and others cut off oil and steel supplies (among other things) - not an embargo, but refusing to sell. Refusing to sell to a country that was using these materials to attack an ally of the US (China) and threatening to use them to attack the US itself and allied countries. For being friends with China.
So the US was supposed to sell oil and steel so the Japanese could build more Yamato class battleships to attack… the US?
The bad joke is that the Japanese invasion of South East Asia netted them *three* shipments of oil from the conquered territories
There never was a Japanese war strategy. The Kwantung Army was defeated in Siberia, the war in China was going nowhere, and the navy wanted to show that it could do better than the army. After Midway, Japan had lost.
I'm trying to think of a WWII naval encounter between Allies and Axis that was decided by gunnery alone.
Struggling beyond the Battle of the River Plate.
You could argue the hunt for the Bismarck was, but that was ultimately settled by aircraft.
Narvik?
Oh, that's a point.
We actually did rather well at that and basically wiped out half the surface fleet of the Kriegsmarine.
One of PB’s quaint traditions is History-Today style discussions of military encounters on WW2. I learn a lot from them.
My grandfather was on HMS Dorsetshire during the battle of the Bismarck. He spoke of the sickening sight of hundreds of German crew being left to drown after the ships withdrew for fear of u-boats.
Narvik had a key role played by the spotter Swordfish from HMS Warspite, which provided advanced warning of all the Kriegsmarine destroyers, and itself dive-bombed and sunk a submarine. So that depends on the level of aeroplace involvement.
Also lots of torpedos used. Albeit a lot of the German ones from submarines wnet phut, just like the American ones. The poor Uboot commander had lots of opportunities to sink battleships, and his torpedos all failed to work.
The sinking of HMS Glorious didn't involve aircraft. Even though she was an aircraft carrier.
Or the Courageous. Or the Ark Royal. Or the Shinano.
TBF CR did specify gunnery, certainly for the decisive element as opposed to finishing off.
I have finally tracked down the article that Hitchins was quoting about ‘Russia being provoked.’ It was not easy because not only was what he quoted rather inaccurate but it was so ripped out of context anyway as to actually reverse the meaning of what was said.
Here are Kagan’s very precise words:
Although it is obscene to blame the United States for Putin’s inhumane attack on Ukraine, to insist that the invasion was entirely unprovoked is misleading. Just as Pearl Harbor was the consequence of U.S. efforts to blunt Japanese expansion on the Asian mainland, and just as the 9/11 attacks were partly a response to the United States’ dominant presence in the Middle East after the first Gulf War, so Russian decisions have been a response to the expanding post–Cold War hegemony of the United States and its allies in Europe. Putin alone is to blame for his actions, but the invasion of Ukraine is taking place in a historical and geopolitical context in which the United States has played and still plays the principal role, and Americans must grapple with this fact
The thrust of the article is that Putin was provoked by his inability to deal with how much the Russians were hated in their traditional sphere of influence, as demonstrated by the collapse of the Yanukovych government and the desperation of Eastern European states to join NATO as a guarantee against a relapse. He argues that the key provocation was how the United States’ response was clumsy and chaotic leading Russia and now China to think they could keep getting away with their crimes.
This was of course seized on by Kremlin propagandists and anti-American twits like Hitchins who claimed Kagan said the US provoked the invasion of Ukraine - when in fact he was saying pretty much the exact opposite.
So basically - Hitchins either lied, or is so stupid he should not be allowed near a keyboard. Or both, of course.
Hitchens is not stupid, so one should conclude that he is a deliberate liar.
One can only speculate as to why he would want to lie for Putin.
Well I have met Peter Hitchens socially a few times, and I have to say he does, at times, seem a little... slow.
I’ve always liked the “the Japanese were provoked” argument for WWII
Yes, the Americans and others cut off oil and steel supplies (among other things) - not an embargo, but refusing to sell. Refusing to sell to a country that was using these materials to attack an ally of the US (China) and threatening to use them to attack the US itself and allied countries. For being friends with China.
So the US was supposed to sell oil and steel so the Japanese could build more Yamato class battleships to attack… the US?
The bad joke is that the Japanese invasion of South East Asia netted them *three* shipments of oil from the conquered territories
There never was a Japanese war strategy. The Kwantung Army was defeated in Siberia, the war in China was going nowhere, and the navy wanted to show that it could do better than the army. After Midway, Japan had lost.
I'm trying to think of a WWII naval encounter between Allies and Axis that was decided by gunnery alone.
Struggling beyond the Battle of the River Plate.
You could argue the hunt for the Bismarck was, but that was ultimately settled by aircraft.
Narvik?
Oh, that's a point.
We actually did rather well at that and basically wiped out half the surface fleet of the Kriegsmarine.
One of PB’s quaint traditions is History-Today style discussions of military encounters on WW2. I learn a lot from them.
My grandfather was on HMS Dorsetshire during the battle of the Bismarck. He spoke of the sickening sight of hundreds of German crew being left to drown after the ships withdrew for fear of u-boats.
Narvik had a key role played by the spotter Swordfish from HMS Warspite, which provided advanced warning of all the Kriegsmarine destroyers, and itself dive-bombed and sunk a submarine. So that depends on the level of aeroplace involvement.
Also lots of torpedos used. Albeit a lot of the German ones from submarines wnet phut, just like the American ones. The poor Uboot commander had lots of opportunities to sink battleships, and his torpedos all failed to work.
The sinking of HMS Glorious didn't involve aircraft. Even though she was an aircraft carrier.
Or the Courageous. Or the Ark Royal. Or the Shinano.
I don't think one ship counts as a battle unless it is the entire force, and the chap did say "gunfire" .
My gut is that the French legislature is going to be a mess after this, because most EM voters will go Popular Front in the second round, while most LR voters will go RN. That almost certainly leaves the RN as the largest party by a margin, but on a similar number of seats to PF + EM.
It's 289 for a majority, and I suspect RN will end up on about 250-260, with 160-170 for the Popular Front and 80-90 for En Marche. And the remainder being a few Les Republicans, far leftists and the like.
It's *possible* that RN + LR is 289, but Les Republicans could easily end up with a dozen seats or less. In which case, I really can't see any coalition that gets to 289.
Not quite as clear cut as that.
EM voters would also go for LR candidates over Popular Front most likely and LR voters would largely go for EM over RN or Popular Front.
Though yes EM voters would go for Popular Front over RN normally and LR voters RN over Popular Front.
LR won't back RN even if Kingmakers, nor would they back Popular Front, the Ciotti LR faction that backed RN has been forced out of the party and stood with RN on a joint pact.
While RN likely win most seats again after round 2 they may still fall short of a majority while EM + LR could overtake the Popular Front for second
Gabriel Milland @gabrielmilland · 1h That awkward moment when you discover the idyllic bit of rural France where you booked the lovely gîte for this summer just voted massively for the fascists.
I thought ScottP and Steve Bray were their only readers.
Steve Bray can read?
There are some interesting twitter comments on Steve Bray's previous business exploits which I shall not repeat for fear of legal action. Let's just say he's no stranger to spotting a trend and latching into it for monetary gain.
I have finally tracked down the article that Hitchins was quoting about ‘Russia being provoked.’ It was not easy because not only was what he quoted rather inaccurate but it was so ripped out of context anyway as to actually reverse the meaning of what was said.
