The US will commit to a “free, sovereign and secure” Ukraine and a “lasting peace” as part of a minerals deal that now appears imminent, according to a recent draft text seen by Bloomberg
US will agree a “durable partnership” between Washington and Kyiv, texts shows
US will signal intent to invest in Ukraine
US will also say those who “acted adversely” to Ukraine in the war should not “benefit from its reconstruction”
Ukraine’s Deputy PM Olha Stefanishyna says the minerals deal is in the “final stages”
Person familiar says a new draft has almost been agreed and is awaiting a reply from the US
If this come off 90% of PB will look like 5 year olds that shat themselves
The text looks like a load of waffle . Best await the detail before declaring victory !
Who is “declaring victory”? I am merely pointing out that those who so volubly and publicly soiled themselves in the last few weeks, deranged by Trump, are - at least - at risk of looking very very ridiculous
But, as you say, we need the Deets, and it could all be nonsense
Blackmailing Ukraine into signing an unfair mineral deal to stave off abandonment by a key ally (and the threatened immediate loss of key battlefield communications) is exactly what "those who so volubly and publicly soiled themselves" were complaining about. The fact that Ukraine might be forced to sign it doesn't appear to address that concern.
I mean the US has provided Ukraine (and the entire West) with billions of dollars of aid in one form or another. Is that an obligation on the part of the US? Trump doesn't particularly think so.
Is it because we share the same values and blah, blah, blah? A bit.
But don't mistake geopolitical strategy for largesse.
I think it's reasonable to call racketeering out for what it is and to suggest that it isn't in the American interest beyond what's conflated with Trump's own interest, while recognising extortion does actually happen. The Mafia is still in business after all.
This = similar to calling him Hitler. He is doing what he was elected to do. You all seem to have a huge blind spot when it comes to US politics which is strange, given the nature of this website.
Fascism is fascism whether someone won an election or not. Just as conservatism or liberalism or socialism are what they are. Trump is acting like a fascist, in many ways, not just his behaviour towards Ukraine.
This morning at Dept of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) HQ in DC as mandatory return to office began, this video played on loop for ~5 mins on screens throughout the building, per agency source.
Building staff couldn’t figure out how to turn it off so sent people to every floor to unplug TVs.
The US will commit to a “free, sovereign and secure” Ukraine and a “lasting peace” as part of a minerals deal that now appears imminent, according to a recent draft text seen by Bloomberg
US will agree a “durable partnership” between Washington and Kyiv, texts shows
US will signal intent to invest in Ukraine
US will also say those who “acted adversely” to Ukraine in the war should not “benefit from its reconstruction”
Ukraine’s Deputy PM Olha Stefanishyna says the minerals deal is in the “final stages”
Person familiar says a new draft has almost been agreed and is awaiting a reply from the US
If this come off 90% of PB will look like 5 year olds that shat themselves
The text looks like a load of waffle . Best await the detail before declaring victory !
Who is “declaring victory”? I am merely pointing out that those who so volubly and publicly soiled themselves in the last few weeks, deranged by Trump, are - at least - at risk of looking very very ridiculous
But, as you say, we need the Deets, and it could all be nonsense
Blackmailing Ukraine into signing an unfair mineral deal to stave off abandonment by a key ally (and the threatened immediate loss of key battlefield communications) is exactly what "those who so volubly and publicly soiled themselves" were complaining about. The fact that Ukraine might be forced to sign it doesn't appear to address that concern.
Odd sort of "deal" if it doesn't include a meaningful security guarantee.
Odd sort of "comment". A deal can cover anything and everything. Your priority isn't the same as anyone else's. Thank goodness.
Let's probe that with a little hypothetical.
Me: "See this here pistol I'm pointing at your head. It's loaded. You're probably scared. But we can resolve this to our mutual benefit. Give me all your money and I'll put the gun away."
You: "Um, yes ok."
Do you walk away from this encounter thinking you've made a "deal"?
This again comes from your rather naive, if touching expectation that it is beholden upon the US to defend the West. You may think that is exactly what the US must do. But the American voters and the current president apparently don't think of it in those terms. For them, it is more transactional. Sitting miles away from the conflict they wonder what's in it for them. And they elected a president who is asking just such a question directly.
It's precisely what they voted for.
All your precious value judgements count for diddly squat and illustrate, more, a misunderestimation of how geopolitics works.
We have agreed that you are out of your depth on this forum, and you seen intent on proving this time and time again.
Yet I often feel I have to dumb down down to talk to you. Because extreme cynicism, I have to tell you, is adjacent to naivety. The old horseshoe in operation again.
It's well illustrated by the notion that "geopolitics" is nothing more than the powerful exploiting the needy for short term £££ gain. There's plenty of that, of course there is, but it is not exclusively how "it" works. That's a noddy view.
I think you're straining to stand out from a "PB consensus" and in the process to look worldly. Plus I think you're too impressed by Donald Trump and are reading too much into that election win. It doesn't justify everything he does.
I think Topping, like Dura Ace, Lucky Guy and a few others provide a well needed balance to the general consensus here and do so in a way that is interesting and worth reading.
I really don't think Topping strains (Eurgh !!!) to stand out from the crowd to appear anything.
Looking at the numbers (US - $920bn) Europe really does have to have a conversation with itself to understand whether it is willing to "get its arse into gear", defence spending-wise.
And even if it does find the money (big if), how is it going to turn that into capabilities. Commission another aircraft carrier to be commissioned in 25 years time or somesuch.
Well, Europe has no interest in projecting power; the vast bulk of any defence capability is going to be land based, and defensive. The goal is to deter Russia (or someone else) from fucking around at the edges of the continent.
We and France do.
The rest, do not.
Which is exactly why, during the Cold War, West Germany had an awesome armoured division capability. Which was only deployable in Germany.
The US will commit to a “free, sovereign and secure” Ukraine and a “lasting peace” as part of a minerals deal that now appears imminent, according to a recent draft text seen by Bloomberg
US will agree a “durable partnership” between Washington and Kyiv, texts shows
US will signal intent to invest in Ukraine
US will also say those who “acted adversely” to Ukraine in the war should not “benefit from its reconstruction”
Ukraine’s Deputy PM Olha Stefanishyna says the minerals deal is in the “final stages”
Person familiar says a new draft has almost been agreed and is awaiting a reply from the US
If this come off 90% of PB will look like 5 year olds that shat themselves
The text looks like a load of waffle . Best await the detail before declaring victory !
Who is “declaring victory”? I am merely pointing out that those who so volubly and publicly soiled themselves in the last few weeks, deranged by Trump, are - at least - at risk of looking very very ridiculous
But, as you say, we need the Deets, and it could all be nonsense
Blackmailing Ukraine into signing an unfair mineral deal to stave off abandonment by a key ally (and the threatened immediate loss of key battlefield communications) is exactly what "those who so volubly and publicly soiled themselves" were complaining about. The fact that Ukraine might be forced to sign it doesn't appear to address that concern.
I mean the US has provided Ukraine (and the entire West) with billions of dollars of aid in one form or another. Is that an obligation on the part of the US? Trump doesn't particularly think so.
Is it because we share the same values and blah, blah, blah? A bit.
But don't mistake geopolitical strategy for largesse.
No, I agree. It seems that Trump sees an alliance with Putin as a way to simultaneously weaken the EU, and prize Russia away from China. Taking the mantle of 19th Century Duplicitous Albion from us, and projecting it into the 21st Century.
It's depressing but entirely believable.
It does, however, run the risk of the EU ending up a lot closer to China. (Also, Canada: there can be little doubt they will invest heavily in improving the pipeline links to Kittimat to enable them to export heavy oil East if needs be.)
And it's hard to see how that would end up being to the US's advantage,
The US will commit to a “free, sovereign and secure” Ukraine and a “lasting peace” as part of a minerals deal that now appears imminent, according to a recent draft text seen by Bloomberg
US will agree a “durable partnership” between Washington and Kyiv, texts shows
US will signal intent to invest in Ukraine
US will also say those who “acted adversely” to Ukraine in the war should not “benefit from its reconstruction”
Ukraine’s Deputy PM Olha Stefanishyna says the minerals deal is in the “final stages”
Person familiar says a new draft has almost been agreed and is awaiting a reply from the US
If this come off 90% of PB will look like 5 year olds that shat themselves
The text looks like a load of waffle . Best await the detail before declaring victory !
Who is “declaring victory”? I am merely pointing out that those who so volubly and publicly soiled themselves in the last few weeks, deranged by Trump, are - at least - at risk of looking very very ridiculous
But, as you say, we need the Deets, and it could all be nonsense
Blackmailing Ukraine into signing an unfair mineral deal to stave off abandonment by a key ally (and the threatened immediate loss of key battlefield communications) is exactly what "those who so volubly and publicly soiled themselves" were complaining about. The fact that Ukraine might be forced to sign it doesn't appear to address that concern.
Odd sort of "deal" if it doesn't include a meaningful security guarantee.
Odd sort of "comment". A deal can cover anything and everything. Your priority isn't the same as anyone else's. Thank goodness.
Let's probe that with a little hypothetical.
Me: "See this here pistol I'm pointing at your head. It's loaded. You're probably scared. But we can resolve this to our mutual benefit. Give me all your money and I'll put the gun away."
You: "Um, yes ok."
Do you walk away from this encounter thinking you've made a "deal"?
This again comes from your rather naive, if touching expectation that it is beholden upon the US to defend the West. You may think that is exactly what the US must do. But the American voters and the current president apparently don't think of it in those terms. For them, it is more transactional. Sitting miles away from the conflict they wonder what's in it for them. And they elected a president who is asking just such a question directly.
It's precisely what they voted for.
All your precious value judgements count for diddly squat and illustrate, more, a misunderestimation of how geopolitics works.
We have agreed that you are out of your depth on this forum, and you seen intent on proving this time and time again.
Yet I often feel I have to dumb down down to talk to you. Because extreme cynicism, I have to tell you, is adjacent to naivety. The old horseshoe in operation again.
It's well illustrated by the notion that "geopolitics" is nothing more than the powerful exploiting the needy for short term £££ gain. There's plenty of that, of course there is, but it is not exclusively how "it" works. That's a noddy view.
I think you're straining to stand out from a "PB consensus" and in the process to look worldly. Plus I think you're too impressed by Donald Trump and are reading too much into that election win. It doesn't justify everything he does.
It would be naive, certainly, to think that the USA has been spending billions of dollars overseas, since 1949, as an act of pure altruism.
In cash terms, it's generally cheaper for the US to station troops overseas than at home. Protecting allies means protecting markets for the USA, and international shipping lanes. The USA, thanks to its military and economic power, has been able to set the terms by which the world economy operates, through GATT and the World Bank. The dollar is the world's reserve currency. The USA has a clutch of allies, willing to participate in, and take casualties in, US-led military adventures.
The US has actually done very well, out of assuming a position of world leadership.
The US will commit to a “free, sovereign and secure” Ukraine and a “lasting peace” as part of a minerals deal that now appears imminent, according to a recent draft text seen by Bloomberg
US will agree a “durable partnership” between Washington and Kyiv, texts shows
US will signal intent to invest in Ukraine
US will also say those who “acted adversely” to Ukraine in the war should not “benefit from its reconstruction”
Ukraine’s Deputy PM Olha Stefanishyna says the minerals deal is in the “final stages”
Person familiar says a new draft has almost been agreed and is awaiting a reply from the US
If this come off 90% of PB will look like 5 year olds that shat themselves
The text looks like a load of waffle . Best await the detail before declaring victory !
Who is “declaring victory”? I am merely pointing out that those who so volubly and publicly soiled themselves in the last few weeks, deranged by Trump, are - at least - at risk of looking very very ridiculous
But, as you say, we need the Deets, and it could all be nonsense
Blackmailing Ukraine into signing an unfair mineral deal to stave off abandonment by a key ally (and the threatened immediate loss of key battlefield communications) is exactly what "those who so volubly and publicly soiled themselves" were complaining about. The fact that Ukraine might be forced to sign it doesn't appear to address that concern.
Odd sort of "deal" if it doesn't include a meaningful security guarantee.
Odd sort of "comment". A deal can cover anything and everything. Your priority isn't the same as anyone else's. Thank goodness.
Let's probe that with a little hypothetical.
Me: "See this here pistol I'm pointing at your head. It's loaded. You're probably scared. But we can resolve this to our mutual benefit. Give me all your money and I'll put the gun away."
You: "Um, yes ok."
Do you walk away from this encounter thinking you've made a "deal"?
This again comes from your rather naive, if touching expectation that it is beholden upon the US to defend the West. You may think that is exactly what the US must do. But the American voters and the current president apparently don't think of it in those terms. For them, it is more transactional. Sitting miles away from the conflict they wonder what's in it for them. And they elected a president who is asking just such a question directly.
It's precisely what they voted for.
All your precious value judgements count for diddly squat and illustrate, more, a misunderestimation of how geopolitics works.
We have agreed that you are out of your depth on this forum, and you seen intent on proving this time and time again.
Yet I often feel I have to dumb down down to talk to you. Because extreme cynicism, I have to tell you, is adjacent to naivety. The old horseshoe in operation again.
It's well illustrated by the notion that "geopolitics" is nothing more than the powerful exploiting the needy for short term £££ gain. There's plenty of that, of course there is, but it is not exclusively how "it" works. That's a noddy view.
I think you're straining to stand out from a "PB consensus" and in the process to look worldly. Plus I think you're too impressed by Donald Trump and are reading too much into that election win. It doesn't justify everything he does.
On geopolitics. There are other things to transactions at the geopolitical level than raw gain.
Just as really large businesses build reputations, so do states.
So, if you work on the "I'll get everything from you, then turn you upside down and shake all the pennies out. At gunpoint. And humiliate you in public.", then that's the rep you will have.
There's a reason that business don't act like this. And it's not just the law.
The US will commit to a “free, sovereign and secure” Ukraine and a “lasting peace” as part of a minerals deal that now appears imminent, according to a recent draft text seen by Bloomberg
US will agree a “durable partnership” between Washington and Kyiv, texts shows
US will signal intent to invest in Ukraine
US will also say those who “acted adversely” to Ukraine in the war should not “benefit from its reconstruction”
Ukraine’s Deputy PM Olha Stefanishyna says the minerals deal is in the “final stages”
Person familiar says a new draft has almost been agreed and is awaiting a reply from the US
If this come off 90% of PB will look like 5 year olds that shat themselves
The text looks like a load of waffle . Best await the detail before declaring victory !
Who is “declaring victory”? I am merely pointing out that those who so volubly and publicly soiled themselves in the last few weeks, deranged by Trump, are - at least - at risk of looking very very ridiculous
But, as you say, we need the Deets, and it could all be nonsense
Blackmailing Ukraine into signing an unfair mineral deal to stave off abandonment by a key ally (and the threatened immediate loss of key battlefield communications) is exactly what "those who so volubly and publicly soiled themselves" were complaining about. The fact that Ukraine might be forced to sign it doesn't appear to address that concern.
Odd sort of "deal" if it doesn't include a meaningful security guarantee.
Odd sort of "comment". A deal can cover anything and everything. Your priority isn't the same as anyone else's. Thank goodness.
Let's probe that with a little hypothetical.
Me: "See this here pistol I'm pointing at your head. It's loaded. You're probably scared. But we can resolve this to our mutual benefit. Give me all your money and I'll put the gun away."
You: "Um, yes ok."
Do you walk away from this encounter thinking you've made a "deal"?
This again comes from your rather naive, if touching expectation that it is beholden upon the US to defend the West. You may think that is exactly what the US must do. But the American voters and the current president apparently don't think of it in those terms. For them, it is more transactional. Sitting miles away from the conflict they wonder what's in it for them. And they elected a president who is asking just such a question directly.