Here are Kagan’s very precise words:
Although it is obscene to blame the United States for Putin’s inhumane attack on Ukraine, to insist that the invasion was entirely unprovoked is misleading. Just as Pearl Harbor was the consequence of U.S. efforts to blunt Japanese expansion on the Asian mainland, and just as the 9/11 attacks were partly a response to the United States’ dominant presence in the Middle East after the first Gulf War, so Russian decisions have been a response to the expanding post–Cold War hegemony of the United States and its allies in Europe. Putin alone is to blame for his actions, but the invasion of Ukraine is taking place in a historical and geopolitical context in which the United States has played and still plays the principal role, and Americans must grapple with this fact
The thrust of the article is that Putin was provoked by his inability to deal with how much the Russians were hated in their traditional sphere of influence, as demonstrated by the collapse of the Yanukovych government and the desperation of Eastern European states to join NATO as a guarantee against a relapse. He argues that the key provocation was how the United States’ response was clumsy and chaotic leading Russia and now China to think they could keep getting away with their crimes.
This was of course seized on by Kremlin propagandists and anti-American twits like Hitchins who claimed Kagan said the US provoked the invasion of Ukraine - when in fact he was saying pretty much the exact opposite.
So basically - Hitchins either lied, or is so stupid he should not be allowed near a keyboard. Or both, of course.
Hitchens is not stupid, so one should conclude that he is a deliberate liar.
One can only speculate as to why he would want to lie for Putin.
He isn't lying.
The guy said "Russian decisions have been a response to the expanding post–Cold War hegemony of the United States and its allies in Europe."
So he reacted much the same way that the US did when Kruschev decided to put missiles in Cuba.
Don't be a twat. He threw a strop over Ukraine wanting to join the EU. Which had nothing to do with US 'hegemony'.
And the Bag of Pigs, and Kruschev's ill considered move, were sixty years ago.
Was Kruschev's move "ill-considered"? It was, in my view, a strategic victory for the Soviets. It resulted in the protection of Cuba and the removal of US nuclear missiles from the Mediterranean.
Also, the Bay of Pigs episode was more akin to Putin's earlier interventions in Ukraine, using supported proxy forces to enable a veneer of deniability about it being a direct intervention. Not justified but equally not the all-out invasion of Feb 2022.
But this 'Putin was provoked' argument is basically wife-beater excuses. Whether he felt provoked or not, the rest of the world is not obliged to sacrifice sovereign states to assuage Putin's feelings. He doesn't get to say 'it's your fault for making me angry if you don't give me what I want'.
It's textbook gaslighting; " we had to invade you because you wanted to join NATO and the EU. You might be upset now but one day you'll thank us for it, it's for you own good".
Here’s to clubs of democratic countries that exist by consent, mutual support and economic self-interest, and don’t rely on bullying to grow their membership. NATO, the EU, and the OECD.
Fuck it, here’s to the bloody WEF. I’d rather my leaders were spending a week a year in Davos than going on state visits to North Korea to beg for shells.
I have finally tracked down the article that Hitchins was quoting about ‘Russia being provoked.’ It was not easy because not only was what he quoted rather inaccurate but it was so ripped out of context anyway as to actually reverse the meaning of what was said.
Here are Kagan’s very precise words:
Although it is obscene to blame the United States for Putin’s inhumane attack on Ukraine, to insist that the invasion was entirely unprovoked is misleading. Just as Pearl Harbor was the consequence of U.S. efforts to blunt Japanese expansion on the Asian mainland, and just as the 9/11 attacks were partly a response to the United States’ dominant presence in the Middle East after the first Gulf War, so Russian decisions have been a response to the expanding post–Cold War hegemony of the United States and its allies in Europe. Putin alone is to blame for his actions, but the invasion of Ukraine is taking place in a historical and geopolitical context in which the United States has played and still plays the principal role, and Americans must grapple with this fact
The thrust of the article is that Putin was provoked by his inability to deal with how much the Russians were hated in their traditional sphere of influence, as demonstrated by the collapse of the Yanukovych government and the desperation of Eastern European states to join NATO as a guarantee against a relapse. He argues that the key provocation was how the United States’ response was clumsy and chaotic leading Russia and now China to think they could keep getting away with their crimes.
This was of course seized on by Kremlin propagandists and anti-American twits like Hitchins who claimed Kagan said the US provoked the invasion of Ukraine - when in fact he was saying pretty much the exact opposite.
So basically - Hitchins either lied, or is so stupid he should not be allowed near a keyboard. Or both, of course.
Hitchens is not stupid, so one should conclude that he is a deliberate liar.
One can only speculate as to why he would want to lie for Putin.
Well I have met Peter Hitchens socially a few times, and I have to say he does, at times, seem a little... slow.
I’ve always liked the “the Japanese were provoked” argument for WWII
Yes, the Americans and others cut off oil and steel supplies (among other things) - not an embargo, but refusing to sell. Refusing to sell to a country that was using these materials to attack an ally of the US (China) and threatening to use them to attack the US itself and allied countries. For being friends with China.
So the US was supposed to sell oil and steel so the Japanese could build more Yamato class battleships to attack… the US?
The bad joke is that the Japanese invasion of South East Asia netted them *three* shipments of oil from the conquered territories
There never was a Japanese war strategy. The Kwantung Army was defeated in Siberia, the war in China was going nowhere, and the navy wanted to show that it could do better than the army. After Midway, Japan had lost.
I'm trying to think of a WWII naval encounter between Allies and Axis that was decided by gunnery alone.
Struggling beyond the Battle of the River Plate.
You could argue the hunt for the Bismarck was, but that was ultimately settled by aircraft.
Narvik?
Oh, that's a point.
We actually did rather well at that and basically wiped out half the surface fleet of the Kriegsmarine.
One of PB’s quaint traditions is History-Today style discussions of military encounters on WW2. I learn a lot from them.
My grandfather was on HMS Dorsetshire during the battle of the Bismarck. He spoke of the sickening sight of hundreds of German crew being left to drown after the ships withdrew for fear of u-boats.
Narvik had a key role played by the spotter Swordfish from HMS Warspite, which provided advanced warning of all the Kriegsmarine destroyers, and itself dive-bombed and sunk a submarine. So that depends on the level of aeroplace involvement.
Also lots of torpedos used. Albeit a lot of the German ones from submarines wnet phut, just like the American ones. The poor Uboot commander had lots of opportunities to sink battleships, and his torpedos all failed to work.
The sinking of HMS Glorious didn't involve aircraft. Even though she was an aircraft carrier.
Or the Courageous. Or the Ark Royal. Or the Shinano.
I don't think one ship counts as a battle, and the question was about "gunfire"
Add the attacks on the French Navy in harbour. And First Sirte.
My gut is that the French legislature is going to be a mess after this, because most EM voters will go Popular Front in the second round, while most LR voters will go RN. That almost certainly leaves the RN as the largest party by a margin, but on a similar number of seats to PF + EM.
It's 289 for a majority, and I suspect RN will end up on about 250-260, with 160-170 for the Popular Front and 80-90 for En Marche. And the remainder being a few Les Republicans, far leftists and the like.
It's *possible* that RN + LR is 289, but Les Republicans could easily end up with a dozen seats or less. In which case, I really can't see any coalition that gets to 289.
Not quite as clear cut as that.
EM voters would also go for LR candidates over Popular Front most likely and LR voters would largely go for EM over RN or Popular Front.
Though yes EM voters would go for Popular Front over RN normally and LR voters RN over Popular Front.
LR won't back RN even if Kingmakers, nor would they back Popular Front, the Ciotti LR faction that backed RN has been forced out of the party and stood with RN on a joint pact
I have finally tracked down the article that Hitchins was quoting about ‘Russia being provoked.’ It was not easy because not only was what he quoted rather inaccurate but it was so ripped out of context anyway as to actually reverse the meaning of what was said.
Here are Kagan’s very precise words:
Although it is obscene to blame the United States for Putin’s inhumane attack on Ukraine, to insist that the invasion was entirely unprovoked is misleading. Just as Pearl Harbor was the consequence of U.S. efforts to blunt Japanese expansion on the Asian mainland, and just as the 9/11 attacks were partly a response to the United States’ dominant presence in the Middle East after the first Gulf War, so Russian decisions have been a response to the expanding post–Cold War hegemony of the United States and its allies in Europe. Putin alone is to blame for his actions, but the invasion of Ukraine is taking place in a historical and geopolitical context in which the United States has played and still plays the principal role, and Americans must grapple with this fact
The thrust of the article is that Putin was provoked by his inability to deal with how much the Russians were hated in their traditional sphere of influence, as demonstrated by the collapse of the Yanukovych government and the desperation of Eastern European states to join NATO as a guarantee against a relapse. He argues that the key provocation was how the United States’ response was clumsy and chaotic leading Russia and now China to think they could keep getting away with their crimes.
This was of course seized on by Kremlin propagandists and anti-American twits like Hitchins who claimed Kagan said the US provoked the invasion of Ukraine - when in fact he was saying pretty much the exact opposite.
So basically - Hitchins either lied, or is so stupid he should not be allowed near a keyboard. Or both, of course.
Hitchens is not stupid, so one should conclude that he is a deliberate liar.
One can only speculate as to why he would want to lie for Putin.
Well I have met Peter Hitchens socially a few times, and I have to say he does, at times, seem a little... slow.
I’ve always liked the “the Japanese were provoked” argument for WWII
Yes, the Americans and others cut off oil and steel supplies (among other things) - not an embargo, but refusing to sell. Refusing to sell to a country that was using these materials to attack an ally of the US (China) and threatening to use them to attack the US itself and allied countries. For being friends with China.
So the US was supposed to sell oil and steel so the Japanese could build more Yamato class battleships to attack… the US?
The bad joke is that the Japanese invasion of South East Asia netted them *three* shipments of oil from the conquered territories
There never was a Japanese war strategy. The Kwantung Army was defeated in Siberia, the war in China was going nowhere, and the navy wanted to show that it could do better than the army. After Midway, Japan had lost.
I'm trying to think of a WWII naval encounter between Allies and Axis that was decided by gunnery alone.
Struggling beyond the Battle of the River Plate.
You could argue the hunt for the Bismarck was, but that was ultimately settled by aircraft.
Narvik?
Oh, that's a point.
We actually did rather well at that and basically wiped out half the surface fleet of the Kriegsmarine.
One of PB’s quaint traditions is History-Today style discussions of military encounters on WW2. I learn a lot from them.
My grandfather was on HMS Dorsetshire during the battle of the Bismarck. He spoke of the sickening sight of hundreds of German crew being left to drown after the ships withdrew for fear of u-boats.
Narvik had a key role played by the spotter Swordfish from HMS Warspite, which provided advanced warning of all the Kriegsmarine destroyers, and itself dive-bombed and sunk a submarine. So that depends on the level of aeroplace involvement.
Also lots of torpedos used. Albeit a lot of the German ones from submarines wnet phut, just like the American ones. The poor Uboot commander had lots of opportunities to sink battleships, and his torpedos all failed to work.
The sinking of HMS Glorious didn't involve aircraft. Even though she was an aircraft carrier.
Or the Courageous. Or the Ark Royal. Or the Shinano.
What I meant is that these aircraft carriers weren't sunk by aircraft either!
Gabriel Milland @gabrielmilland · 1h That awkward moment when you discover the idyllic bit of rural France where you booked the lovely gîte for this summer just voted massively for the fascists.
I thought ScottP and Steve Bray were their only readers.
Steve Bray can read?
There are some interesting twitter comments on Steve Bray's previous business exploits which I shall not repeat for fear of legal action. Let's just say he's no stranger to spotting a trend and latching into it for monetary gain.
I am hoping after Thursday all this backers will finally stop indugling his mad behaviour.
I have finally tracked down the article that Hitchins was quoting about ‘Russia being provoked.’ It was not easy because not only was what he quoted rather inaccurate but it was so ripped out of context anyway as to actually reverse the meaning of what was said.
Here are Kagan’s very precise words:
Although it is obscene to blame the United States for Putin’s inhumane attack on Ukraine, to insist that the invasion was entirely unprovoked is misleading. Just as Pearl Harbor was the consequence of U.S. efforts to blunt Japanese expansion on the Asian mainland, and just as the 9/11 attacks were partly a response to the United States’ dominant presence in the Middle East after the first Gulf War, so Russian decisions have been a response to the expanding post–Cold War hegemony of the United States and its allies in Europe. Putin alone is to blame for his actions, but the invasion of Ukraine is taking place in a historical and geopolitical context in which the United States has played and still plays the principal role, and Americans must grapple with this fact
The thrust of the article is that Putin was provoked by his inability to deal with how much the Russians were hated in their traditional sphere of influence, as demonstrated by the collapse of the Yanukovych government and the desperation of Eastern European states to join NATO as a guarantee against a relapse. He argues that the key provocation was how the United States’ response was clumsy and chaotic leading Russia and now China to think they could keep getting away with their crimes.
This was of course seized on by Kremlin propagandists and anti-American twits like Hitchins who claimed Kagan said the US provoked the invasion of Ukraine - when in fact he was saying pretty much the exact opposite.
So basically - Hitchins either lied, or is so stupid he should not be allowed near a keyboard. Or both, of course.
Hitchens is not stupid, so one should conclude that he is a deliberate liar.
One can only speculate as to why he would want to lie for Putin.
He isn't lying.
The guy said "Russian decisions have been a response to the expanding post–Cold War hegemony of the United States and its allies in Europe."
So he reacted much the same way that the US did when Kruschev decided to put missiles in Cuba.
Don't be a twat. He threw a strop over Ukraine wanting to join the EU. Which had nothing to do with US 'hegemony'.
And the Bag of Pigs, and Kruschev's ill considered move, were sixty years ago.
Was Kruschev's move "ill-considered"? It was, in my view, a strategic victory for the Soviets. It resulted in the protection of Cuba and the removal of US nuclear missiles from the Mediterranean.
Also, the Bay of Pigs episode was more akin to Putin's earlier interventions in Ukraine, using supported proxy forces to enable a veneer of deniability about it being a direct intervention. Not justified but equally not the all-out invasion of Feb 2022.
But this 'Putin was provoked' argument is basically wife-beater excuses. Whether he felt provoked or not, the rest of the world is not obliged to sacrifice sovereign states to assuage Putin's feelings. He doesn't get to say 'it's your fault for making me angry if you don't give me what I want'.
You say "wife"; MisterBedfordshite says "sphere of influence".
Sadly though I think we’re going to struggle to ignore this vein of thinking in the West in the next few years.