It's precisely what they voted for.
All your precious value judgements count for diddly squat and illustrate, more, a misunderestimation of how geopolitics works.
We have agreed that you are out of your depth on this forum, and you seen intent on proving this time and time again.
Yet I often feel I have to dumb down down to talk to you. Because extreme cynicism, I have to tell you, is adjacent to naivety. The old horseshoe in operation again.
It's well illustrated by the notion that "geopolitics" is nothing more than the powerful exploiting the needy for short term £££ gain. There's plenty of that, of course there is, but it is not exclusively how "it" works. That's a noddy view.
I think you're straining to stand out from a "PB consensus" and in the process to look worldly. Plus I think you're too impressed by Donald Trump and are reading too much into that election win. It doesn't justify everything he does.
It would be naive, certainly, to think that the USA has been spending billions of dollars overseas, since 1949, as an act of pure altruism.
In cash terms, it's generally cheaper for the US to station troops overseas than at home. Protecting allies means protecting markets for the USA, and international shipping lanes. The USA, thanks to its military and economic power, has been able to set the terms by which the world economy operates, through GATT and the World Bank. The dollar is the world's reserve currency. The USA has a clutch of allies, willing to participate in, and take casualties in, US-led military adventures.
The US has actually done very well, out of assuming a position of world leadership.
With one proviso: having the world's currency means having the currency everyone has to own. (Literally: central bank reserves are denominated in US Dollars.)
That means there is constant demand for US dollars as the rest of the world grows, and that makes it extremely difficult for the US to run a trade surplus. (Every dollar stashed in a central bank is a dollar not being used to buy US goods and services.)
The discussion here earlier reminded me of this conclusion from Christina Hoff Sommers' "The War Against Boys" (new and revised edition) 'Elaine Kamarck of the Harvard Kennedy School, and William Galston of the University of Maryland and Brookings Institution, agree with [Daniel Patrick] Moynihan. Writing for the Progressive Policy Institute in 1990, they say: "The relationship [between crime and one-parent families, which are typically fatherless families] is so strong that controlling for family configuration erases the relationship between race and crime and between low income and crime. This relationship shows up time and again in the literature."' (p. 120)
US journalists routinely talk about "gun violence"; they might be more useful if they would -- from time to time -- tell us a little about what we might call "fatherless violence".
The US will commit to a “free, sovereign and secure” Ukraine and a “lasting peace” as part of a minerals deal that now appears imminent, according to a recent draft text seen by Bloomberg
US will agree a “durable partnership” between Washington and Kyiv, texts shows
US will signal intent to invest in Ukraine
US will also say those who “acted adversely” to Ukraine in the war should not “benefit from its reconstruction”
Ukraine’s Deputy PM Olha Stefanishyna says the minerals deal is in the “final stages”
Person familiar says a new draft has almost been agreed and is awaiting a reply from the US
If this come off 90% of PB will look like 5 year olds that shat themselves
The text looks like a load of waffle . Best await the detail before declaring victory !
Who is “declaring victory”? I am merely pointing out that those who so volubly and publicly soiled themselves in the last few weeks, deranged by Trump, are - at least - at risk of looking very very ridiculous
But, as you say, we need the Deets, and it could all be nonsense
Blackmailing Ukraine into signing an unfair mineral deal to stave off abandonment by a key ally (and the threatened immediate loss of key battlefield communications) is exactly what "those who so volubly and publicly soiled themselves" were complaining about. The fact that Ukraine might be forced to sign it doesn't appear to address that concern.
Odd sort of "deal" if it doesn't include a meaningful security guarantee.
Odd sort of "comment". A deal can cover anything and everything. Your priority isn't the same as anyone else's. Thank goodness.
Let's probe that with a little hypothetical.
Me: "See this here pistol I'm pointing at your head. It's loaded. You're probably scared. But we can resolve this to our mutual benefit. Give me all your money and I'll put the gun away."
You: "Um, yes ok."
Do you walk away from this encounter thinking you've made a "deal"?
This again comes from your rather naive, if touching expectation that it is beholden upon the US to defend the West. You may think that is exactly what the US must do. But the American voters and the current president apparently don't think of it in those terms. For them, it is more transactional. Sitting miles away from the conflict they wonder what's in it for them. And they elected a president who is asking just such a question directly.
It's precisely what they voted for.
All your precious value judgements count for diddly squat and illustrate, more, a misunderestimation of how geopolitics works.
We have agreed that you are out of your depth on this forum, and you seen intent on proving this time and time again.
Yet I often feel I have to dumb down down to talk to you. Because extreme cynicism, I have to tell you, is adjacent to naivety. The old horseshoe in operation again.
It's well illustrated by the notion that "geopolitics" is nothing more than the powerful exploiting the needy for short term £££ gain. There's plenty of that, of course there is, but it is not exclusively how "it" works. That's a noddy view.
I think you're straining to stand out from a "PB consensus" and in the process to look worldly. Plus I think you're too impressed by Donald Trump and are reading too much into that election win. It doesn't justify everything he does.
On geopolitics. There are other things to transactions at the geopolitical level than raw gain.
Just as really large businesses build reputations, so do states.
So, if you work on the "I'll get everything from you, then turn you upside down and shake all the pennies out. At gunpoint. And humiliate you in public.", then that's the rep you will have.
There's a reason that business don't act like this. And it's not just the law.
The analogy between states and businesses doesn't really work. States don't derive their legitimacy in the same way at all.
Asteroid 2024 YR4 is probably *not* going to hit earth. The following shows the refinement of estimates over time....
By 'probably' were talking roughly in the 0.01% to 0.1% range, from that? Looks like the three sigma range is close enough that there's still an outside change within the range of plausibility it could hit? But a lot better than the 3% it was at one stage.
Could it hit the moon instead? What would that do?
A new smallish crater. Nothing more.
It wouldn’t be Shoemaker–Levy, but with a bit of notice we might be able to get some nice video and other observations. The might, for instance, be some interesting data to be gathered about how the impact's shockwaves propagate in the moon’s crust and core.
Is there not the danger that it would crack the egg and harm the space monster living inside?*
The US will commit to a “free, sovereign and secure” Ukraine and a “lasting peace” as part of a minerals deal that now appears imminent, according to a recent draft text seen by Bloomberg
US will agree a “durable partnership” between Washington and Kyiv, texts shows
US will signal intent to invest in Ukraine
US will also say those who “acted adversely” to Ukraine in the war should not “benefit from its reconstruction”
Ukraine’s Deputy PM Olha Stefanishyna says the minerals deal is in the “final stages”
Person familiar says a new draft has almost been agreed and is awaiting a reply from the US
If this come off 90% of PB will look like 5 year olds that shat themselves
The text looks like a load of waffle . Best await the detail before declaring victory !
Who is “declaring victory”? I am merely pointing out that those who so volubly and publicly soiled themselves in the last few weeks, deranged by Trump, are - at least - at risk of looking very very ridiculous
But, as you say, we need the Deets, and it could all be nonsense
Blackmailing Ukraine into signing an unfair mineral deal to stave off abandonment by a key ally (and the threatened immediate loss of key battlefield communications) is exactly what "those who so volubly and publicly soiled themselves" were complaining about. The fact that Ukraine might be forced to sign it doesn't appear to address that concern.
Odd sort of "deal" if it doesn't include a meaningful security guarantee.
Odd sort of "comment". A deal can cover anything and everything. Your priority isn't the same as anyone else's. Thank goodness.
Let's probe that with a little hypothetical.
Me: "See this here pistol I'm pointing at your head. It's loaded. You're probably scared. But we can resolve this to our mutual benefit. Give me all your money and I'll put the gun away."
You: "Um, yes ok."
Do you walk away from this encounter thinking you've made a "deal"?
This again comes from your rather naive, if touching expectation that it is beholden upon the US to defend the West. You may think that is exactly what the US must do. But the American voters and the current president apparently don't think of it in those terms. For them, it is more transactional. Sitting miles away from the conflict they wonder what's in it for them. And they elected a president who is asking just such a question directly.
It's precisely what they voted for.
All your precious value judgements count for diddly squat and illustrate, more, a misunderestimation of how geopolitics works.
We have agreed that you are out of your depth on this forum, and you seen intent on proving this time and time again.
Yet I often feel I have to dumb down down to talk to you. Because extreme cynicism, I have to tell you, is adjacent to naivety. The old horseshoe in operation again.
It's well illustrated by the notion that "geopolitics" is nothing more than the powerful exploiting the needy for short term £££ gain. There's plenty of that, of course there is, but it is not exclusively how "it" works. That's a noddy view.
I think you're straining to stand out from a "PB consensus" and in the process to look worldly. Plus I think you're too impressed by Donald Trump and are reading too much into that election win. It doesn't justify everything he does.
I think Topping, like Dura Ace, Lucky Guy and a few others provide a well needed balance to the general consensus here and do so in a way that is interesting and worth reading.
I really don't think Topping strains (Eurgh !!!) to stand out from the crowd to appear anything.
Hmm, ok. But what is wrong with "strains"? Has it conjured up a troubling image? Apols if so. Totally unintended.
How many of these American candy stores are legit?
One has popped up in my town in recent weeks and I've never seen a single person in it.
If they're not legit, then why don't the authorities do something about it?
Every time I visit London these days I see people pushing through the barriers at tube stations, something that I hardly ever saw until a couple of years ago. Nobody does anything about it. The TFL staff members just stand around, looking in the other direction. They don't want to get involved. The fare dodgers know there's no authority of any type around.
The US will commit to a “free, sovereign and secure” Ukraine and a “lasting peace” as part of a minerals deal that now appears imminent, according to a recent draft text seen by Bloomberg
US will agree a “durable partnership” between Washington and Kyiv, texts shows
US will signal intent to invest in Ukraine
US will also say those who “acted adversely” to Ukraine in the war should not “benefit from its reconstruction”
Ukraine’s Deputy PM Olha Stefanishyna says the minerals deal is in the “final stages”
Person familiar says a new draft has almost been agreed and is awaiting a reply from the US
If this come off 90% of PB will look like 5 year olds that shat themselves
The text looks like a load of waffle . Best await the detail before declaring victory !
Who is “declaring victory”? I am merely pointing out that those who so volubly and publicly soiled themselves in the last few weeks, deranged by Trump, are - at least - at risk of looking very very ridiculous
But, as you say, we need the Deets, and it could all be nonsense
Blackmailing Ukraine into signing an unfair mineral deal to stave off abandonment by a key ally (and the threatened immediate loss of key battlefield communications) is exactly what "those who so volubly and publicly soiled themselves" were complaining about. The fact that Ukraine might be forced to sign it doesn't appear to address that concern.
Odd sort of "deal" if it doesn't include a meaningful security guarantee.
Odd sort of "comment". A deal can cover anything and everything. Your priority isn't the same as anyone else's. Thank goodness.
Let's probe that with a little hypothetical.
Me: "See this here pistol I'm pointing at your head. It's loaded. You're probably scared. But we can resolve this to our mutual benefit. Give me all your money and I'll put the gun away."
You: "Um, yes ok."
Do you walk away from this encounter thinking you've made a "deal"?
This again comes from your rather naive, if touching expectation that it is beholden upon the US to defend the West. You may think that is exactly what the US must do. But the American voters and the current president apparently don't think of it in those terms. For them, it is more transactional. Sitting miles away from the conflict they wonder what's in it for them. And they elected a president who is asking just such a question directly.
It's precisely what they voted for.
All your precious value judgements count for diddly squat and illustrate, more, a misunderestimation of how geopolitics works.
We have agreed that you are out of your depth on this forum, and you seen intent on proving this time and time again.
Yet I often feel I have to dumb down down to talk to you. Because extreme cynicism, I have to tell you, is adjacent to naivety. The old horseshoe in operation again.
It's well illustrated by the notion that "geopolitics" is nothing more than the powerful exploiting the needy for short term £££ gain. There's plenty of that, of course there is, but it is not exclusively how "it" works. That's a noddy view.
I think you're straining to stand out from a "PB consensus" and in the process to look worldly. Plus I think you're too impressed by Donald Trump and are reading too much into that election win. It doesn't justify everything he does.
On geopolitics. There are other things to transactions at the geopolitical level than raw gain.
Just as really large businesses build reputations, so do states.
So, if you work on the "I'll get everything from you, then turn you upside down and shake all the pennies out. At gunpoint. And humiliate you in public.", then that's the rep you will have.
There's a reason that business don't act like this. And it's not just the law.
When you do favours, you can call them in, when needed.
But, if you turn everything into a shakedown, you’ll be shaken down in turn, when you need help.
The US will commit to a “free, sovereign and secure” Ukraine and a “lasting peace” as part of a minerals deal that now appears imminent, according to a recent draft text seen by Bloomberg
US will agree a “durable partnership” between Washington and Kyiv, texts shows
US will signal intent to invest in Ukraine
US will also say those who “acted adversely” to Ukraine in the war should not “benefit from its reconstruction”
Ukraine’s Deputy PM Olha Stefanishyna says the minerals deal is in the “final stages”
Person familiar says a new draft has almost been agreed and is awaiting a reply from the US
If this come off 90% of PB will look like 5 year olds that shat themselves
The text looks like a load of waffle . Best await the detail before declaring victory !
Who is “declaring victory”? I am merely pointing out that those who so volubly and publicly soiled themselves in the last few weeks, deranged by Trump, are - at least - at risk of looking very very ridiculous
But, as you say, we need the Deets, and it could all be nonsense
Blackmailing Ukraine into signing an unfair mineral deal to stave off abandonment by a key ally (and the threatened immediate loss of key battlefield communications) is exactly what "those who so volubly and publicly soiled themselves" were complaining about. The fact that Ukraine might be forced to sign it doesn't appear to address that concern.
Odd sort of "deal" if it doesn't include a meaningful security guarantee.
Odd sort of "comment". A deal can cover anything and everything. Your priority isn't the same as anyone else's. Thank goodness.
Let's probe that with a little hypothetical.
Me: "See this here pistol I'm pointing at your head. It's loaded. You're probably scared. But we can resolve this to our mutual benefit. Give me all your money and I'll put the gun away."
You: "Um, yes ok."
Do you walk away from this encounter thinking you've made a "deal"?
This again comes from your rather naive, if touching expectation that it is beholden upon the US to defend the West. You may think that is exactly what the US must do. But the American voters and the current president apparently don't think of it in those terms. For them, it is more transactional. Sitting miles away from the conflict they wonder what's in it for them. And they elected a president who is asking just such a question directly.
It's precisely what they voted for.
All your precious value judgements count for diddly squat and illustrate, more, a misunderestimation of how geopolitics works.
We have agreed that you are out of your depth on this forum, and you seen intent on proving this time and time again.
Yet I often feel I have to dumb down down to talk to you. Because extreme cynicism, I have to tell you, is adjacent to naivety. The old horseshoe in operation again.
It's well illustrated by the notion that "geopolitics" is nothing more than the powerful exploiting the needy for short term £££ gain. There's plenty of that, of course there is, but it is not exclusively how "it" works. That's a noddy view.
I think you're straining to stand out from a "PB consensus" and in the process to look worldly. Plus I think you're too impressed by Donald Trump and are reading too much into that election win. It doesn't justify everything he does.
On geopolitics. There are other things to transactions at the geopolitical level than raw gain.
Just as really large businesses build reputations, so do states.
So, if you work on the "I'll get everything from you, then turn you upside down and shake all the pennies out. At gunpoint. And humiliate you in public.", then that's the rep you will have.
There's a reason that business don't act like this. And it's not just the law.
The analogy between states and businesses doesn't really work. States don't derive their legitimacy in the same way at all.