Putin and his BRICS friends represent a certain sort of lost masculinity, the certainty and mental surrender you get with the authoritarian strongman, and it’s quite appealing in a world that seems to be dissolving into chaos. And not good hard traditional chaos, but ambiguous, soft, confusingly digital chaos.
It's not a new train of thought. It's quite an old one. One that I think we should work towards outgrowing. We've made a lot of progress in the last 100 years. Clearly we've a little way to go still but arbitrated sovereignty is way better than imperialist spheres of influence as a model for international relations.
I have finally tracked down the article that Hitchins was quoting about ‘Russia being provoked.’ It was not easy because not only was what he quoted rather inaccurate but it was so ripped out of context anyway as to actually reverse the meaning of what was said.
Here are Kagan’s very precise words:
Although it is obscene to blame the United States for Putin’s inhumane attack on Ukraine, to insist that the invasion was entirely unprovoked is misleading. Just as Pearl Harbor was the consequence of U.S. efforts to blunt Japanese expansion on the Asian mainland, and just as the 9/11 attacks were partly a response to the United States’ dominant presence in the Middle East after the first Gulf War, so Russian decisions have been a response to the expanding post–Cold War hegemony of the United States and its allies in Europe. Putin alone is to blame for his actions, but the invasion of Ukraine is taking place in a historical and geopolitical context in which the United States has played and still plays the principal role, and Americans must grapple with this fact
The thrust of the article is that Putin was provoked by his inability to deal with how much the Russians were hated in their traditional sphere of influence, as demonstrated by the collapse of the Yanukovych government and the desperation of Eastern European states to join NATO as a guarantee against a relapse. He argues that the key provocation was how the United States’ response was clumsy and chaotic leading Russia and now China to think they could keep getting away with their crimes.
This was of course seized on by Kremlin propagandists and anti-American twits like Hitchins who claimed Kagan said the US provoked the invasion of Ukraine - when in fact he was saying pretty much the exact opposite.
So basically - Hitchins either lied, or is so stupid he should not be allowed near a keyboard. Or both, of course.
Hitchens is not stupid, so one should conclude that he is a deliberate liar.
One can only speculate as to why he would want to lie for Putin.
Well I have met Peter Hitchens socially a few times, and I have to say he does, at times, seem a little... slow.
I’ve always liked the “the Japanese were provoked” argument for WWII
Yes, the Americans and others cut off oil and steel supplies (among other things) - not an embargo, but refusing to sell. Refusing to sell to a country that was using these materials to attack an ally of the US (China) and threatening to use them to attack the US itself and allied countries. For being friends with China.
So the US was supposed to sell oil and steel so the Japanese could build more Yamato class battleships to attack… the US?
The bad joke is that the Japanese invasion of South East Asia netted them *three* shipments of oil from the conquered territories
There never was a Japanese war strategy. The Kwantung Army was defeated in Siberia, the war in China was going nowhere, and the navy wanted to show that it could do better than the army. After Midway, Japan had lost.
I'm trying to think of a WWII naval encounter between Allies and Axis that was decided by gunnery alone.
Struggling beyond the Battle of the River Plate.
You could argue the hunt for the Bismarck was, but that was ultimately settled by aircraft.
Narvik?
Oh, that's a point.
We actually did rather well at that and basically wiped out half the surface fleet of the Kriegsmarine.
Narvik is worth a visit and a trip down the fjords on a boat is well worthwhile. The bows of the Georg Thiele are above water and the wreck continues down. It’s a place with an awful lot of history which I wasn’t aware of until a few years ago.
Ed Davey on a water slide on the 10pm BBC news. Nowhere near high enough. A pitiful slide.
Come on Ed. Big finish.
I think he started too big, you need your stunts to get more and more outlandish. Water aerobics just doesn't cut it. We need Evil Knievel style jump over Cheddar Gorge, pulling wheelies in Monster trucks down the Mall or water skiing jumps over shark infested waters....
I have finally tracked down the article that Hitchins was quoting about ‘Russia being provoked.’ It was not easy because not only was what he quoted rather inaccurate but it was so ripped out of context anyway as to actually reverse the meaning of what was said.
Here are Kagan’s very precise words:
Although it is obscene to blame the United States for Putin’s inhumane attack on Ukraine, to insist that the invasion was entirely unprovoked is misleading. Just as Pearl Harbor was the consequence of U.S. efforts to blunt Japanese expansion on the Asian mainland, and just as the 9/11 attacks were partly a response to the United States’ dominant presence in the Middle East after the first Gulf War, so Russian decisions have been a response to the expanding post–Cold War hegemony of the United States and its allies in Europe. Putin alone is to blame for his actions, but the invasion of Ukraine is taking place in a historical and geopolitical context in which the United States has played and still plays the principal role, and Americans must grapple with this fact
The thrust of the article is that Putin was provoked by his inability to deal with how much the Russians were hated in their traditional sphere of influence, as demonstrated by the collapse of the Yanukovych government and the desperation of Eastern European states to join NATO as a guarantee against a relapse. He argues that the key provocation was how the United States’ response was clumsy and chaotic leading Russia and now China to think they could keep getting away with their crimes.
This was of course seized on by Kremlin propagandists and anti-American twits like Hitchins who claimed Kagan said the US provoked the invasion of Ukraine - when in fact he was saying pretty much the exact opposite.
So basically - Hitchins either lied, or is so stupid he should not be allowed near a keyboard. Or both, of course.
Hitchens is not stupid, so one should conclude that he is a deliberate liar.
One can only speculate as to why he would want to lie for Putin.
Well I have met Peter Hitchens socially a few times, and I have to say he does, at times, seem a little... slow.
I’ve always liked the “the Japanese were provoked” argument for WWII
Yes, the Americans and others cut off oil and steel supplies (among other things) - not an embargo, but refusing to sell. Refusing to sell to a country that was using these materials to attack an ally of the US (China) and threatening to use them to attack the US itself and allied countries. For being friends with China.
So the US was supposed to sell oil and steel so the Japanese could build more Yamato class battleships to attack… the US?
The bad joke is that the Japanese invasion of South East Asia netted them *three* shipments of oil from the conquered territories
There never was a Japanese war strategy. The Kwantung Army was defeated in Siberia, the war in China was going nowhere, and the navy wanted to show that it could do better than the army. After Midway, Japan had lost.
I'm trying to think of a WWII naval encounter between Allies and Axis that was decided by gunnery alone.
Struggling beyond the Battle of the River Plate.
You could argue the hunt for the Bismarck was, but that was ultimately settled by aircraft.
Narvik?
Oh, that's a point.
We actually did rather well at that and basically wiped out half the surface fleet of the Kriegsmarine.
One of PB’s quaint traditions is History-Today style discussions of military encounters on WW2. I learn a lot from them.
My grandfather was on HMS Dorsetshire during the battle of the Bismarck. He spoke of the sickening sight of hundreds of German crew being left to drown after the ships withdrew for fear of u-boats.
Narvik had a key role played by the spotter Swordfish from HMS Warspite, which provided advanced warning of all the Kriegsmarine destroyers, and itself dive-bombed and sunk a submarine. So that depends on the level of aeroplace involvement.
Also lots of torpedos used. Albeit a lot of the German ones from submarines wnet phut, just like the American ones. The poor Uboot commander had lots of opportunities to sink battleships, and his torpedos all failed to work.
The sinking of HMS Glorious didn't involve aircraft. Even though she was an aircraft carrier.
Or the Courageous. Or the Ark Royal. Or the Shinano.
I don't think one ship counts as a battle, and the question was about "gunfire"
Add the attacks on the French Navy in harbour. And First Sirte.
I'll give you First Sirte.
But I'll Appeal Mers-el-Kebir on the basis that (1) the forces were French not Axis as specified which I think holds, and which I think also holds (2) that Swordfish torpedo and mining planes were involved, which hit an ammo ship, which blew up and crippled a battleship *.
* Just like "Welcome to Town" sign in Destry Rides Again.
Gabriel Milland @gabrielmilland · 1h That awkward moment when you discover the idyllic bit of rural France where you booked the lovely gîte for this summer just voted massively for the fascists.
Rural areas are always more rightwing than the rest of the nation.
On Thursday the rump of Tory MPs remaining are likely to mainly represent rural areas and small market towns and even Clacton where Farage is likely to win includes a few rural villages like Weeley and St Osyth
I have finally tracked down the article that Hitchins was quoting about ‘Russia being provoked.’ It was not easy because not only was what he quoted rather inaccurate but it was so ripped out of context anyway as to actually reverse the meaning of what was said.
Here are Kagan’s very precise words:
Although it is obscene to blame the United States for Putin’s inhumane attack on Ukraine, to insist that the invasion was entirely unprovoked is misleading. Just as Pearl Harbor was the consequence of U.S. efforts to blunt Japanese expansion on the Asian mainland, and just as the 9/11 attacks were partly a response to the United States’ dominant presence in the Middle East after the first Gulf War, so Russian decisions have been a response to the expanding post–Cold War hegemony of the United States and its allies in Europe. Putin alone is to blame for his actions, but the invasion of Ukraine is taking place in a historical and geopolitical context in which the United States has played and still plays the principal role, and Americans must grapple with this fact
The thrust of the article is that Putin was provoked by his inability to deal with how much the Russians were hated in their traditional sphere of influence, as demonstrated by the collapse of the Yanukovych government and the desperation of Eastern European states to join NATO as a guarantee against a relapse. He argues that the key provocation was how the United States’ response was clumsy and chaotic leading Russia and now China to think they could keep getting away with their crimes.
This was of course seized on by Kremlin propagandists and anti-American twits like Hitchins who claimed Kagan said the US provoked the invasion of Ukraine - when in fact he was saying pretty much the exact opposite.
So basically - Hitchins either lied, or is so stupid he should not be allowed near a keyboard. Or both, of course.
Hitchens is not stupid, so one should conclude that he is a deliberate liar.
One can only speculate as to why he would want to lie for Putin.
He isn't lying.
The guy said "Russian decisions have been a response to the expanding post–Cold War hegemony of the United States and its allies in Europe."
So he reacted much the same way that the US did when Kruschev decided to put missiles in Cuba.
I don't recall the USA invading Cuba recently.
MrBed is incapable of seeing nations having their own interests beyond those of the U.S. and Russia, apparently.
A key feature of this position is denying the Ukrainians have their own agency. Zelensky is just a puppet of Washington/NATO etc.
All hegemonic imperial powers treat neighbouring states as their back yard.
Watch what happens if China set up PLA bases in Mexico. It wouldn't be pretty.
Its not just, its just reality.
Russia is a failing imperial power. That's the reality.
So is the US. But far less down the path. Crossover with China is coming. Much as there was Crossover between US and UK after WW1.
The question is will the UK just accept it (as the UK did) or will they go down with a big war, as is the norm.
Crossover with China seems much less likely now than it did a decade ago.
China has appalling demographics. Its birth rate is plummeting. Its crony capitalism is stifling innovation, and its aggressive foreign policy means it now has a harder time exporting. It’s an ethno-nationalist state with no meaningful working age immigration. It’s in the middle income trap.
The US has major problems of gun ownership, drug use, obesity and inequality, but it has decent demographics and much healthier immigration, and an extremely vibrant corporate sector. And it’s the world’s largest oil producer.
If the US goes down a protectionist route the Chinese are seriously stuffed. They are an import/export dependent economy. They are much more vulnerable than the US in a trade war.
Ed Davey on a water slide on the 10pm BBC news. Nowhere near high enough. A pitiful slide.
Come on Ed. Big finish.
I think he started too big, you need your stunts to get more and more outlandish. Water aerobics just doesn't cut it. We need Evil Knievel style jump over Cheddar Gorge, pulling wheelies in Monster trucks down the Mall or water skiing jumps over shark infested waters....
Yup. Motorcycle jump over three London buses, preferably on fire, or he won’t get my vote.
Perhaps Marine can do some walk on campaigning for Reform. Tell us we'll all be 'back of the queue' at Calais unless we elect new PM Nige!
The Marine / Nige relationship would be an interesting one.
I’ve noted before she has a sort of serious, severe demeanour which is somewhat different from the Boris/Farage/Trump/Wilders/Berlusconi/Orban style of male right wing populist. Would she see Farage as lightweight? I’ve not seen her interactions with foreign leaders enough to know. She seems a bit of a loner. I doubt she holds much of a candle for Steve Bannon for example, but I may be wrong. She is clearly different from Meloni - more pro-Russian and more “socialist” - but the two of them do seem to share a seriousness and ideological devoutness that their male fellow travellers lack.
Gabriel Milland @gabrielmilland · 1h That awkward moment when you discover the idyllic bit of rural France where you booked the lovely gîte for this summer just voted massively for the fascists.
Rural areas are always more rightwing than the rest of the nation.
On Thursday the rump of Tory MPs remaining are likely to mainly represent rural areas and small market towns and even Clacton where Farage is likely to win includes a few rural villages like Weeley and St Osyth
I have finally tracked down the article that Hitchins was quoting about ‘Russia being provoked.’ It was not easy because not only was what he quoted rather inaccurate but it was so ripped out of context anyway as to actually reverse the meaning of what was said.
Here are Kagan’s very precise words:
Although it is obscene to blame the United States for Putin’s inhumane attack on Ukraine, to insist that the invasion was entirely unprovoked is misleading. Just as Pearl Harbor was the consequence of U.S. efforts to blunt Japanese expansion on the Asian mainland, and just as the 9/11 attacks were partly a response to the United States’ dominant presence in the Middle East after the first Gulf War, so Russian decisions have been a response to the expanding post–Cold War hegemony of the United States and its allies in Europe. Putin alone is to blame for his actions, but the invasion of Ukraine is taking place in a historical and geopolitical context in which the United States has played and still plays the principal role, and Americans must grapple with this fact
The thrust of the article is that Putin was provoked by his inability to deal with how much the Russians were hated in their traditional sphere of influence, as demonstrated by the collapse of the Yanukovych government and the desperation of Eastern European states to join NATO as a guarantee against a relapse. He argues that the key provocation was how the United States’ response was clumsy and chaotic leading Russia and now China to think they could keep getting away with their crimes.
This was of course seized on by Kremlin propagandists and anti-American twits like Hitchins who claimed Kagan said the US provoked the invasion of Ukraine - when in fact he was saying pretty much the exact opposite.
So basically - Hitchins either lied, or is so stupid he should not be allowed near a keyboard. Or both, of course.
Hitchens is not stupid, so one should conclude that he is a deliberate liar.
One can only speculate as to why he would want to lie for Putin.
He isn't lying.