What has legitimacy got to do with it?
The point is that entities (whether people, companies or countries).don't usually try and maximize this week's outcome at the expense of future outcomes. They recognize that if you screw some other entity over, then they will remember that in future.
I don't think that's a terribly contentions point.
Asteroid 2024 YR4 is probably *not* going to hit earth. The following shows the refinement of estimates over time....
By 'probably' were talking roughly in the 0.01% to 0.1% range, from that? Looks like the three sigma range is close enough that there's still an outside change within the range of plausibility it could hit? But a lot better than the 3% it was at one stage.
Could it hit the moon instead? What would that do?
A new smallish crater. Nothing more.
It wouldn’t be Shoemaker–Levy, but with a bit of notice we might be able to get some nice video and other observations. The might, for instance, be some interesting data to be gathered about how the impact's shockwaves propagate in the moon’s crust and core.
Is there not the danger that it would crack the egg and harm the space monster living inside?*
*I will never forgive Chris Chibnall.
As the moon is made of cheese*, a strategically placed piece of sourdough would allow us to produce the most expensive slice of Welsh rarebit in history.
*See the documentary ‘Wallace & Gromit: A Grand Day Out’ for more!
The US will commit to a “free, sovereign and secure” Ukraine and a “lasting peace” as part of a minerals deal that now appears imminent, according to a recent draft text seen by Bloomberg
US will agree a “durable partnership” between Washington and Kyiv, texts shows
US will signal intent to invest in Ukraine
US will also say those who “acted adversely” to Ukraine in the war should not “benefit from its reconstruction”
Ukraine’s Deputy PM Olha Stefanishyna says the minerals deal is in the “final stages”
Person familiar says a new draft has almost been agreed and is awaiting a reply from the US
If this come off 90% of PB will look like 5 year olds that shat themselves
The text looks like a load of waffle . Best await the detail before declaring victory !
Who is “declaring victory”? I am merely pointing out that those who so volubly and publicly soiled themselves in the last few weeks, deranged by Trump, are - at least - at risk of looking very very ridiculous
But, as you say, we need the Deets, and it could all be nonsense
Blackmailing Ukraine into signing an unfair mineral deal to stave off abandonment by a key ally (and the threatened immediate loss of key battlefield communications) is exactly what "those who so volubly and publicly soiled themselves" were complaining about. The fact that Ukraine might be forced to sign it doesn't appear to address that concern.
Odd sort of "deal" if it doesn't include a meaningful security guarantee.
Odd sort of "comment". A deal can cover anything and everything. Your priority isn't the same as anyone else's. Thank goodness.
Let's probe that with a little hypothetical.
Me: "See this here pistol I'm pointing at your head. It's loaded. You're probably scared. But we can resolve this to our mutual benefit. Give me all your money and I'll put the gun away."
You: "Um, yes ok."
Do you walk away from this encounter thinking you've made a "deal"?
This again comes from your rather naive, if touching expectation that it is beholden upon the US to defend the West. You may think that is exactly what the US must do. But the American voters and the current president apparently don't think of it in those terms. For them, it is more transactional. Sitting miles away from the conflict they wonder what's in it for them. And they elected a president who is asking just such a question directly.
It's precisely what they voted for.
All your precious value judgements count for diddly squat and illustrate, more, a misunderestimation of how geopolitics works.
We have agreed that you are out of your depth on this forum, and you seen intent on proving this time and time again.
Yet I often feel I have to dumb down down to talk to you. Because extreme cynicism, I have to tell you, is adjacent to naivety. The old horseshoe in operation again.
It's well illustrated by the notion that "geopolitics" is nothing more than the powerful exploiting the needy for short term £££ gain. There's plenty of that, of course there is, but it is not exclusively how "it" works. That's a noddy view.
I think you're straining to stand out from a "PB consensus" and in the process to look worldly. Plus I think you're too impressed by Donald Trump and are reading too much into that election win. It doesn't justify everything he does.
It would be naive, certainly, to think that the USA has been spending billions of dollars overseas, since 1949, as an act of pure altruism.
In cash terms, it's generally cheaper for the US to station troops overseas than at home. Protecting allies means protecting markets for the USA, and international shipping lanes. The USA, thanks to its military and economic power, has been able to set the terms by which the world economy operates, through GATT and the World Bank. The dollar is the world's reserve currency. The USA has a clutch of allies, willing to participate in, and take casualties in, US-led military adventures.
The US has actually done very well, out of assuming a position of world leadership.
In the long term. Whereas Donald Trump is all about today and tomorrow. If the damage he does manifests (to the US) beyond his time, he won't give a single shit. It's dumb and reductive, but in a sense it is rational if you go not by the US national interest (let alone a wider one) but by what drives HIM.
The US will commit to a “free, sovereign and secure” Ukraine and a “lasting peace” as part of a minerals deal that now appears imminent, according to a recent draft text seen by Bloomberg
US will agree a “durable partnership” between Washington and Kyiv, texts shows
US will signal intent to invest in Ukraine
US will also say those who “acted adversely” to Ukraine in the war should not “benefit from its reconstruction”
Ukraine’s Deputy PM Olha Stefanishyna says the minerals deal is in the “final stages”
Person familiar says a new draft has almost been agreed and is awaiting a reply from the US
If this come off 90% of PB will look like 5 year olds that shat themselves
The text looks like a load of waffle . Best await the detail before declaring victory !
Who is “declaring victory”? I am merely pointing out that those who so volubly and publicly soiled themselves in the last few weeks, deranged by Trump, are - at least - at risk of looking very very ridiculous
But, as you say, we need the Deets, and it could all be nonsense
Blackmailing Ukraine into signing an unfair mineral deal to stave off abandonment by a key ally (and the threatened immediate loss of key battlefield communications) is exactly what "those who so volubly and publicly soiled themselves" were complaining about. The fact that Ukraine might be forced to sign it doesn't appear to address that concern.
Odd sort of "deal" if it doesn't include a meaningful security guarantee.
Odd sort of "comment". A deal can cover anything and everything. Your priority isn't the same as anyone else's. Thank goodness.
Let's probe that with a little hypothetical.
Me: "See this here pistol I'm pointing at your head. It's loaded. You're probably scared. But we can resolve this to our mutual benefit. Give me all your money and I'll put the gun away."
You: "Um, yes ok."
Do you walk away from this encounter thinking you've made a "deal"?
This again comes from your rather naive, if touching expectation that it is beholden upon the US to defend the West. You may think that is exactly what the US must do. But the American voters and the current president apparently don't think of it in those terms. For them, it is more transactional. Sitting miles away from the conflict they wonder what's in it for them. And they elected a president who is asking just such a question directly.
It's precisely what they voted for.
All your precious value judgements count for diddly squat and illustrate, more, a misunderestimation of how geopolitics works.
We have agreed that you are out of your depth on this forum, and you seen intent on proving this time and time again.
Yet I often feel I have to dumb down down to talk to you. Because extreme cynicism, I have to tell you, is adjacent to naivety. The old horseshoe in operation again.
It's well illustrated by the notion that "geopolitics" is nothing more than the powerful exploiting the needy for short term £££ gain. There's plenty of that, of course there is, but it is not exclusively how "it" works. That's a noddy view.
I think you're straining to stand out from a "PB consensus" and in the process to look worldly. Plus I think you're too impressed by Donald Trump and are reading too much into that election win. It doesn't justify everything he does.
On geopolitics. There are other things to transactions at the geopolitical level than raw gain.
Just as really large businesses build reputations, so do states.
So, if you work on the "I'll get everything from you, then turn you upside down and shake all the pennies out. At gunpoint. And humiliate you in public.", then that's the rep you will have.
There's a reason that business don't act like this. And it's not just the law.
The analogy between states and businesses doesn't really work. States don't derive their legitimacy in the same way at all.
What has legitimacy got to do with it?
The point is that entities (whether people, companies or countries).don't usually try and maximize this week's outcome at the expense of future outcomes. They recognize that if you screw some other entity over, then they will remember that in future.
I don't think that's a terribly contentions point.
It's seems to be difficult to figure out. For some.
Think of it like this.
Keir Starmer phones most of the countries in the UN and demands they pay 10% of their GDP in 24 hours, or they get nuked.
Yeah, you'll get quite a bit of money, in the short term. But....
The US will commit to a “free, sovereign and secure” Ukraine and a “lasting peace” as part of a minerals deal that now appears imminent, according to a recent draft text seen by Bloomberg
US will agree a “durable partnership” between Washington and Kyiv, texts shows
US will signal intent to invest in Ukraine
US will also say those who “acted adversely” to Ukraine in the war should not “benefit from its reconstruction”
Ukraine’s Deputy PM Olha Stefanishyna says the minerals deal is in the “final stages”
Person familiar says a new draft has almost been agreed and is awaiting a reply from the US
If this come off 90% of PB will look like 5 year olds that shat themselves
The text looks like a load of waffle . Best await the detail before declaring victory !
Who is “declaring victory”? I am merely pointing out that those who so volubly and publicly soiled themselves in the last few weeks, deranged by Trump, are - at least - at risk of looking very very ridiculous
But, as you say, we need the Deets, and it could all be nonsense
Blackmailing Ukraine into signing an unfair mineral deal to stave off abandonment by a key ally (and the threatened immediate loss of key battlefield communications) is exactly what "those who so volubly and publicly soiled themselves" were complaining about. The fact that Ukraine might be forced to sign it doesn't appear to address that concern.
Odd sort of "deal" if it doesn't include a meaningful security guarantee.
Odd sort of "comment". A deal can cover anything and everything. Your priority isn't the same as anyone else's. Thank goodness.
I will believe this when I see it. Trump's word has been proven again and again to be meaningless, and the terms of the 'deals' offered have been so extortionate as to be unsignable.
Now, maybe someone has put forward a Molotov-Ribbentrop arrangement, though if that is de facto on the table then it's a major concession from Putin, who wants Ukraine as - at the minimum - a satellite state. Massive American investment, even for their own ends, would of necessity mean a US security interest in the country, one that could only be guaranteed by US force. In effect, that's NATO arriving in Kyiv.
But Ukraine's population can't be ignored in this. They've proven themselves well-capable of revolutions and to hand over the resources of the country to someone else, after all they've been through, undefeated, might well provoke another one. Zelensky must know that.
Personally, I remain sceptical. But if it is true, it's very much not a cause for celebration. It will not be the end of the story.
It will be a time to discover whether the continuous back channel communications are being conducted by sensible people.
Who will then explain to Trump what is going to happen.
As for Trump's word - look at his "Hamas must release every hostage" rhetoric. Release every hostage Hamas didn't and the world kept turning.
Indeed. Although the US is not a direct participants in Gaza, despite the closeness between Netanyahu and Trump, and were never likely to be. Trump has more than a habit of exaggeration and hyperbole and could claim that he was talking about what Israel would do (despite the fact he was making threats that Israel hadn't).
Whereas the US presumably would be a direct signatory on a Ukraine deal, not least because Putin would want some legitimacy on the treaty that didn't involve a Ukrainian leadership, or not only them.
But even if a back channel discussion is being conducted by sensible people, a sensible outcome probably won't satisfy Trump (or Putin, unless he really is worried about the Russian army capability - although if he was, he wouldn't keep upping the ante each time talks move anywhere). It is Trump who will make the call. That said, it depends what his motivation is - or how he prioritises them. The suggestion that what he really wants is a Nobel Prize is entirely plausible (he won't get it). If so, *any* deal is worth having. But if he's looking at exploiting a peace for US advantage, then that's a different question.
The MP for Runcorn is apparently going to Appeal the sentence. If it becomes non custodial and a Community sentence then the Recall procedure will not immediately apply. Over to the Parliamentary Commissioner/Watchdog and the result of their investigation could take a few weeks before any Recall process started. In this sort of scenario it could be June even July before a by election.
Reform may struggle a bit at the Locals in May, they may not have the resources to make widespread gains, their recent local by election performance suggests this would be the case. Quite likely Lib Dems will make the most gains and seize some temporary headlines. That could boost their Runcorn performance. Equally the Conservatives will not want Reform charging forward and can be expected to campaign hard. Reform may be disappointed.
There are two other potential by elections of course Gorton and Burnley. The latter has a heavy University electorate which should boost the Greens whilst Burnley is a major Lib Dem target seat and we all know what happens to most of those, they win them.
The US will commit to a “free, sovereign and secure” Ukraine and a “lasting peace” as part of a minerals deal that now appears imminent, according to a recent draft text seen by Bloomberg
US will agree a “durable partnership” between Washington and Kyiv, texts shows
US will signal intent to invest in Ukraine
US will also say those who “acted adversely” to Ukraine in the war should not “benefit from its reconstruction”
Ukraine’s Deputy PM Olha Stefanishyna says the minerals deal is in the “final stages”
Person familiar says a new draft has almost been agreed and is awaiting a reply from the US
If this come off 90% of PB will look like 5 year olds that shat themselves
The text looks like a load of waffle . Best await the detail before declaring victory !
Who is “declaring victory”? I am merely pointing out that those who so volubly and publicly soiled themselves in the last few weeks, deranged by Trump, are - at least - at risk of looking very very ridiculous
But, as you say, we need the Deets, and it could all be nonsense
Blackmailing Ukraine into signing an unfair mineral deal to stave off abandonment by a key ally (and the threatened immediate loss of key battlefield communications) is exactly what "those who so volubly and publicly soiled themselves" were complaining about. The fact that Ukraine might be forced to sign it doesn't appear to address that concern.
Odd sort of "deal" if it doesn't include a meaningful security guarantee.
Odd sort of "comment". A deal can cover anything and everything. Your priority isn't the same as anyone else's. Thank goodness.
Let's probe that with a little hypothetical.
Me: "See this here pistol I'm pointing at your head. It's loaded. You're probably scared. But we can resolve this to our mutual benefit. Give me all your money and I'll put the gun away."
You: "Um, yes ok."
Do you walk away from this encounter thinking you've made a "deal"?
This again comes from your rather naive, if touching expectation that it is beholden upon the US to defend the West. You may think that is exactly what the US must do. But the American voters and the current president apparently don't think of it in those terms. For them, it is more transactional. Sitting miles away from the conflict they wonder what's in it for them. And they elected a president who is asking just such a question directly.
It's precisely what they voted for.
All your precious value judgements count for diddly squat and illustrate, more, a misunderestimation of how geopolitics works.
We have agreed that you are out of your depth on this forum, and you seen intent on proving this time and time again.
Yet I often feel I have to dumb down down to talk to you. Because extreme cynicism, I have to tell you, is adjacent to naivety. The old horseshoe in operation again.
It's well illustrated by the notion that "geopolitics" is nothing more than the powerful exploiting the needy for short term £££ gain. There's plenty of that, of course there is, but it is not exclusively how "it" works. That's a noddy view.
I think you're straining to stand out from a "PB consensus" and in the process to look worldly. Plus I think you're too impressed by Donald Trump and are reading too much into that election win. It doesn't justify everything he does.
On geopolitics. There are other things to transactions at the geopolitical level than raw gain.
Just as really large businesses build reputations, so do states.
So, if you work on the "I'll get everything from you, then turn you upside down and shake all the pennies out. At gunpoint. And humiliate you in public.", then that's the rep you will have.
There's a reason that business don't act like this. And it's not just the law.
The analogy between states and businesses doesn't really work. States don't derive their legitimacy in the same way at all.
What has legitimacy got to do with it?
The point is that entities (whether people, companies or countries).don't usually try and maximize this week's outcome at the expense of future outcomes. They recognize that if you screw some other entity over, then they will remember that in future.
I don't think that's a terribly contentions point.
So you approve of Trump marginalising the people seeking a maximalist outcome with respect to Russia?