The guy said "Russian decisions have been a response to the expanding post–Cold War hegemony of the United States and its allies in Europe."
So he reacted much the same way that the US did when Kruschev decided to put missiles in Cuba.
Don't be a twat. He threw a strop over Ukraine wanting to join the EU. Which had nothing to do with US 'hegemony'.
And the Bag of Pigs, and Kruschev's ill considered move, were sixty years ago.
Was Kruschev's move "ill-considered"? It was, in my view, a strategic victory for the Soviets. It resulted in the protection of Cuba and the removal of US nuclear missiles from the Mediterranean.
Also, the Bay of Pigs episode was more akin to Putin's earlier interventions in Ukraine, using supported proxy forces to enable a veneer of deniability about it being a direct intervention. Not justified but equally not the all-out invasion of Feb 2022.
But this 'Putin was provoked' argument is basically wife-beater excuses. Whether he felt provoked or not, the rest of the world is not obliged to sacrifice sovereign states to assuage Putin's feelings. He doesn't get to say 'it's your fault for making me angry if you don't give me what I want'.
It's textbook gaslighting; " we had to invade you because you wanted to join NATO and the EU. You might be upset now but one day you'll thank us for it, it's for you own good".
Here’s to clubs of democratic countries that exist by consent, mutual support and economic self-interest, and don’t rely on bullying to grow their membership. NATO, the EU, and the OECD.
Fuck it, here’s to the bloody WEF. I’d rather my leaders were spending a week a year in Davos than going on state visits to North Korea to beg for shells.
At risk of being accused of being petty, here's one policy from the Reform Manifesto (calling it a contract doesn't make it less a manifesto).
Reject the influence of the World Economic Forum.
That's one of their 'First 100 days' policies, so it is obviously a critical one.
I have no idea what that influence is, since it doesn't say, or why it is so important.
I have finally tracked down the article that Hitchins was quoting about ‘Russia being provoked.’ It was not easy because not only was what he quoted rather inaccurate but it was so ripped out of context anyway as to actually reverse the meaning of what was said.
Here are Kagan’s very precise words:
Although it is obscene to blame the United States for Putin’s inhumane attack on Ukraine, to insist that the invasion was entirely unprovoked is misleading. Just as Pearl Harbor was the consequence of U.S. efforts to blunt Japanese expansion on the Asian mainland, and just as the 9/11 attacks were partly a response to the United States’ dominant presence in the Middle East after the first Gulf War, so Russian decisions have been a response to the expanding post–Cold War hegemony of the United States and its allies in Europe. Putin alone is to blame for his actions, but the invasion of Ukraine is taking place in a historical and geopolitical context in which the United States has played and still plays the principal role, and Americans must grapple with this fact
The thrust of the article is that Putin was provoked by his inability to deal with how much the Russians were hated in their traditional sphere of influence, as demonstrated by the collapse of the Yanukovych government and the desperation of Eastern European states to join NATO as a guarantee against a relapse. He argues that the key provocation was how the United States’ response was clumsy and chaotic leading Russia and now China to think they could keep getting away with their crimes.
This was of course seized on by Kremlin propagandists and anti-American twits like Hitchins who claimed Kagan said the US provoked the invasion of Ukraine - when in fact he was saying pretty much the exact opposite.
So basically - Hitchins either lied, or is so stupid he should not be allowed near a keyboard. Or both, of course.
Hitchens is not stupid, so one should conclude that he is a deliberate liar.
One can only speculate as to why he would want to lie for Putin.
He isn't lying.
The guy said "Russian decisions have been a response to the expanding post–Cold War hegemony of the United States and its allies in Europe."
So he reacted much the same way that the US did when Kruschev decided to put missiles in Cuba.
I don't recall the USA invading Cuba recently.
MrBed is incapable of seeing nations having their own interests beyond those of the U.S. and Russia, apparently.
A key feature of this position is denying the Ukrainians have their own agency. Zelensky is just a puppet of Washington/NATO etc.
All hegemonic imperial powers treat neighbouring states as their back yard.
Watch what happens if China set up PLA bases in Mexico. It wouldn't be pretty.
Its not just, its just reality.
Russia is a failing imperial power. That's the reality.
So is the US. But far less down the path. Crossover with China is coming. Much as there was Crossover between US and UK after WW1.
The question is will the UK just accept it (as the UK did) or will they go down with a big war, as is the norm.
Crossover with China seems much less likely now than it did a decade ago.
China has appalling demographics. Its birth rate is plummeting. Its crony capitalism is stifling innovation, and its aggressive foreign policy means it now has a harder time exporting. It’s an ethno-nationalist state with no meaningful working age immigration. It’s in the middle income trap.
The US has major problems of gun ownership, drug use, obesity and inequality, but it has decent demographics and much healthier immigration, and an extremely vibrant corporate sector. And it’s the world’s largest oil producer.
If the US goes down a protectionist route the Chinese are seriously stuffed. They are an import/export dependent economy. They are much more vulnerable than the US in a trade war.
Well yes and no. America (and UK) would struggle to find other sources for many goods.
China has been dedollarising quite actively recently. Funding the US deficit is going to be both harder and more expensive without China.
Ed Davey on a water slide on the 10pm BBC news. Nowhere near high enough. A pitiful slide.
Come on Ed. Big finish.
I think he started too big, you need your stunts to get more and more outlandish. Water aerobics just doesn't cut it. We need Evil Knievel style jump over Cheddar Gorge, pulling wheelies in Monster trucks down the Mall or water skiing jumps over shark infested waters....
Yup. Motorcycle jump over three London buses, preferably on fire, or he won’t get my vote.
As a kid I remember being taken to some low budget stunt show (I think in Cornwall) and the guy jumped a motorbike through a "ring of fire" which all looked a bit pathetic....and he caught the edge of the ring, set himself on fire. Now the crowd seeing the rather piddly little jump thought this was all part of the show and that they would then set up a much bigger jump, so everybody was laughing as he was running the field like Benny Hill flaming licking from his back as support crew running after him with a blanket to try to put the flames out....Then the ambulance arrived to take him away to hospital.
If RN wins this and/or wins the presidency that could be almost as pivotal in western history as the French Revolution
Pivotal for the UK as well, as millions decide they'd rather live over here.
How exactly would millions of French both decide to live here (as opposed to elsewhere in the EU), and do so? Everyone overstays a tourist visa? Get on a people smuggling boat?
Ed Davey on a water slide on the 10pm BBC news. Nowhere near high enough. A pitiful slide.
Come on Ed. Big finish.
I think he started too big, you need your stunts to get more and more outlandish. Water aerobics just doesn't cut it. We need Evil Knievel style jump over Cheddar Gorge, pulling wheelies in Monster trucks down the Mall or water skiing jumps over shark infested waters....
I’ve been thinking about this. What final stunt is a. exciting enough, b. connected to a policy goal or political point, c. safe? Something for this Tuesday that tells people “yes, fuck it, I’m going Lib Dem this time. Why not”.
Seems pretty obvious. Waterskiing, off the Devon or Cornwall coast, culminating in jumping over a shark.
Ed Davey on a water slide on the 10pm BBC news. Nowhere near high enough. A pitiful slide.
Come on Ed. Big finish.
I think he started too big, you need your stunts to get more and more outlandish. Water aerobics just doesn't cut it. We need Evil Knievel style jump over Cheddar Gorge, pulling wheelies in Monster trucks down the Mall or water skiing jumps over shark infested waters....
Yup. Motorcycle jump over three London buses, preferably on fire, or he won’t get my vote.
As a kid I remember being taken to some low budget stunt show (I think in Cornwall) and the guy jumped a motorbike through a "ring of fire" which all looked a bit pathetic....and he caught the edge of the ring, set himself on fire. Now the crowd seeing the rather piddly little jump thought this was all part of the show and that they would then set up a much bigger jump, so everybody was laughing as he was running the field like Benny Hill flaming licking from his back as support crew running after him with a blanket to try to put the flames out....Then the ambulance arrived to take him away to hospital.
I have finally tracked down the article that Hitchins was quoting about ‘Russia being provoked.’ It was not easy because not only was what he quoted rather inaccurate but it was so ripped out of context anyway as to actually reverse the meaning of what was said.
Here are Kagan’s very precise words:
Although it is obscene to blame the United States for Putin’s inhumane attack on Ukraine, to insist that the invasion was entirely unprovoked is misleading. Just as Pearl Harbor was the consequence of U.S. efforts to blunt Japanese expansion on the Asian mainland, and just as the 9/11 attacks were partly a response to the United States’ dominant presence in the Middle East after the first Gulf War, so Russian decisions have been a response to the expanding post–Cold War hegemony of the United States and its allies in Europe. Putin alone is to blame for his actions, but the invasion of Ukraine is taking place in a historical and geopolitical context in which the United States has played and still plays the principal role, and Americans must grapple with this fact
The thrust of the article is that Putin was provoked by his inability to deal with how much the Russians were hated in their traditional sphere of influence, as demonstrated by the collapse of the Yanukovych government and the desperation of Eastern European states to join NATO as a guarantee against a relapse. He argues that the key provocation was how the United States’ response was clumsy and chaotic leading Russia and now China to think they could keep getting away with their crimes.
This was of course seized on by Kremlin propagandists and anti-American twits like Hitchins who claimed Kagan said the US provoked the invasion of Ukraine - when in fact he was saying pretty much the exact opposite.
So basically - Hitchins either lied, or is so stupid he should not be allowed near a keyboard. Or both, of course.
Hitchens is not stupid, so one should conclude that he is a deliberate liar.
One can only speculate as to why he would want to lie for Putin.
He isn't lying.
The guy said "Russian decisions have been a response to the expanding post–Cold War hegemony of the United States and its allies in Europe."
So he reacted much the same way that the US did when Kruschev decided to put missiles in Cuba.
Don't be a twat. He threw a strop over Ukraine wanting to join the EU. Which had nothing to do with US 'hegemony'.
And the Bag of Pigs, and Kruschev's ill considered move, were sixty years ago.
Was Kruschev's move "ill-considered"? It was, in my view, a strategic victory for the Soviets. It resulted in the protection of Cuba and the removal of US nuclear missiles from the Mediterranean.
Also, the Bay of Pigs episode was more akin to Putin's earlier interventions in Ukraine, using supported proxy forces to enable a veneer of deniability about it being a direct intervention. Not justified but equally not the all-out invasion of Feb 2022.
But this 'Putin was provoked' argument is basically wife-beater excuses. Whether he felt provoked or not, the rest of the world is not obliged to sacrifice sovereign states to assuage Putin's feelings. He doesn't get to say 'it's your fault for making me angry if you don't give me what I want'.
It's textbook gaslighting; " we had to invade you because you wanted to join NATO and the EU. You might be upset now but one day you'll thank us for it, it's for you own good".
Here’s to clubs of democratic countries that exist by consent, mutual support and economic self-interest, and don’t rely on bullying to grow their membership. NATO, the EU, and the OECD.
Fuck it, here’s to the bloody WEF. I’d rather my leaders were spending a week a year in Davos than going on state visits to North Korea to beg for shells.
Surely you're perceptive enough to see that the two things are different merely by degree. Holding another country within one's sphere of influence is very easy - you dictate policy, but you don't have to build any railways or put down any revolutions. The British Empire was originally just a sphere of influence. It had to become an Empire and be garrisoned at great cost, due to other nations growing in power and threatening it.
The UK is firmly within the US sphere of influence. We have many US military bases here. We pretty much do what they say - even on matters that are purely domestic. It's all very civilised and conducted via civilised channels. If however, China developed an ambition to lever us out of the US sphere of influence, and started funding a lot of projects here, building lots of facilities here, signing treaties and working on defence initiatives, that's when we'd see more serious threats, and if we really persisted with leaving the US alliance and opposing their global interests, things would go south very quickly.
The same is true of Russia. It invaded Ukraine when its interests in Ukraine were threatened. It is a deplorable and criminal act, but we haven't seen a conscious choice by the US not to behave in that way - it's just that they haven't had to recently.
Gabriel Milland @gabrielmilland · 1h That awkward moment when you discover the idyllic bit of rural France where you booked the lovely gîte for this summer just voted massively for the fascists.
Rural areas are always more rightwing than the rest of the nation.
On Thursday the rump of Tory MPs remaining are likely to mainly represent rural areas and small market towns and even Clacton where Farage is likely to win includes a few rural villages like Weeley and St Osyth
Canada says hi.
Same in Canada, the Conservatives now and Reform in the 1990s did best in rural Alberta and Saskatchewan, far away from the big 3 Canadian cities of Toronto, Montreal and Vancouver
If RN wins this and/or wins the presidency that could be almost as pivotal in western history as the French Revolution
Pivotal for the UK as well, as millions decide they'd rather live over here.
How exactly would millions of French both decide to live here (as opposed to elsewhere in the EU), and do so? Everyone overstays a tourist visa? Get on a people smuggling boat?
Comments
Read the Hagakure. A weird fanatics worship of a past that never was. Hence the Japanese army manufacturing millions of crap, tin swords to play Samurai.
You think in terms of “strategy” something like a logical plan to achieve X. The Japanese leadership of the time believed in their version of hyper nationalism. In the Hagakure, the author berates the 47 Ronin for planning too much. A Real Samurai (TM) would have charged in to glorious defeat.
All through the war, there were instances of impossible orders - the Zeros at Pearl Harbour didn’t have enough range to get back to the carriers. Only because Nagumo steamed towards Hawaii during the attack did they get back (he broke orders). The initial attacks in Malaya and the Philippines only just worked - the logistics were non existent. Singapore (and others) only fell because the defense managed to be worse than the attack. The Japanese troops were running out of *food*….
At Midway, they had no way to hold Midway even if they had captured it. No logistics train for that. They knew this…..
They were rolling 6s non stop. Until it stopped.
The Japanese lost the war before it began.
A final thought - at Midway, for the first time, their carriers were hit. And turned out to be OneHitAndExplode - they had no effective damage control.
The whole thing was a paper tiger built up by lunatics who had no rational way to achieve their goals. They knew they had no rational way though. But went ahead anyway.
Russia is too weak to be a hegemonic power.
Also lots of torpedos used. Albeit a lot of the German ones from submarines wnet phut, just like the American ones. The poor Uboot commander had lots of opportunities to sink battleships, and his torpedos all failed to work.
As a general rule, I'm supportive of resistance to murderous invasions. It doesn't matter to me who is doing it. We can all think of a favourite examples. We did one 20-odd years ago.