The US will commit to a “free, sovereign and secure” Ukraine and a “lasting peace” as part of a minerals deal that now appears imminent, according to a recent draft text seen by Bloomberg
US will agree a “durable partnership” between Washington and Kyiv, texts shows
US will signal intent to invest in Ukraine
US will also say those who “acted adversely” to Ukraine in the war should not “benefit from its reconstruction”
Ukraine’s Deputy PM Olha Stefanishyna says the minerals deal is in the “final stages”
Person familiar says a new draft has almost been agreed and is awaiting a reply from the US
If this come off 90% of PB will look like 5 year olds that shat themselves
The text looks like a load of waffle . Best await the detail before declaring victory !
Who is “declaring victory”? I am merely pointing out that those who so volubly and publicly soiled themselves in the last few weeks, deranged by Trump, are - at least - at risk of looking very very ridiculous
But, as you say, we need the Deets, and it could all be nonsense
Blackmailing Ukraine into signing an unfair mineral deal to stave off abandonment by a key ally (and the threatened immediate loss of key battlefield communications) is exactly what "those who so volubly and publicly soiled themselves" were complaining about. The fact that Ukraine might be forced to sign it doesn't appear to address that concern.
Odd sort of "deal" if it doesn't include a meaningful security guarantee.
Odd sort of "comment". A deal can cover anything and everything. Your priority isn't the same as anyone else's. Thank goodness.
Let's probe that with a little hypothetical.
Me: "See this here pistol I'm pointing at your head. It's loaded. You're probably scared. But we can resolve this to our mutual benefit. Give me all your money and I'll put the gun away."
You: "Um, yes ok."
Do you walk away from this encounter thinking you've made a "deal"?
This again comes from your rather naive, if touching expectation that it is beholden upon the US to defend the West. You may think that is exactly what the US must do. But the American voters and the current president apparently don't think of it in those terms. For them, it is more transactional. Sitting miles away from the conflict they wonder what's in it for them. And they elected a president who is asking just such a question directly.
It's precisely what they voted for.
All your precious value judgements count for diddly squat and illustrate, more, a misunderestimation of how geopolitics works.
We have agreed that you are out of your depth on this forum, and you seen intent on proving this time and time again.
Yet I often feel I have to dumb down down to talk to you. Because extreme cynicism, I have to tell you, is adjacent to naivety. The old horseshoe in operation again.
It's well illustrated by the notion that "geopolitics" is nothing more than the powerful exploiting the needy for short term £££ gain. There's plenty of that, of course there is, but it is not exclusively how "it" works. That's a noddy view.
I think you're straining to stand out from a "PB consensus" and in the process to look worldly. Plus I think you're too impressed by Donald Trump and are reading too much into that election win. It doesn't justify everything he does.
On geopolitics. There are other things to transactions at the geopolitical level than raw gain.
Just as really large businesses build reputations, so do states.
So, if you work on the "I'll get everything from you, then turn you upside down and shake all the pennies out. At gunpoint. And humiliate you in public.", then that's the rep you will have.
There's a reason that business don't act like this. And it's not just the law.
When you do favours, you can call them in, when needed.
But, if you turn everything into a shakedown, you’ll be shaken down in turn, when you need help.
Yep. But Trump will probably be gone by then. I really do think the best way to analyse and predict his actions is not by way of what works for America but what tickles his own toes. Just purely that.
The US will commit to a “free, sovereign and secure” Ukraine and a “lasting peace” as part of a minerals deal that now appears imminent, according to a recent draft text seen by Bloomberg
US will agree a “durable partnership” between Washington and Kyiv, texts shows
US will signal intent to invest in Ukraine
US will also say those who “acted adversely” to Ukraine in the war should not “benefit from its reconstruction”
Ukraine’s Deputy PM Olha Stefanishyna says the minerals deal is in the “final stages”
Person familiar says a new draft has almost been agreed and is awaiting a reply from the US
If this come off 90% of PB will look like 5 year olds that shat themselves
The text looks like a load of waffle . Best await the detail before declaring victory !
Who is “declaring victory”? I am merely pointing out that those who so volubly and publicly soiled themselves in the last few weeks, deranged by Trump, are - at least - at risk of looking very very ridiculous
But, as you say, we need the Deets, and it could all be nonsense
Blackmailing Ukraine into signing an unfair mineral deal to stave off abandonment by a key ally (and the threatened immediate loss of key battlefield communications) is exactly what "those who so volubly and publicly soiled themselves" were complaining about. The fact that Ukraine might be forced to sign it doesn't appear to address that concern.
Odd sort of "deal" if it doesn't include a meaningful security guarantee.
Odd sort of "comment". A deal can cover anything and everything. Your priority isn't the same as anyone else's. Thank goodness.
Let's probe that with a little hypothetical.
Me: "See this here pistol I'm pointing at your head. It's loaded. You're probably scared. But we can resolve this to our mutual benefit. Give me all your money and I'll put the gun away."
You: "Um, yes ok."
Do you walk away from this encounter thinking you've made a "deal"?
This again comes from your rather naive, if touching expectation that it is beholden upon the US to defend the West. You may think that is exactly what the US must do. But the American voters and the current president apparently don't think of it in those terms. For them, it is more transactional. Sitting miles away from the conflict they wonder what's in it for them. And they elected a president who is asking just such a question directly.
It's precisely what they voted for.
All your precious value judgements count for diddly squat and illustrate, more, a misunderestimation of how geopolitics works.
We have agreed that you are out of your depth on this forum, and you seen intent on proving this time and time again.
Yet I often feel I have to dumb down down to talk to you. Because extreme cynicism, I have to tell you, is adjacent to naivety. The old horseshoe in operation again.
It's well illustrated by the notion that "geopolitics" is nothing more than the powerful exploiting the needy for short term £££ gain. There's plenty of that, of course there is, but it is not exclusively how "it" works. That's a noddy view.
I think you're straining to stand out from a "PB consensus" and in the process to look worldly. Plus I think you're too impressed by Donald Trump and are reading too much into that election win. It doesn't justify everything he does.
On geopolitics. There are other things to transactions at the geopolitical level than raw gain.
Just as really large businesses build reputations, so do states.
So, if you work on the "I'll get everything from you, then turn you upside down and shake all the pennies out. At gunpoint. And humiliate you in public.", then that's the rep you will have.
There's a reason that business don't act like this. And it's not just the law.
The analogy between states and businesses doesn't really work. States don't derive their legitimacy in the same way at all.
What has legitimacy got to do with it?
The point is that entities (whether people, companies or countries).don't usually try and maximize this week's outcome at the expense of future outcomes. They recognize that if you screw some other entity over, then they will remember that in future.
I don't think that's a terribly contentions point.
Trump seems to be a man in a hurry. Or looking for a legacy of some sort. Perhaps he, of all people, realises his vulnerability and wants to get as much out of his second term as possible.
I can't quite reconcile the actions of Warren Buffet with the promises of Trump. Perhaps the Sage of Omaha can see signals we can't like this one.
With total U.S. employment of 160 million, 7 million unemployed and about 5 million people changing jobs every month, the 300,000 federal jobs lost is not statistically very much. But studies show that for every federal employee there are two contractors, according to Slok, and so layoffs could be closer to 1 million.
Biden flushed the US economy with so much cash that US companies went on a spree, as reflected in the stock market. If that cash is being withdrawn, something will have to give. My bet is on asset prices with those highly leveraged seeing what happens when the tide goes out (as Buffet is expecting?).
The US will commit to a “free, sovereign and secure” Ukraine and a “lasting peace” as part of a minerals deal that now appears imminent, according to a recent draft text seen by Bloomberg
US will agree a “durable partnership” between Washington and Kyiv, texts shows
US will signal intent to invest in Ukraine
US will also say those who “acted adversely” to Ukraine in the war should not “benefit from its reconstruction”
Ukraine’s Deputy PM Olha Stefanishyna says the minerals deal is in the “final stages”
Person familiar says a new draft has almost been agreed and is awaiting a reply from the US
If this come off 90% of PB will look like 5 year olds that shat themselves
The text looks like a load of waffle . Best await the detail before declaring victory !
Who is “declaring victory”? I am merely pointing out that those who so volubly and publicly soiled themselves in the last few weeks, deranged by Trump, are - at least - at risk of looking very very ridiculous
But, as you say, we need the Deets, and it could all be nonsense
Blackmailing Ukraine into signing an unfair mineral deal to stave off abandonment by a key ally (and the threatened immediate loss of key battlefield communications) is exactly what "those who so volubly and publicly soiled themselves" were complaining about. The fact that Ukraine might be forced to sign it doesn't appear to address that concern.
I mean the US has provided Ukraine (and the entire West) with billions of dollars of aid in one form or another. Is that an obligation on the part of the US? Trump doesn't particularly think so.
Is it because we share the same values and blah, blah, blah? A bit.
But don't mistake geopolitical strategy for largesse.
No, I agree. It seems that Trump sees an alliance with Putin as a way to simultaneously weaken the EU, and prize Russia away from China. Taking the mantle of 19th Century Duplicitous Albion from us, and projecting it into the 21st Century.
It's depressing but entirely believable.
It does, however, run the risk of the EU ending up a lot closer to China. (Also, Canada: there can be little doubt they will invest heavily in improving the pipeline links to Kittimat to enable them to export heavy oil East if needs be.)
And it's hard to see how that would end up being to the US's advantage,
It would be interesting to see if there is less resistance to the technical brain drain going east rather than West in future.
Not to mention more favourable terms for manufacturing.
The point is that entities (whether people, companies or countries).don't usually try and maximize this week's outcome at the expense of future outcomes. They recognize that if you screw some other entity over, then they will remember that in future.
I don't think that's a terribly contentions point.
This is precisely how the big supermarkets deal with small suppliers.
The US will commit to a “free, sovereign and secure” Ukraine and a “lasting peace” as part of a minerals deal that now appears imminent, according to a recent draft text seen by Bloomberg
US will agree a “durable partnership” between Washington and Kyiv, texts shows
US will signal intent to invest in Ukraine
US will also say those who “acted adversely” to Ukraine in the war should not “benefit from its reconstruction”
Ukraine’s Deputy PM Olha Stefanishyna says the minerals deal is in the “final stages”
Person familiar says a new draft has almost been agreed and is awaiting a reply from the US
If this come off 90% of PB will look like 5 year olds that shat themselves
The text looks like a load of waffle . Best await the detail before declaring victory !
Who is “declaring victory”? I am merely pointing out that those who so volubly and publicly soiled themselves in the last few weeks, deranged by Trump, are - at least - at risk of looking very very ridiculous
But, as you say, we need the Deets, and it could all be nonsense
Blackmailing Ukraine into signing an unfair mineral deal to stave off abandonment by a key ally (and the threatened immediate loss of key battlefield communications) is exactly what "those who so volubly and publicly soiled themselves" were complaining about. The fact that Ukraine might be forced to sign it doesn't appear to address that concern.
Odd sort of "deal" if it doesn't include a meaningful security guarantee.
Odd sort of "comment". A deal can cover anything and everything. Your priority isn't the same as anyone else's. Thank goodness.
Let's probe that with a little hypothetical.
Me: "See this here pistol I'm pointing at your head. It's loaded. You're probably scared. But we can resolve this to our mutual benefit. Give me all your money and I'll put the gun away."
You: "Um, yes ok."
Do you walk away from this encounter thinking you've made a "deal"?
This again comes from your rather naive, if touching expectation that it is beholden upon the US to defend the West. You may think that is exactly what the US must do. But the American voters and the current president apparently don't think of it in those terms. For them, it is more transactional. Sitting miles away from the conflict they wonder what's in it for them. And they elected a president who is asking just such a question directly.
It's precisely what they voted for.
All your precious value judgements count for diddly squat and illustrate, more, a misunderestimation of how geopolitics works.
We have agreed that you are out of your depth on this forum, and you seen intent on proving this time and time again.
Yet I often feel I have to dumb down down to talk to you. Because extreme cynicism, I have to tell you, is adjacent to naivety. The old horseshoe in operation again.
It's well illustrated by the notion that "geopolitics" is nothing more than the powerful exploiting the needy for short term £££ gain. There's plenty of that, of course there is, but it is not exclusively how "it" works. That's a noddy view.
I think you're straining to stand out from a "PB consensus" and in the process to look worldly. Plus I think you're too impressed by Donald Trump and are reading too much into that election win. It doesn't justify everything he does.
It would be naive, certainly, to think that the USA has been spending billions of dollars overseas, since 1949, as an act of pure altruism.
In cash terms, it's generally cheaper for the US to station troops overseas than at home. Protecting allies means protecting markets for the USA, and international shipping lanes. The USA, thanks to its military and economic power, has been able to set the terms by which the world economy operates, through GATT and the World Bank. The dollar is the world's reserve currency. The USA has a clutch of allies, willing to participate in, and take casualties in, US-led military adventures.
The US has actually done very well, out of assuming a position of world leadership.
With one proviso: having the world's currency means having the currency everyone has to own. (Literally: central bank reserves are denominated in US Dollars.)
That means there is constant demand for US dollars as the rest of the world grows, and that makes it extremely difficult for the US to run a trade surplus. (Every dollar stashed in a central bank is a dollar not being used to buy US goods and services.)
I'm not sure that's true. Britain ran a trade surplus in the 19th century (I think - surely?) but Sterling was also the global reserve currency. That circle was squared by British financial investment abroad. And that was when currencies were backed by gold.
The MP for Runcorn is apparently going to Appeal the sentence. If it becomes non custodial and a Community sentence then the Recall procedure will not immediately apply. Over to the Parliamentary Commissioner/Watchdog and the result of their investigation could take a few weeks before any Recall process started. In this sort of scenario it could be June even July before a by election.
Reform may struggle a bit at the Locals in May, they may not have the resources to make widespread gains, their recent local by election performance suggests this would be the case. Quite likely Lib Dems will make the most gains and seize some temporary headlines. That could boost their Runcorn performance. Equally the Conservatives will not want Reform charging forward and can be expected to campaign hard. Reform may be disappointed.
There are two other potential by elections of course Gorton and Burnley. The latter has a heavy University electorate which should boost the Greens whilst Burnley is a major Lib Dem target seat and we all know what happens to most of those, they win them.
When was the last time someone accepted a sentence without appealing against it?
The US will commit to a “free, sovereign and secure” Ukraine and a “lasting peace” as part of a minerals deal that now appears imminent, according to a recent draft text seen by Bloomberg
US will agree a “durable partnership” between Washington and Kyiv, texts shows
US will signal intent to invest in Ukraine
US will also say those who “acted adversely” to Ukraine in the war should not “benefit from its reconstruction”
Ukraine’s Deputy PM Olha Stefanishyna says the minerals deal is in the “final stages”
Person familiar says a new draft has almost been agreed and is awaiting a reply from the US
If this come off 90% of PB will look like 5 year olds that shat themselves
The text looks like a load of waffle . Best await the detail before declaring victory !
Who is “declaring victory”? I am merely pointing out that those who so volubly and publicly soiled themselves in the last few weeks, deranged by Trump, are - at least - at risk of looking very very ridiculous
But, as you say, we need the Deets, and it could all be nonsense
Blackmailing Ukraine into signing an unfair mineral deal to stave off abandonment by a key ally (and the threatened immediate loss of key battlefield communications) is exactly what "those who so volubly and publicly soiled themselves" were complaining about. The fact that Ukraine might be forced to sign it doesn't appear to address that concern.
I mean the US has provided Ukraine (and the entire West) with billions of dollars of aid in one form or another. Is that an obligation on the part of the US? Trump doesn't particularly think so.
Is it because we share the same values and blah, blah, blah? A bit.
But don't mistake geopolitical strategy for largesse.