But this 'Putin was provoked' argument is basically wife-beater excuses. Whether he felt provoked or not, the rest of the world is not obliged to sacrifice sovereign states to assuage Putin's feelings. He doesn't get to say 'it's your fault for making me angry if you don't give me what I want'.
When people complain of British multiculturalism it is worth looking to see how the French get on with their specific refusal to acknowledge or record ethnic and religious diversity in favour of cultural Frenchness.
https://jlpartners.co.uk/first-jl-partners-srp-model-shows-labour-on-course-for-a-landslide
Stacked Regression and Poststratification (SRP) and Multilevel Regression and Poststratification (MRP) differ in the way they make predictions. The main difference is that the former uses more than one model, including but not limited to Multilevel Regression, to make predictions whilst the latter relies solely on the Multilevel Regression model. The second major difference is that SRP uses non-parametric Machine Learning Models as part of its architecture which offers advantages over parametric alternatives.
The use of stacking, combining estimates from many models into a single final estimate, underpins algorithms like Random Forests and Neural Networks. The main advantage of this kind of stacking is that we can use different models to probe different parts of the data giving a more holistic set of predictions that consider many different facets of the data. This includes models that are superior at unpicking the constituency level predictors whilst other models can investigate the individual level effects in much more detail. Some models, like Multilevel Regression, can analyse both the individual level and constituency level data simultaneously. The combination of these models then produces estimates that more accurately represent the nuances in the underlying data.
The majority of models used in our stacking procedure are “non-parametric”. One of the major inputs that goes into any MRP is the underlying structure of the model that link the predictors chosen by the modeller to the vote intention of individuals. This underlying structure is ultimately arbitrary and there are theoretically many trillions of possible underlying models that could be used. This is what makes MRP parametric – the modeller decides the interactions and relationship. Furthermore, MRP is inherently linear (unless otherwise specified) which can ignore more complex relationships in the data. A non-parametric model, like a random forest, can approximate the true underlying relationship that links the predictor variables to vote intention without input from the modeller. All the modeller does is select the variables used for prediction.
This offers obvious advantages. It reduces the number of assumptions that the modeller has to make in terms of selecting the parameterisation of the model whilst also allowing the model to find the best possible, arbitrary, combination of parameters.
The inclusion of multiple non-parametric models offers advantages to making seat estimates as it hugely reduces the effect of modeller-based decisions. It also offers improved accuracy in terms of fitting the underlying data and uses the most up-to-date methods for classification problems.
Standing to win a six figure sum, he couldn't contain his excitement in the final minute, till David White scored the tenth in the final seconds.
"Bloody City. Always let you f***ing down!"
Your list is weird. You mention South Africa twice, you mention the middle east and Saudi Arabia, you mention Brazil and "half of South America, and you mention China and the far east. Are you aware that you're repeating yourself a fair bit there? Are you aware that you're repeating yourself a fair bit there?
Agree it’s a weird order though. Must’ve been early Oasis.
China has appalling demographics. Its birth rate is plummeting. Its crony capitalism is stifling innovation, and its aggressive foreign policy means it now has a harder time exporting. It’s an ethno-nationalist state with no meaningful working age immigration. It’s in the middle income trap.
The US has major problems of gun ownership, drug use, obesity and inequality, but it has decent demographics and much healthier immigration, and an extremely vibrant corporate sector. And it’s the world’s largest oil producer.
Weren't Dave Dee Dozy Beaky Mick and Titch actually the most successful bamd of the 60s?
That is a valid opinion and not racist - merely a democratic statement of cultural preference
For the same reason it is perfectly reasonable for Saudi Arabians to say: we do not want Saudi Arabia to become in any way Christian - that will profoundly change our country - keep it Muslim
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_General_Assembly_Resolution_ES-11/4#/media/File:United_Nations_General_Assembly_resolution_ES-11_L.5_vote.svg
That is a valid opinion and not racist - merely a democratic statement of cultural preference
German people are allowed to say “we don’t want any more Jews in Germany as that will fundamentally alter the culture of the country”
That is a valid opinion and not racist - merely a democratic statement of cultural preference
Same thing or different things?
You can say you are not justifying something, but if your words have that effect then it is what it is.
Another gunnery battle was the Battle of the Badung Strait in 1942.
Same or different?
Parfum vs Eau de Toilette perhaps.
Putin and his BRICS friends represent a certain sort of lost masculinity, the certainty and mental surrender you get with the authoritarian strongman, and it’s quite appealing in a world that seems to be dissolving into chaos. And not good hard traditional chaos, but ambiguous, soft, confusingly digital chaos.
EM voters would also go for LR candidates over Popular Front most likely and LR voters would largely go for EM over RN or Popular Front.
Though yes EM voters would go for Popular Front over RN normally and LR voters RN over Popular Front.
LR won't back RN even if Kingmakers, nor would they back Popular Front, the Ciotti LR faction that backed RN has been forced out of the party and stood with RN on a joint pact.
While RN likely win most seats again after round 2 they may still fall short of a majority while EM + LR could overtake the Popular Front for second
Fuck it, here’s to the bloody WEF. I’d rather my leaders were spending a week a year in Davos than going on state visits to North Korea to beg for shells.
Come on Ed. Big finish.
But I'll Appeal Mers-el-Kebir on the basis that (1) the forces were French not Axis as specified which I think holds, and which I think also holds (2) that Swordfish torpedo and mining planes were involved, which hit an ammo ship, which blew up and crippled a battleship *.
* Just like "Welcome to Town" sign in Destry Rides Again.
On Thursday the rump of Tory MPs remaining are likely to mainly represent rural areas and small market towns and even Clacton where Farage is likely to win includes a few rural villages like Weeley and St Osyth
Quite incredible
I’ve noted before she has a sort of serious, severe demeanour which is somewhat different from the Boris/Farage/Trump/Wilders/Berlusconi/Orban style of male right wing populist. Would she see Farage as lightweight? I’ve not seen her interactions with foreign leaders enough to know. She seems a bit of a loner. I doubt she holds much of a candle for Steve Bannon for example, but I may be wrong. She is clearly different from Meloni - more pro-Russian and more “socialist” - but the two of them do seem to share a seriousness and ideological devoutness that their male fellow travellers lack.
Reject the influence of the World Economic Forum.
That's one of their 'First 100 days' policies, so it is obviously a critical one.
I have no idea what that influence is, since it doesn't say, or why it is so important.
https://www.lemonde.fr/en/les-decodeurs/article/2024/06/30/french-election-results-map-of-the-first-round-s-results_6676224_8.html
China has been dedollarising quite actively recently. Funding the US deficit is going to be both harder and more expensive without China.
Trade wars hurt both sides.
Seems pretty obvious. Waterskiing, off the Devon or Cornwall coast, culminating in jumping over a shark.
The UK is firmly within the US sphere of influence. We have many US military bases here. We pretty much do what they say - even on matters that are purely domestic. It's all very civilised and conducted via civilised channels. If however, China developed an ambition to lever us out of the US sphere of influence, and started funding a lot of projects here, building lots of facilities here, signing treaties and working on defence initiatives, that's when we'd see more serious threats, and if we really persisted with leaving the US alliance and opposing their global interests, things would go south very quickly.
The same is true of Russia. It invaded Ukraine when its interests in Ukraine were threatened. It is a deplorable and criminal act, but we haven't seen a conscious choice by the US not to behave in that way - it's just that they haven't had to recently.