I think it's reasonable to call racketeering out for what it is and to suggest that it isn't in the American interest beyond what's conflated with Trump's own interest, while recognising extortion does actually happen. The Mafia is still in business after all.
This = similar to calling him Hitler. He is doing what he was elected to do. You all seem to have a huge blind spot when it comes to US politics which is strange, given the nature of this website.
I haven't called Trump Hitler because he isn't and I am calling him a racketeer because he is. Whether he was elected to be one (which is doubtful) it doesn't stop him being who he is. And on a politics site you can surely assess the disadvantages of that approach even if you have zero agency over it.
The MP for Runcorn is apparently going to Appeal the sentence. If it becomes non custodial and a Community sentence then the Recall procedure will not immediately apply. Over to the Parliamentary Commissioner/Watchdog and the result of their investigation could take a few weeks before any Recall process started. In this sort of scenario it could be June even July before a by election.
Reform may struggle a bit at the Locals in May, they may not have the resources to make widespread gains, their recent local by election performance suggests this would be the case. Quite likely Lib Dems will make the most gains and seize some temporary headlines. That could boost their Runcorn performance. Equally the Conservatives will not want Reform charging forward and can be expected to campaign hard. Reform may be disappointed.
There are two other potential by elections of course Gorton and Burnley. The latter has a heavy University electorate which should boost the Greens whilst Burnley is a major Lib Dem target seat and we all know what happens to most of those, they win them.
That's actually quite an exemplary sentence it seems to me. Assault by Beating - rather than say Assault Occasioning ABH - is a low level charge for multiple punches to the head imo. Perhaps ir was "I'll plead guilty to the lesser charge".
If I understand my recall procedures correctly, if he gets it down to suspended or a fine, then the only way a recall petition could happen is if there was also an enquiry by the Commons Committee on Standards, followed by a 14 day or more suspension,
The US will commit to a “free, sovereign and secure” Ukraine and a “lasting peace” as part of a minerals deal that now appears imminent, according to a recent draft text seen by Bloomberg
US will agree a “durable partnership” between Washington and Kyiv, texts shows
US will signal intent to invest in Ukraine
US will also say those who “acted adversely” to Ukraine in the war should not “benefit from its reconstruction”
Ukraine’s Deputy PM Olha Stefanishyna says the minerals deal is in the “final stages”
Person familiar says a new draft has almost been agreed and is awaiting a reply from the US
If this come off 90% of PB will look like 5 year olds that shat themselves
The text looks like a load of waffle . Best await the detail before declaring victory !
Who is “declaring victory”? I am merely pointing out that those who so volubly and publicly soiled themselves in the last few weeks, deranged by Trump, are - at least - at risk of looking very very ridiculous
But, as you say, we need the Deets, and it could all be nonsense
Blackmailing Ukraine into signing an unfair mineral deal to stave off abandonment by a key ally (and the threatened immediate loss of key battlefield communications) is exactly what "those who so volubly and publicly soiled themselves" were complaining about. The fact that Ukraine might be forced to sign it doesn't appear to address that concern.
Odd sort of "deal" if it doesn't include a meaningful security guarantee.
Odd sort of "comment". A deal can cover anything and everything. Your priority isn't the same as anyone else's. Thank goodness.
Let's probe that with a little hypothetical.
Me: "See this here pistol I'm pointing at your head. It's loaded. You're probably scared. But we can resolve this to our mutual benefit. Give me all your money and I'll put the gun away."
You: "Um, yes ok."
Do you walk away from this encounter thinking you've made a "deal"?
This again comes from your rather naive, if touching expectation that it is beholden upon the US to defend the West. You may think that is exactly what the US must do. But the American voters and the current president apparently don't think of it in those terms. For them, it is more transactional. Sitting miles away from the conflict they wonder what's in it for them. And they elected a president who is asking just such a question directly.
It's precisely what they voted for.
All your precious value judgements count for diddly squat and illustrate, more, a misunderestimation of how geopolitics works.
We have agreed that you are out of your depth on this forum, and you seen intent on proving this time and time again.
Yet I often feel I have to dumb down down to talk to you. Because extreme cynicism, I have to tell you, is adjacent to naivety. The old horseshoe in operation again.
It's well illustrated by the notion that "geopolitics" is nothing more than the powerful exploiting the needy for short term £££ gain. There's plenty of that, of course there is, but it is not exclusively how "it" works. That's a noddy view.
I think you're straining to stand out from a "PB consensus" and in the process to look worldly. Plus I think you're too impressed by Donald Trump and are reading too much into that election win. It doesn't justify everything he does.
On geopolitics. There are other things to transactions at the geopolitical level than raw gain.
Just as really large businesses build reputations, so do states.
So, if you work on the "I'll get everything from you, then turn you upside down and shake all the pennies out. At gunpoint. And humiliate you in public.", then that's the rep you will have.
There's a reason that business don't act like this. And it's not just the law.
The analogy between states and businesses doesn't really work. States don't derive their legitimacy in the same way at all.
What has legitimacy got to do with it?
The point is that entities (whether people, companies or countries).don't usually try and maximize this week's outcome at the expense of future outcomes. They recognize that if you screw some other entity over, then they will remember that in future.
I don't think that's a terribly contentions point.
Trump seems to be a man in a hurry. Or looking for a legacy of some sort. Perhaps he, of all people, realises his vulnerability and wants to get as much out of his second term as possible.
I can't quite reconcile the actions of Warren Buffet with the promises of Trump. Perhaps the Sage of Omaha can see signals we can't like this one.
With total U.S. employment of 160 million, 7 million unemployed and about 5 million people changing jobs every month, the 300,000 federal jobs lost is not statistically very much. But studies show that for every federal employee there are two contractors, according to Slok, and so layoffs could be closer to 1 million.
Biden flushed the US economy with so much cash that US companies went on a spree, as reflected in the stock market. If that cash is being withdrawn, something will have to give. My bet is on asset prices with those highly leveraged seeing what happens when the tide goes out (as Buffet is expecting?).
Constricting cash in circulation is the last thing Trump will do. He'll want - and very likely get - lower interest rates and big budget deficits, which will puff up asset prices even further. And inflation.
That said, there's still a debt ceiling crunch coming, which may or may not trip over the wire. Who knows how that plays out if things go wrong.
The US will commit to a “free, sovereign and secure” Ukraine and a “lasting peace” as part of a minerals deal that now appears imminent, according to a recent draft text seen by Bloomberg
US will agree a “durable partnership” between Washington and Kyiv, texts shows
US will signal intent to invest in Ukraine
US will also say those who “acted adversely” to Ukraine in the war should not “benefit from its reconstruction”
Ukraine’s Deputy PM Olha Stefanishyna says the minerals deal is in the “final stages”
Person familiar says a new draft has almost been agreed and is awaiting a reply from the US
If this come off 90% of PB will look like 5 year olds that shat themselves
The text looks like a load of waffle . Best await the detail before declaring victory !
Who is “declaring victory”? I am merely pointing out that those who so volubly and publicly soiled themselves in the last few weeks, deranged by Trump, are - at least - at risk of looking very very ridiculous
But, as you say, we need the Deets, and it could all be nonsense
Blackmailing Ukraine into signing an unfair mineral deal to stave off abandonment by a key ally (and the threatened immediate loss of key battlefield communications) is exactly what "those who so volubly and publicly soiled themselves" were complaining about. The fact that Ukraine might be forced to sign it doesn't appear to address that concern.
Odd sort of "deal" if it doesn't include a meaningful security guarantee.
Odd sort of "comment". A deal can cover anything and everything. Your priority isn't the same as anyone else's. Thank goodness.
I will believe this when I see it. Trump's word has been proven again and again to be meaningless, and the terms of the 'deals' offered have been so extortionate as to be unsignable.
Now, maybe someone has put forward a Molotov-Ribbentrop arrangement, though if that is de facto on the table then it's a major concession from Putin, who wants Ukraine as - at the minimum - a satellite state. Massive American investment, even for their own ends, would of necessity mean a US security interest in the country, one that could only be guaranteed by US force. In effect, that's NATO arriving in Kyiv.
But Ukraine's population can't be ignored in this. They've proven themselves well-capable of revolutions and to hand over the resources of the country to someone else, after all they've been through, undefeated, might well provoke another one. Zelensky must know that.
Personally, I remain sceptical. But if it is true, it's very much not a cause for celebration. It will not be the end of the story.
It will be a time to discover whether the continuous back channel communications are being conducted by sensible people.
Who will then explain to Trump what is going to happen.
As for Trump's word - look at his "Hamas must release every hostage" rhetoric. Release every hostage Hamas didn't and the world kept turning.
Indeed. Although the US is not a direct participants in Gaza,, despite the closeness between Netanyahu and Trump, and were never likely to be. Trump has more than a habit of exaggeration and hyperbole and could claim that he was talking about what Israel would do (despite the fact he was making threats that Israel hadn't).
Whereas the US presumably would be a direct signatory on a Ukraine deal, not least because Putin would want some legitimacy on the treaty that didn't involve a Ukrainian leadership, or not only them.
But even if a back channel discussion is being conducted by sensible people, a sensible outcome probably won't satisfy Trump (or Putin, unless he really is worried about the Russian army capability - although if he was, he wouldn't keep upping the ante each time talks move anywhere). It is Trump who will make the call. That said, it depends what his motivation is - or how he prioritises them. The suggestion that what he really wants is a Nobel Prize is entirely plausible (he won't get it). If so, *any* deal is worth having. But if he's looking at exploiting a peace for US advantage, then that's a different question.
It very much is, as it provides the bombs. Which otherwise, Israel would be running very short of by now.
The US will commit to a “free, sovereign and secure” Ukraine and a “lasting peace” as part of a minerals deal that now appears imminent, according to a recent draft text seen by Bloomberg
US will agree a “durable partnership” between Washington and Kyiv, texts shows
US will signal intent to invest in Ukraine
US will also say those who “acted adversely” to Ukraine in the war should not “benefit from its reconstruction”
Ukraine’s Deputy PM Olha Stefanishyna says the minerals deal is in the “final stages”
Person familiar says a new draft has almost been agreed and is awaiting a reply from the US
If this come off 90% of PB will look like 5 year olds that shat themselves
The text looks like a load of waffle . Best await the detail before declaring victory !
Who is “declaring victory”? I am merely pointing out that those who so volubly and publicly soiled themselves in the last few weeks, deranged by Trump, are - at least - at risk of looking very very ridiculous
But, as you say, we need the Deets, and it could all be nonsense
Blackmailing Ukraine into signing an unfair mineral deal to stave off abandonment by a key ally (and the threatened immediate loss of key battlefield communications) is exactly what "those who so volubly and publicly soiled themselves" were complaining about. The fact that Ukraine might be forced to sign it doesn't appear to address that concern.
Odd sort of "deal" if it doesn't include a meaningful security guarantee.
Odd sort of "comment". A deal can cover anything and everything. Your priority isn't the same as anyone else's. Thank goodness.
Let's probe that with a little hypothetical.
Me: "See this here pistol I'm pointing at your head. It's loaded. You're probably scared. But we can resolve this to our mutual benefit. Give me all your money and I'll put the gun away."
You: "Um, yes ok."
Do you walk away from this encounter thinking you've made a "deal"?
This again comes from your rather naive, if touching expectation that it is beholden upon the US to defend the West. You may think that is exactly what the US must do. But the American voters and the current president apparently don't think of it in those terms. For them, it is more transactional. Sitting miles away from the conflict they wonder what's in it for them. And they elected a president who is asking just such a question directly.
It's precisely what they voted for.
All your precious value judgements count for diddly squat and illustrate, more, a misunderestimation of how geopolitics works.
We have agreed that you are out of your depth on this forum, and you seen intent on proving this time and time again.
Yet I often feel I have to dumb down down to talk to you. Because extreme cynicism, I have to tell you, is adjacent to naivety. The old horseshoe in operation again.
It's well illustrated by the notion that "geopolitics" is nothing more than the powerful exploiting the needy for short term £££ gain. There's plenty of that, of course there is, but it is not exclusively how "it" works. That's a noddy view.
I think you're straining to stand out from a "PB consensus" and in the process to look worldly. Plus I think you're too impressed by Donald Trump and are reading too much into that election win. It doesn't justify everything he does.
On geopolitics. There are other things to transactions at the geopolitical level than raw gain.
Just as really large businesses build reputations, so do states.
So, if you work on the "I'll get everything from you, then turn you upside down and shake all the pennies out. At gunpoint. And humiliate you in public.", then that's the rep you will have.
There's a reason that business don't act like this. And it's not just the law.
The analogy between states and businesses doesn't really work. States don't derive their legitimacy in the same way at all.
What has legitimacy got to do with it?
The point is that entities (whether people, companies or countries).don't usually try and maximize this week's outcome at the expense of future outcomes. They recognize that if you screw some other entity over, then they will remember that in future.
I don't think that's a terribly contentions point.
Trump seems to be a man in a hurry. Or looking for a legacy of some sort. Perhaps he, of all people, realises his vulnerability and wants to get as much out of his second term as possible.
I can't quite reconcile the actions of Warren Buffet with the promises of Trump. Perhaps the Sage of Omaha can see signals we can't like this one.
With total U.S. employment of 160 million, 7 million unemployed and about 5 million people changing jobs every month, the 300,000 federal jobs lost is not statistically very much. But studies show that for every federal employee there are two contractors, according to Slok, and so layoffs could be closer to 1 million.
Biden flushed the US economy with so much cash that US companies went on a spree, as reflected in the stock market. If that cash is being withdrawn, something will have to give. My bet is on asset prices with those highly leveraged seeing what happens when the tide goes out (as Buffet is expecting?).
Apple just announced $500bn in US capital investment, so it's not entirely clear that the 'spree' has ended.
The US will commit to a “free, sovereign and secure” Ukraine and a “lasting peace” as part of a minerals deal that now appears imminent, according to a recent draft text seen by Bloomberg
US will agree a “durable partnership” between Washington and Kyiv, texts shows
US will signal intent to invest in Ukraine
US will also say those who “acted adversely” to Ukraine in the war should not “benefit from its reconstruction”
Ukraine’s Deputy PM Olha Stefanishyna says the minerals deal is in the “final stages”
Person familiar says a new draft has almost been agreed and is awaiting a reply from the US
If this come off 90% of PB will look like 5 year olds that shat themselves
The text looks like a load of waffle . Best await the detail before declaring victory !
Who is “declaring victory”? I am merely pointing out that those who so volubly and publicly soiled themselves in the last few weeks, deranged by Trump, are - at least - at risk of looking very very ridiculous
But, as you say, we need the Deets, and it could all be nonsense
Blackmailing Ukraine into signing an unfair mineral deal to stave off abandonment by a key ally (and the threatened immediate loss of key battlefield communications) is exactly what "those who so volubly and publicly soiled themselves" were complaining about. The fact that Ukraine might be forced to sign it doesn't appear to address that concern.
Odd sort of "deal" if it doesn't include a meaningful security guarantee.
Odd sort of "comment". A deal can cover anything and everything. Your priority isn't the same as anyone else's. Thank goodness.
Let's probe that with a little hypothetical.
Me: "See this here pistol I'm pointing at your head. It's loaded. You're probably scared. But we can resolve this to our mutual benefit. Give me all your money and I'll put the gun away."
You: "Um, yes ok."
Do you walk away from this encounter thinking you've made a "deal"?
This again comes from your rather naive, if touching expectation that it is beholden upon the US to defend the West. You may think that is exactly what the US must do. But the American voters and the current president apparently don't think of it in those terms. For them, it is more transactional. Sitting miles away from the conflict they wonder what's in it for them. And they elected a president who is asking just such a question directly.
It's precisely what they voted for.
All your precious value judgements count for diddly squat and illustrate, more, a misunderestimation of how geopolitics works.
We have agreed that you are out of your depth on this forum, and you seen intent on proving this time and time again.
Yet I often feel I have to dumb down down to talk to you. Because extreme cynicism, I have to tell you, is adjacent to naivety. The old horseshoe in operation again.
It's well illustrated by the notion that "geopolitics" is nothing more than the powerful exploiting the needy for short term £££ gain. There's plenty of that, of course there is, but it is not exclusively how "it" works. That's a noddy view.
I think you're straining to stand out from a "PB consensus" and in the process to look worldly. Plus I think you're too impressed by Donald Trump and are reading too much into that election win. It doesn't justify everything he does.
It would be naive, certainly, to think that the USA has been spending billions of dollars overseas, since 1949, as an act of pure altruism.
In cash terms, it's generally cheaper for the US to station troops overseas than at home. Protecting allies means protecting markets for the USA, and international shipping lanes. The USA, thanks to its military and economic power, has been able to set the terms by which the world economy operates, through GATT and the World Bank. The dollar is the world's reserve currency. The USA has a clutch of allies, willing to participate in, and take casualties in, US-led military adventures.
The US has actually done very well, out of assuming a position of world leadership.
With one proviso: having the world's currency means having the currency everyone has to own. (Literally: central bank reserves are denominated in US Dollars.)
That means there is constant demand for US dollars as the rest of the world grows, and that makes it extremely difficult for the US to run a trade surplus. (Every dollar stashed in a central bank is a dollar not being used to buy US goods and services.)
I'm not sure that's true. Britain ran a trade surplus in the 19th century (I think - surely?) but Sterling was also the global reserve currency. That circle was squared by British financial investment abroad. And that was when currencies were backed by gold.
We did: but that was different because in those days because foreign reserves in those days were denominated in gold (something that was true until the mid 1970s and the end of Bretton Woods).
How many of these American candy stores are legit?
One has popped up in my town in recent weeks and I've never seen a single person in it.
If they're not legit, then why don't the authorities do something about it?
Every time I visit London these days I see people pushing through the barriers at tube stations, something that I hardly ever saw until a couple of years ago. Nobody does anything about it. The TFL staff members just stand around, looking in the other direction. They don't want to get involved. The fare dodgers know there's no authority of any type around.
I haven't been to London for a bit, but the principle that little criminals, unchecked, turn into big criminals, seems to be applicable.
The point is that entities (whether people, companies or countries).don't usually try and maximize this week's outcome at the expense of future outcomes. They recognize that if you screw some other entity over, then they will remember that in future.
I don't think that's a terribly contentions point.
This is precisely how the big supermarkets deal with small suppliers.
I know of an Italian winemaker, whose dad had signed up with Tesco.
He inherited the business. When the contract ended, he let it lapse. The Tesco rep came out, and found that the whole setup for mass producing cheap wine was being dismantled and removed.
The winemaker pointed out that his dad had, in the end, been making nearly no profit. So F&*k Tesco.
The point is that entities (whether people, companies or countries).don't usually try and maximize this week's outcome at the expense of future outcomes. They recognize that if you screw some other entity over, then they will remember that in future.
I don't think that's a terribly contentions point.
This is precisely how the big supermarkets deal with small suppliers.
And it works in a situation where there are tens of thousands of small suppliers, and just a couple of purchasers.
It might even work if you run a property development company, and there are lots of suppliers of marble inlay.
I am less convinced it works in scenarios where there are only a relatively small number of players (countries) and everything is in the open (so everyone knows who got hosed).
It is particularly likely to be long term negative, if you insist on crowing about how you beat others in negotiations.
The US will commit to a “free, sovereign and secure” Ukraine and a “lasting peace” as part of a minerals deal that now appears imminent, according to a recent draft text seen by Bloomberg
US will agree a “durable partnership” between Washington and Kyiv, texts shows
US will signal intent to invest in Ukraine
US will also say those who “acted adversely” to Ukraine in the war should not “benefit from its reconstruction”
Ukraine’s Deputy PM Olha Stefanishyna says the minerals deal is in the “final stages”
Person familiar says a new draft has almost been agreed and is awaiting a reply from the US
If this come off 90% of PB will look like 5 year olds that shat themselves
The text looks like a load of waffle . Best await the detail before declaring victory !
Who is “declaring victory”? I am merely pointing out that those who so volubly and publicly soiled themselves in the last few weeks, deranged by Trump, are - at least - at risk of looking very very ridiculous
But, as you say, we need the Deets, and it could all be nonsense
Blackmailing Ukraine into signing an unfair mineral deal to stave off abandonment by a key ally (and the threatened immediate loss of key battlefield communications) is exactly what "those who so volubly and publicly soiled themselves" were complaining about. The fact that Ukraine might be forced to sign it doesn't appear to address that concern.
Odd sort of "deal" if it doesn't include a meaningful security guarantee.
Odd sort of "comment". A deal can cover anything and everything. Your priority isn't the same as anyone else's. Thank goodness.
Let's probe that with a little hypothetical.
Me: "See this here pistol I'm pointing at your head. It's loaded. You're probably scared. But we can resolve this to our mutual benefit. Give me all your money and I'll put the gun away."
You: "Um, yes ok."
Do you walk away from this encounter thinking you've made a "deal"?
This again comes from your rather naive, if touching expectation that it is beholden upon the US to defend the West. You may think that is exactly what the US must do. But the American voters and the current president apparently don't think of it in those terms. For them, it is more transactional. Sitting miles away from the conflict they wonder what's in it for them. And they elected a president who is asking just such a question directly.
It's precisely what they voted for.
All your precious value judgements count for diddly squat and illustrate, more, a misunderestimation of how geopolitics works.
We have agreed that you are out of your depth on this forum, and you seen intent on proving this time and time again.
Yet I often feel I have to dumb down down to talk to you. Because extreme cynicism, I have to tell you, is adjacent to naivety. The old horseshoe in operation again.
It's well illustrated by the notion that "geopolitics" is nothing more than the powerful exploiting the needy for short term £££ gain. There's plenty of that, of course there is, but it is not exclusively how "it" works. That's a noddy view.
I think you're straining to stand out from a "PB consensus" and in the process to look worldly. Plus I think you're too impressed by Donald Trump and are reading too much into that election win. It doesn't justify everything he does.
On geopolitics. There are other things to transactions at the geopolitical level than raw gain.
Just as really large businesses build reputations, so do states.
So, if you work on the "I'll get everything from you, then turn you upside down and shake all the pennies out. At gunpoint. And humiliate you in public.", then that's the rep you will have.
There's a reason that business don't act like this. And it's not just the law.
The analogy between states and businesses doesn't really work. States don't derive their legitimacy in the same way at all.
What has legitimacy got to do with it?
The point is that entities (whether people, companies or countries).don't usually try and maximize this week's outcome at the expense of future outcomes. They recognize that if you screw some other entity over, then they will remember that in future.
I don't think that's a terribly contentions point.
So you approve of Trump marginalising the people seeking a maximalist outcome with respect to Russia?
If I understood your question, it's possible I would have a view. But it's also possible that I'd think sigh, @williamglenn doesn't want to engage and is just answering a question with a question again.
The US will commit to a “free, sovereign and secure” Ukraine and a “lasting peace” as part of a minerals deal that now appears imminent, according to a recent draft text seen by Bloomberg
US will agree a “durable partnership” between Washington and Kyiv, texts shows
US will signal intent to invest in Ukraine
US will also say those who “acted adversely” to Ukraine in the war should not “benefit from its reconstruction”
Ukraine’s Deputy PM Olha Stefanishyna says the minerals deal is in the “final stages”
Person familiar says a new draft has almost been agreed and is awaiting a reply from the US
If this come off 90% of PB will look like 5 year olds that shat themselves
The text looks like a load of waffle . Best await the detail before declaring victory !
Who is “declaring victory”? I am merely pointing out that those who so volubly and publicly soiled themselves in the last few weeks, deranged by Trump, are - at least - at risk of looking very very ridiculous
But, as you say, we need the Deets, and it could all be nonsense
Blackmailing Ukraine into signing an unfair mineral deal to stave off abandonment by a key ally (and the threatened immediate loss of key battlefield communications) is exactly what "those who so volubly and publicly soiled themselves" were complaining about. The fact that Ukraine might be forced to sign it doesn't appear to address that concern.
Odd sort of "deal" if it doesn't include a meaningful security guarantee.
Odd sort of "comment". A deal can cover anything and everything. Your priority isn't the same as anyone else's. Thank goodness.
I will believe this when I see it. Trump's word has been proven again and again to be meaningless, and the terms of the 'deals' offered have been so extortionate as to be unsignable.
Now, maybe someone has put forward a Molotov-Ribbentrop arrangement, though if that is de facto on the table then it's a major concession from Putin, who wants Ukraine as - at the minimum - a satellite state. Massive American investment, even for their own ends, would of necessity mean a US security interest in the country, one that could only be guaranteed by US force. In effect, that's NATO arriving in Kyiv.
But Ukraine's population can't be ignored in this. They've proven themselves well-capable of revolutions and to hand over the resources of the country to someone else, after all they've been through, undefeated, might well provoke another one. Zelensky must know that.
Personally, I remain sceptical. But if it is true, it's very much not a cause for celebration. It will not be the end of the story.
It will be a time to discover whether the continuous back channel communications are being conducted by sensible people.
Who will then explain to Trump what is going to happen.
As for Trump's word - look at his "Hamas must release every hostage" rhetoric. Release every hostage Hamas didn't and the world kept turning.
Indeed. Although the US is not a direct participants in Gaza,, despite the closeness between Netanyahu and Trump, and were never likely to be. Trump has more than a habit of exaggeration and hyperbole and could claim that he was talking about what Israel would do (despite the fact he was making threats that Israel hadn't).
Whereas the US presumably would be a direct signatory on a Ukraine deal, not least because Putin would want some legitimacy on the treaty that didn't involve a Ukrainian leadership, or not only them.
But even if a back channel discussion is being conducted by sensible people, a sensible outcome probably won't satisfy Trump (or Putin, unless he really is worried about the Russian army capability - although if he was, he wouldn't keep upping the ante each time talks move anywhere). It is Trump who will make the call. That said, it depends what his motivation is - or how he prioritises them. The suggestion that what he really wants is a Nobel Prize is entirely plausible (he won't get it). If so, *any* deal is worth having. But if he's looking at exploiting a peace for US advantage, then that's a different question.
It very much is, as it provides the bombs. Which otherwise, Israel would be running very short of by now.
If he were making the threat towards Israel, I'd agree. However, he's not.
The MP for Runcorn is apparently going to Appeal the sentence. If it becomes non custodial and a Community sentence then the Recall procedure will not immediately apply. Over to the Parliamentary Commissioner/Watchdog and the result of their investigation could take a few weeks before any Recall process started. In this sort of scenario it could be June even July before a by election.
Reform may struggle a bit at the Locals in May, they may not have the resources to make widespread gains, their recent local by election performance suggests this would be the case. Quite likely Lib Dems will make the most gains and seize some temporary headlines. That could boost their Runcorn performance. Equally the Conservatives will not want Reform charging forward and can be expected to campaign hard. Reform may be disappointed.
There are two other potential by elections of course Gorton and Burnley. The latter has a heavy University electorate which should boost the Greens whilst Burnley is a major Lib Dem target seat and we all know what happens to most of those, they win them.
That's actually quite an exemplary sentence it seems to me. Assault by Beating - rather than say Assault Occasioning ABH - is a low level charge for multiple punches to the head imo. Perhaps ir was "I'll plead guilty to the lesser charge".
If I understand my recall procedures correctly, if he gets it down to suspended or a fine, then the only way a recall petition could happen is if there was also an enquiry by the Commons Committee on Standards, followed by a 14 day or more suspension,
Common assault is when a person inflicts violence on someone else or makes them think they are going to be attacked. It does not have to involve physical violence. Threatening words or a raised fist is enough for the crime to have been committed provided the victim thinks that they are about to be attacked. Spitting at someone is another example.
Actual bodily harm (ABH) means the assault has caused some hurt or injury to the victim. Physical injury does not need to be serious or permanent but must be more than “trifling” or “transient”, which means it must at least cause minor injuries or pain or discomfort. Psychological harm can also be covered by this offence, but this must be more than just fear or anxiety.
Grievous bodily harm (GBH) means the assault has caused serious physical harm. It does not have to be permanent or dangerous. For example, a broken bone would amount to GBH – in some cases a broken bone might lead to permanent disability but, in others, it might heal without leaving any long-term effects. GBH can also include psychiatric injury or someone passing on an infection, for example through sexual activity.
Clearly he *could* have ben charge with ABH. This is an example of the "down changing" that goes on, ordinarily.
Lasers are getting cheaper and cheaper. Efficiencies are orders of magnitude better than a couple of decades ago. The biggest issue is "adding" multiple laser outputs into one effectively.
The difficult bit is dealing with the heat damage to the laser mirrors, which are (I think) now diffractive optics microfabricated on diamond (which is both highly heat resistant, and a great conductor of heat).
The US will commit to a “free, sovereign and secure” Ukraine and a “lasting peace” as part of a minerals deal that now appears imminent, according to a recent draft text seen by Bloomberg
US will agree a “durable partnership” between Washington and Kyiv, texts shows
US will signal intent to invest in Ukraine
US will also say those who “acted adversely” to Ukraine in the war should not “benefit from its reconstruction”
Ukraine’s Deputy PM Olha Stefanishyna says the minerals deal is in the “final stages”
Person familiar says a new draft has almost been agreed and is awaiting a reply from the US
If this come off 90% of PB will look like 5 year olds that shat themselves
The text looks like a load of waffle . Best await the detail before declaring victory !
Who is “declaring victory”? I am merely pointing out that those who so volubly and publicly soiled themselves in the last few weeks, deranged by Trump, are - at least - at risk of looking very very ridiculous
But, as you say, we need the Deets, and it could all be nonsense
Blackmailing Ukraine into signing an unfair mineral deal to stave off abandonment by a key ally (and the threatened immediate loss of key battlefield communications) is exactly what "those who so volubly and publicly soiled themselves" were complaining about. The fact that Ukraine might be forced to sign it doesn't appear to address that concern.
Odd sort of "deal" if it doesn't include a meaningful security guarantee.
Odd sort of "comment". A deal can cover anything and everything. Your priority isn't the same as anyone else's. Thank goodness.
Let's probe that with a little hypothetical.
Me: "See this here pistol I'm pointing at your head. It's loaded. You're probably scared. But we can resolve this to our mutual benefit. Give me all your money and I'll put the gun away."
You: "Um, yes ok."
Do you walk away from this encounter thinking you've made a "deal"?
This again comes from your rather naive, if touching expectation that it is beholden upon the US to defend the West. You may think that is exactly what the US must do. But the American voters and the current president apparently don't think of it in those terms. For them, it is more transactional. Sitting miles away from the conflict they wonder what's in it for them. And they elected a president who is asking just such a question directly.
It's precisely what they voted for.
All your precious value judgements count for diddly squat and illustrate, more, a misunderestimation of how geopolitics works.
We have agreed that you are out of your depth on this forum, and you seen intent on proving this time and time again.
Yet I often feel I have to dumb down down to talk to you. Because extreme cynicism, I have to tell you, is adjacent to naivety. The old horseshoe in operation again.
It's well illustrated by the notion that "geopolitics" is nothing more than the powerful exploiting the needy for short term £££ gain. There's plenty of that, of course there is, but it is not exclusively how "it" works. That's a noddy view.
I think you're straining to stand out from a "PB consensus" and in the process to look worldly. Plus I think you're too impressed by Donald Trump and are reading too much into that election win. It doesn't justify everything he does.
It would be naive, certainly, to think that the USA has been spending billions of dollars overseas, since 1949, as an act of pure altruism.
In cash terms, it's generally cheaper for the US to station troops overseas than at home. Protecting allies means protecting markets for the USA, and international shipping lanes. The USA, thanks to its military and economic power, has been able to set the terms by which the world economy operates, through GATT and the World Bank. The dollar is the world's reserve currency. The USA has a clutch of allies, willing to participate in, and take casualties in, US-led military adventures.
The US has actually done very well, out of assuming a position of world leadership.
With one proviso: having the world's currency means having the currency everyone has to own. (Literally: central bank reserves are denominated in US Dollars.)
That means there is constant demand for US dollars as the rest of the world grows, and that makes it extremely difficult for the US to run a trade surplus. (Every dollar stashed in a central bank is a dollar not being used to buy US goods and services.)
I'm not sure that's true. Britain ran a trade surplus in the 19th century (I think - surely?) but Sterling was also the global reserve currency. That circle was squared by British financial investment abroad. And that was when currencies were backed by gold.
We did: but that was different because in those days because foreign reserves in those days were denominated in gold (something that was true until the mid 1970s and the end of Bretton Woods).
There was also some system of imperial tariff preference. Trump seems to be attempting to impose something vaguely similar.
How many of these American candy stores are legit?
One has popped up in my town in recent weeks and I've never seen a single person in it.
If they're not legit, then why don't the authorities do something about it?
Every time I visit London these days I see people pushing through the barriers at tube stations, something that I hardly ever saw until a couple of years ago. Nobody does anything about it. The TFL staff members just stand around, looking in the other direction. They don't want to get involved. The fare dodgers know there's no authority of any type around.
I haven't been to London for a bit, but the principle that little criminals, unchecked, turn into big criminals, seems to be applicable.
I live in London, take public transport most days, and can’t say I’ve noticed much change in the frequency of people jumping barriers since I first moved here in 1998. I do occasionally see it, and the station staff find it difficult to do anything when it happens as the miscreants are usually teenage boys in hoodies with attitude.
The US will commit to a “free, sovereign and secure” Ukraine and a “lasting peace” as part of a minerals deal that now appears imminent, according to a recent draft text seen by Bloomberg
US will agree a “durable partnership” between Washington and Kyiv, texts shows
US will signal intent to invest in Ukraine
US will also say those who “acted adversely” to Ukraine in the war should not “benefit from its reconstruction”
Ukraine’s Deputy PM Olha Stefanishyna says the minerals deal is in the “final stages”
Person familiar says a new draft has almost been agreed and is awaiting a reply from the US
If this come off 90% of PB will look like 5 year olds that shat themselves
The text looks like a load of waffle . Best await the detail before declaring victory !
Who is “declaring victory”? I am merely pointing out that those who so volubly and publicly soiled themselves in the last few weeks, deranged by Trump, are - at least - at risk of looking very very ridiculous
But, as you say, we need the Deets, and it could all be nonsense
Blackmailing Ukraine into signing an unfair mineral deal to stave off abandonment by a key ally (and the threatened immediate loss of key battlefield communications) is exactly what "those who so volubly and publicly soiled themselves" were complaining about. The fact that Ukraine might be forced to sign it doesn't appear to address that concern.
Odd sort of "deal" if it doesn't include a meaningful security guarantee.
Odd sort of "comment". A deal can cover anything and everything. Your priority isn't the same as anyone else's. Thank goodness.
Let's probe that with a little hypothetical.
Me: "See this here pistol I'm pointing at your head. It's loaded. You're probably scared. But we can resolve this to our mutual benefit. Give me all your money and I'll put the gun away."
You: "Um, yes ok."
Do you walk away from this encounter thinking you've made a "deal"?
This again comes from your rather naive, if touching expectation that it is beholden upon the US to defend the West. You may think that is exactly what the US must do. But the American voters and the current president apparently don't think of it in those terms. For them, it is more transactional. Sitting miles away from the conflict they wonder what's in it for them. And they elected a president who is asking just such a question directly.
It's precisely what they voted for.
All your precious value judgements count for diddly squat and illustrate, more, a misunderestimation of how geopolitics works.
We have agreed that you are out of your depth on this forum, and you seen intent on proving this time and time again.
Yet I often feel I have to dumb down down to talk to you. Because extreme cynicism, I have to tell you, is adjacent to naivety. The old horseshoe in operation again.
It's well illustrated by the notion that "geopolitics" is nothing more than the powerful exploiting the needy for short term £££ gain. There's plenty of that, of course there is, but it is not exclusively how "it" works. That's a noddy view.
I think you're straining to stand out from a "PB consensus" and in the process to look worldly. Plus I think you're too impressed by Donald Trump and are reading too much into that election win. It doesn't justify everything he does.
On geopolitics. There are other things to transactions at the geopolitical level than raw gain.
Just as really large businesses build reputations, so do states.
So, if you work on the "I'll get everything from you, then turn you upside down and shake all the pennies out. At gunpoint. And humiliate you in public.", then that's the rep you will have.
There's a reason that business don't act like this. And it's not just the law.
The analogy between states and businesses doesn't really work. States don't derive their legitimacy in the same way at all.
What has legitimacy got to do with it?
The point is that entities (whether people, companies or countries).don't usually try and maximize this week's outcome at the expense of future outcomes. They recognize that if you screw some other entity over, then they will remember that in future.
I don't think that's a terribly contentions point.
So you approve of Trump marginalising the people seeking a maximalist outcome with respect to Russia?
If I understood your question, it's possible I would have a view. But it's also possible that I'd think sigh, @williamglenn doesn't want to engage and is just answering a question with a question again.
I thought it was a reasonably clear point. Russia isn't going to go away, so based on the argument that maximizing this week's outcome at the expense of future outcomes is a bad idea, we shouldn't seek to humiliate them and should instead aim for a constructive peace deal on terms they can accept.
The point is that entities (whether people, companies or countries).don't usually try and maximize this week's outcome at the expense of future outcomes. They recognize that if you screw some other entity over, then they will remember that in future.
I don't think that's a terribly contentions point.
This is precisely how the big supermarkets deal with small suppliers.
And it works in a situation where there are tens of thousands of small suppliers, and just a couple of purchasers.
It might even work if you run a property development company, and there are lots of suppliers of marble inlay.
I am less convinced it works in scenarios where there are only a relatively small number of players (countries) and everything is in the open (so everyone knows who got hosed).
It is particularly likely to be long term negative, if you insist on crowing about how you beat others in negotiations.
Some people tried that with marble tiles (high quality) in the UK - "F&*k you - pay me all the money"
This failed, once a number of small and medium sized businesses simply contacted quarries directly and sent vans over to Spain and Italy to pick up material.
The business that tried the ramp are now not selling much custom marble tile. They are even having to resort to discounts to keep people onboard for their other products.
Reform may struggle a bit at the Locals in May, they may not have the resources to make widespread gains, their recent local by election performance suggests this would be the case.
I'm not absolutely convinced.
The Leeanderthal Man claims 400 branches and 215k members. If the fee is £20 per head weighted, that's £4m.
The resources that I think they will be missing will be historic vote data, and experienced organising staff,
The difficult bit is dealing with the heat damage to the laser mirrors, which are (I think) now diffractive optics microfabricated on diamond (which is both highly heat resistant, and a great conductor of heat).
The MP for Runcorn is apparently going to Appeal the sentence. If it becomes non custodial and a Community sentence then the Recall procedure will not immediately apply. Over to the Parliamentary Commissioner/Watchdog and the result of their investigation could take a few weeks before any Recall process started. In this sort of scenario it could be June even July before a by election.
Reform may struggle a bit at the Locals in May, they may not have the resources to make widespread gains, their recent local by election performance suggests this would be the case. Quite likely Lib Dems will make the most gains and seize some temporary headlines. That could boost their Runcorn performance. Equally the Conservatives will not want Reform charging forward and can be expected to campaign hard. Reform may be disappointed.
There are two other potential by elections of course Gorton and Burnley. The latter has a heavy University electorate which should boost the Greens whilst Burnley is a major Lib Dem target seat and we all know what happens to most of those, they win them.
I struggle to see an appeal removing the custodial sentence (could say it should have been suspended, but that counts as custodial for recall purposes). So Runcorn is nailed on by-election although timing in some doubt.
On Gorton and Burnley, I can see them resulting in expulsion from Labour but cannot see it resulting in conditions giving rise to a recall petition (neither criminal nor likely to give rise to an extended suspension from the Commons). There could be pressure from Labour for them to resign their seats, but I suspect they won't be keen to pass up the next four years or so of salary. Sceptical as to whether we'll see by-elections in either, much as the Lib Dems would want it in Burnley in particular.
The difficult bit is dealing with the heat damage to the laser mirrors, which are (I think) now diffractive optics microfabricated on diamond (which is both highly heat resistant, and a great conductor of heat).
Also reports of them being truck mounted (the programme was for ships). And these are one of the things we will need in some form for our installations ... airfields and dockyards for two, but also a lot more ... if it hots up with Russia.
The US will commit to a “free, sovereign and secure” Ukraine and a “lasting peace” as part of a minerals deal that now appears imminent, according to a recent draft text seen by Bloomberg
US will agree a “durable partnership” between Washington and Kyiv, texts shows
US will signal intent to invest in Ukraine
US will also say those who “acted adversely” to Ukraine in the war should not “benefit from its reconstruction”
Ukraine’s Deputy PM Olha Stefanishyna says the minerals deal is in the “final stages”
Person familiar says a new draft has almost been agreed and is awaiting a reply from the US
If this come off 90% of PB will look like 5 year olds that shat themselves
The text looks like a load of waffle . Best await the detail before declaring victory !
Who is “declaring victory”? I am merely pointing out that those who so volubly and publicly soiled themselves in the last few weeks, deranged by Trump, are - at least - at risk of looking very very ridiculous
But, as you say, we need the Deets, and it could all be nonsense
Blackmailing Ukraine into signing an unfair mineral deal to stave off abandonment by a key ally (and the threatened immediate loss of key battlefield communications) is exactly what "those who so volubly and publicly soiled themselves" were complaining about. The fact that Ukraine might be forced to sign it doesn't appear to address that concern.
Odd sort of "deal" if it doesn't include a meaningful security guarantee.
Odd sort of "comment". A deal can cover anything and everything. Your priority isn't the same as anyone else's. Thank goodness.
Let's probe that with a little hypothetical.
Me: "See this here pistol I'm pointing at your head. It's loaded. You're probably scared. But we can resolve this to our mutual benefit. Give me all your money and I'll put the gun away."
You: "Um, yes ok."
Do you walk away from this encounter thinking you've made a "deal"?
This again comes from your rather naive, if touching expectation that it is beholden upon the US to defend the West. You may think that is exactly what the US must do. But the American voters and the current president apparently don't think of it in those terms. For them, it is more transactional. Sitting miles away from the conflict they wonder what's in it for them. And they elected a president who is asking just such a question directly.
It's precisely what they voted for.
All your precious value judgements count for diddly squat and illustrate, more, a misunderestimation of how geopolitics works.
We have agreed that you are out of your depth on this forum, and you seen intent on proving this time and time again.
Yet I often feel I have to dumb down down to talk to you. Because extreme cynicism, I have to tell you, is adjacent to naivety. The old horseshoe in operation again.
It's well illustrated by the notion that "geopolitics" is nothing more than the powerful exploiting the needy for short term £££ gain. There's plenty of that, of course there is, but it is not exclusively how "it" works. That's a noddy view.
I think you're straining to stand out from a "PB consensus" and in the process to look worldly. Plus I think you're too impressed by Donald Trump and are reading too much into that election win. It doesn't justify everything he does.
On geopolitics. There are other things to transactions at the geopolitical level than raw gain.
Just as really large businesses build reputations, so do states.
So, if you work on the "I'll get everything from you, then turn you upside down and shake all the pennies out. At gunpoint. And humiliate you in public.", then that's the rep you will have.
There's a reason that business don't act like this. And it's not just the law.
The analogy between states and businesses doesn't really work. States don't derive their legitimacy in the same way at all.
What has legitimacy got to do with it?
The point is that entities (whether people, companies or countries).don't usually try and maximize this week's outcome at the expense of future outcomes. They recognize that if you screw some other entity over, then they will remember that in future.
I don't think that's a terribly contentions point.
So you approve of Trump marginalising the people seeking a maximalist outcome with respect to Russia?
If I understood your question, it's possible I would have a view. But it's also possible that I'd think sigh, @williamglenn doesn't want to engage and is just answering a question with a question again.
I thought it was a reasonably clear point. Russia isn't going to go away, so based on the argument that maximizing this week's outcome at the expense of future outcomes is a bad idea, we shouldn't seek to humiliate them and should instead aim for a constructive peace deal on terms they can accept.
That might be valid if they were a reliable partner: they're not. Even then, actions have to have consequences. Rewarding naked aggression not only encourages a repetition from the same party, once they're back in a position to do so again, but encourages copy-cat behaviour elsewhere by setting the precedent.
So yes, Russia - and Putin personally - should be humiliated.
The MP for Runcorn is apparently going to Appeal the sentence. If it becomes non custodial and a Community sentence then the Recall procedure will not immediately apply. Over to the Parliamentary Commissioner/Watchdog and the result of their investigation could take a few weeks before any Recall process started. In this sort of scenario it could be June even July before a by election.
Reform may struggle a bit at the Locals in May, they may not have the resources to make widespread gains, their recent local by election performance suggests this would be the case. Quite likely Lib Dems will make the most gains and seize some temporary headlines. That could boost their Runcorn performance. Equally the Conservatives will not want Reform charging forward and can be expected to campaign hard. Reform may be disappointed.
There are two other potential by elections of course Gorton and Burnley. The latter has a heavy University electorate which should boost the Greens whilst Burnley is a major Lib Dem target seat and we all know what happens to most of those, they win them.
Reform's recent by-election performance suggests national polling is pretty much ballpark right. They're not doing badly, particularly when you consider that they'll have minimal campaign data and other parties place a higher priority on local by-elections: there will be a structural bias in the results coming from factors like that.
Overall, Reform have made 12 gains out of 281 seats contested since the last May round, which isn't very many. However, there's been an acceleration in their performance (unsurprisingly given the polls). Between May-Aug, they gained 1 seat out of the 91 contested. In Sept-Nov, they won 5 out of 153. Since the beginning of December, they've won 6 out of 40 (presumably the much lower number of contests is a consequence of them not being triggered over Christmas / New Year at anything like the same rate).
In a normal May election round, parties won't (can't) throw the same energy, money or paper at each seat as in a by-election, so results will trend more back to national polling and underlying party resource. In many seats, there'll be precious little campaigning at all. That will suit Reform. I'd expect them to make a proportionately large number of gains but this won't produce dramatic figures because so few seats are up.
How many of these American candy stores are legit?
One has popped up in my town in recent weeks and I've never seen a single person in it.
If they're not legit, then why don't the authorities do something about it?
Every time I visit London these days I see people pushing through the barriers at tube stations, something that I hardly ever saw until a couple of years ago. Nobody does anything about it. The TFL staff members just stand around, looking in the other direction. They don't want to get involved. The fare dodgers know there's no authority of any type around.
I'm on the tube about 8 times a week. This does happen, but I see it infrequently. I don't recall seeing it in the last 12 months, to be honest. If anything, I see it less than I used to. I'm sure it varies by time of day, station etc., but I think Andy's depiction of anarchy is a little over the top.
The MP for Runcorn is apparently going to Appeal the sentence. If it becomes non custodial and a Community sentence then the Recall procedure will not immediately apply. Over to the Parliamentary Commissioner/Watchdog and the result of their investigation could take a few weeks before any Recall process started. In this sort of scenario it could be June even July before a by election.
Reform may struggle a bit at the Locals in May, they may not have the resources to make widespread gains, their recent local by election performance suggests this would be the case. Quite likely Lib Dems will make the most gains and seize some temporary headlines. That could boost their Runcorn performance. Equally the Conservatives will not want Reform charging forward and can be expected to campaign hard. Reform may be disappointed.
There are two other potential by elections of course Gorton and Burnley. The latter has a heavy University electorate which should boost the Greens whilst Burnley is a major Lib Dem target seat and we all know what happens to most of those, they win them.
That's actually quite an exemplary sentence it seems to me. Assault by Beating - rather than say Assault Occasioning ABH - is a low level charge for multiple punches to the head imo. Perhaps ir was "I'll plead guilty to the lesser charge".
If I understand my recall procedures correctly, if he gets it down to suspended or a fine, then the only way a recall petition could happen is if there was also an enquiry by the Commons Committee on Standards, followed by a 14 day or more suspension,
The other question is how big will the Europeans' aid package be for Ukraine today? Will it be enough to see them through another 6 months? If so, Trump will have lost such control as he has and Russia will start to panic as their economic crisis intensifies.
Ideally, we are looking for something close to $20bn with roughly 10% of that from us.
The traitorous scum Orbán is going to block that . They refuse to approve any more arms sales .
Its interesting how effective Hungary, a small recipient country, is in causing disruption in the EU.
Compared to how ineffective the UK, a large contributor country, was in EU negotiations.
Perhaps if the UK leaders had done a little more vetoing and a little less posturing and surrendering then the UK would still be in the EU.
EU needs to get its act together and kick out Hungary. Time for countries to pick a side.
They can’t . There’s no actual mechanism to kick them out . You can suspend their voting rights in the EP and put in other measures but need unanimous agreement from the remaining members and Fico another Putin puppet will block those .
Europe needs to start replacing the carrots with sticks. If some countries want to cause difficulties that are contrary to the security of the whole group, then a way can be found to politely remind them that if they’d like to be outside the club at the mercy of Russia and without access to the benefits, the door is over there.
Europe really has to start remaking itself as a security-first collective. I think Merz, and perhaps increasingly Macron, are starting to get this.
It's also not impossible that such a security collective overlaps but is distinct from the EU. And indeed NATO. That would get around the vetos of the semi-detached (or worse) members, and allow the participation of non EU members (ie the UK and Norway).
QMV is possible in the Council of the EU on Common Foreign and Security Policy - Article 31 of Lisbon. So there is no veto on such matters (unless somebody important like France objects). Orban didn't vote in favour of EU association for Ukraine but it still passed.
You've misread it.
If a member of the Council says they will oppose a decision, a vote will not take place. A member can abstain and "check out" on a matter; that means it will not be bound by any decision made by the rest but it also agrees it will not obstruct the Union in pursuing it.
The Council can only decide to act by QMV on a matter if the European Council first unanimously agrees.
In any event, EU structures are hardly conducive to rapid decision making, which is probably what's required here, if it's to make any contribution to resolving our current difficulties.
Any European defence alliance will have to be taken outside of EU structures.
Tissues and hugs for the federalists.
The likely outcome to all this is More Europe, not less.
It's more European defence cooperation. Not for your sordid dream.
No sordid dream here, just the reality. The increased security co-operation will inevitably create incentives to tie European nations closer together. At the same time, I think there is likely to be a significant shift in how Europe deals with border policy and external threats. So we will get a different Europe, perhaps a multi-speed Europe, perhaps not the federalist dream but not the dream of eurosceptics either. But certainly more Europe than we had before.
As a Leaver I have to agree with this
Indeed I reckon there is now a chance for the UK to make the kind of EU we always wanted
We should say to them: we will unite in common European security and defence - for those willing - France, Holland, Nordics, Poland, Balts, maybe Germany Italy or Spain? - and offer a nuclear guarantee, but in return we want a Single Market with limited Free Movement and the end of the ECHR and an ECJ severely curtailed in its purview
That’s not a bad deal for both sides
It’s time to think BIGLY
How do we negotiate the end of the ECHR with the EU when it is not an EU organisation? It would be as valid and practical as negotiating the end of ICJ with the EU.
If we want to leave the ECHR (and I am not advocating that) then we just do so. It is not dependent on our relationship with the EU.
There's an explainer on the Amnesty International site and how the ECHR and the UK version of it, interact i.e. if you leave the ECHR there is still UK legislation. Again it's a question not necessarily the will to do it, but the support to do it along with the impact on other legislation.
Which of the 18 Articles do you think should be scrapped. How about 12 - the right to marry. Seems redundant now.
The US will commit to a “free, sovereign and secure” Ukraine and a “lasting peace” as part of a minerals deal that now appears imminent, according to a recent draft text seen by Bloomberg
US will agree a “durable partnership” between Washington and Kyiv, texts shows
US will signal intent to invest in Ukraine
US will also say those who “acted adversely” to Ukraine in the war should not “benefit from its reconstruction”
Ukraine’s Deputy PM Olha Stefanishyna says the minerals deal is in the “final stages”
Person familiar says a new draft has almost been agreed and is awaiting a reply from the US
If this come off 90% of PB will look like 5 year olds that shat themselves
The text looks like a load of waffle . Best await the detail before declaring victory !
Who is “declaring victory”? I am merely pointing out that those who so volubly and publicly soiled themselves in the last few weeks, deranged by Trump, are - at least - at risk of looking very very ridiculous
But, as you say, we need the Deets, and it could all be nonsense
Blackmailing Ukraine into signing an unfair mineral deal to stave off abandonment by a key ally (and the threatened immediate loss of key battlefield communications) is exactly what "those who so volubly and publicly soiled themselves" were complaining about. The fact that Ukraine might be forced to sign it doesn't appear to address that concern.
Odd sort of "deal" if it doesn't include a meaningful security guarantee.
Odd sort of "comment". A deal can cover anything and everything. Your priority isn't the same as anyone else's. Thank goodness.
Let's probe that with a little hypothetical.
Me: "See this here pistol I'm pointing at your head. It's loaded. You're probably scared. But we can resolve this to our mutual benefit. Give me all your money and I'll put the gun away."
You: "Um, yes ok."
Do you walk away from this encounter thinking you've made a "deal"?
This again comes from your rather naive, if touching expectation that it is beholden upon the US to defend the West. You may think that is exactly what the US must do. But the American voters and the current president apparently don't think of it in those terms. For them, it is more transactional. Sitting miles away from the conflict they wonder what's in it for them. And they elected a president who is asking just such a question directly.
It's precisely what they voted for.
All your precious value judgements count for diddly squat and illustrate, more, a misunderestimation of how geopolitics works.
We have agreed that you are out of your depth on this forum, and you seen intent on proving this time and time again.
Yet I often feel I have to dumb down down to talk to you. Because extreme cynicism, I have to tell you, is adjacent to naivety. The old horseshoe in operation again.
It's well illustrated by the notion that "geopolitics" is nothing more than the powerful exploiting the needy for short term £££ gain. There's plenty of that, of course there is, but it is not exclusively how "it" works. That's a noddy view.
I think you're straining to stand out from a "PB consensus" and in the process to look worldly. Plus I think you're too impressed by Donald Trump and are reading too much into that election win. It doesn't justify everything he does.
On geopolitics. There are other things to transactions at the geopolitical level than raw gain.
Just as really large businesses build reputations, so do states.
So, if you work on the "I'll get everything from you, then turn you upside down and shake all the pennies out. At gunpoint. And humiliate you in public.", then that's the rep you will have.
There's a reason that business don't act like this. And it's not just the law.
The analogy between states and businesses doesn't really work. States don't derive their legitimacy in the same way at all.
They spent a lot of time and effort on selling Freedom, Justice and Apple Pie. Not that most of us believed. Though they kinda bought into their own brand.
Comments
I really don't think Topping strains (Eurgh !!!) to stand out from the crowd to appear anything.
And it's hard to see how that would end up being to the US's advantage,
In cash terms, it's generally cheaper for the US to station troops overseas than at home. Protecting allies means protecting markets for the USA, and international shipping lanes. The USA, thanks to its military and economic power, has been able to set the terms by which the world economy operates, through GATT and the World Bank. The dollar is the world's reserve currency. The USA has a clutch of allies, willing to participate in, and take casualties in, US-led military adventures.
The US has actually done very well, out of assuming a position of world leadership.
Just as really large businesses build reputations, so do states.
So, if you work on the "I'll get everything from you, then turn you upside down and shake all the pennies out. At gunpoint. And humiliate you in public.", then that's the rep you will have.
There's a reason that business don't act like this. And it's not just the law.
That means there is constant demand for US dollars as the rest of the world grows, and that makes it extremely difficult for the US to run a trade surplus. (Every dollar stashed in a central bank is a dollar not being used to buy US goods and services.)
https://bsky.app/profile/jokke71.bsky.social/post/3liwmyck5dk2h
'Elaine Kamarck of the Harvard Kennedy School, and William Galston of the University of Maryland and Brookings Institution, agree with [Daniel Patrick] Moynihan. Writing for the Progressive Policy Institute in 1990, they say: "The relationship [between crime and one-parent families, which are typically fatherless families] is so strong that controlling for family configuration erases the relationship between race and crime and between low income and crime. This relationship shows up time and again in the literature."'
(p. 120)
US journalists routinely talk about "gun violence"; they might be more useful if they would -- from time to time -- tell us a little about what we might call "fatherless violence".
*I will never forgive Chris Chibnall.
But, if you turn everything into a shakedown, you’ll be shaken down in turn, when you need help.
The point is that entities (whether people, companies or countries).don't usually try and maximize this week's outcome at the expense of future outcomes. They recognize that if you screw some other entity over, then they will remember that in future.
I don't think that's a terribly contentions point.
*See the documentary ‘Wallace & Gromit: A Grand Day Out’ for more!
Think of it like this.
Keir Starmer phones most of the countries in the UN and demands they pay 10% of their GDP in 24 hours, or they get nuked.
Yeah, you'll get quite a bit of money, in the short term. But....
Whereas the US presumably would be a direct signatory on a Ukraine deal, not least because Putin would want some legitimacy on the treaty that didn't involve a Ukrainian leadership, or not only them.
But even if a back channel discussion is being conducted by sensible people, a sensible outcome probably won't satisfy Trump (or Putin, unless he really is worried about the Russian army capability - although if he was, he wouldn't keep upping the ante each time talks move anywhere). It is Trump who will make the call. That said, it depends what his motivation is - or how he prioritises them. The suggestion that what he really wants is a Nobel Prize is entirely plausible (he won't get it). If so, *any* deal is worth having. But if he's looking at exploiting a peace for US advantage, then that's a different question.
Over to the Parliamentary Commissioner/Watchdog and the result of their investigation could take a few weeks before any Recall process started.
In this sort of scenario it could be June even July before a by election.
Reform may struggle a bit at the Locals in May, they may not have the resources to make widespread gains, their recent local by election performance suggests this would be the case.
Quite likely Lib Dems will make the most gains and seize some temporary headlines. That could boost their Runcorn performance.
Equally the Conservatives will not want Reform charging forward and can be expected to campaign hard.
Reform may be disappointed.
There are two other potential by elections of course Gorton and Burnley. The latter has a heavy University electorate which should boost the Greens whilst Burnley is a major Lib Dem target seat and we all know what happens to most of those, they win them.
I can't quite reconcile the actions of Warren Buffet with the promises of Trump. Perhaps the Sage of Omaha can see signals we can't like this one.
Biden flushed the US economy with so much cash that US companies went on a spree, as reflected in the stock market. If that cash is being withdrawn, something will have to give. My bet is on asset prices with those highly leveraged seeing what happens when the tide goes out (as Buffet is expecting?).
Not to mention more favourable terms for manufacturing.
If I understand my recall procedures correctly, if he gets it down to suspended or a fine, then the only way a recall petition could happen is if there was also an enquiry by the Commons Committee on Standards, followed by a 14 day or more suspension,
https://erskinemay.parliament.uk/section/4912/recall-of-mps/
That said, there's still a debt ceiling crunch coming, which may or may not trip over the wire. Who knows how that plays out if things go wrong.
Which otherwise, Israel would be running very short of by now.
We seems to have the first video of a drone in Ukraine being shot down by a laser.
Have they been playing on the QT with Dragonfire alongside Gravehawk?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3xxh82eXd6A
He inherited the business. When the contract ended, he let it lapse. The Tesco rep came out, and found that the whole setup for mass producing cheap wine was being dismantled and removed.
The winemaker pointed out that his dad had, in the end, been making nearly no profit. So F&*k Tesco.
It might even work if you run a property development company, and there are lots of suppliers of marble inlay.
I am less convinced it works in scenarios where there are only a relatively small number of players (countries) and everything is in the open (so everyone knows who got hosed).
It is particularly likely to be long term negative, if you insist on crowing about how you beat others in negotiations.
Common assault is when a person inflicts violence on someone else or makes them think they are going to be attacked. It does not have to involve physical violence. Threatening words or a raised fist is enough for the crime to have been committed provided the victim thinks that they are about to be attacked. Spitting at someone is another example.
Actual bodily harm (ABH) means the assault has caused some hurt or injury to the victim. Physical injury does not need to be serious or permanent but must be more than “trifling” or “transient”, which means it must at least cause minor injuries or pain or discomfort. Psychological harm can also be covered by this offence, but this must be more than just fear or anxiety.
Grievous bodily harm (GBH) means the assault has caused serious physical harm. It does not have to be permanent or dangerous. For example, a broken bone would amount to GBH – in some cases a broken bone might lead to permanent disability but, in others, it might heal without leaving any long-term effects. GBH can also include psychiatric injury or someone passing on an infection, for example through sexual activity.
Clearly he *could* have ben charge with ABH. This is an example of the "down changing" that goes on, ordinarily.
Seems to take a while, though for a supposed 50kW system.
The US has been playing with them for at least a decade (first installed on the euphonious USS Ponce), and are now fielding 300kW versions.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_Energy_Laser_with_Integrated_Optical-dazzler_and_Surveillance
The difficult bit is dealing with the heat damage to the laser mirrors, which are (I think) now diffractive optics microfabricated on diamond (which is both highly heat resistant, and a great conductor of heat).
Trump seems to be attempting to impose something vaguely similar.
This failed, once a number of small and medium sized businesses simply contacted quarries directly and sent vans over to Spain and Italy to pick up material.
The business that tried the ramp are now not selling much custom marble tile. They are even having to resort to discounts to keep people onboard for their other products.
They shat the bed on that one.
The Leeanderthal Man claims 400 branches and 215k members. If the fee is £20 per head weighted, that's £4m.
The resources that I think they will be missing will be historic vote data, and experienced organising staff,
But OTOH we are now only on under 1500 seats.
On Gorton and Burnley, I can see them resulting in expulsion from Labour but cannot see it resulting in conditions giving rise to a recall petition (neither criminal nor likely to give rise to an extended suspension from the Commons). There could be pressure from Labour for them to resign their seats, but I suspect they won't be keen to pass up the next four years or so of salary. Sceptical as to whether we'll see by-elections in either, much as the Lib Dems would want it in Burnley in particular.
NEW THREAD
So yes, Russia - and Putin personally - should be humiliated.
Overall, Reform have made 12 gains out of 281 seats contested since the last May round, which isn't very many. However, there's been an acceleration in their performance (unsurprisingly given the polls). Between May-Aug, they gained 1 seat out of the 91 contested. In Sept-Nov, they won 5 out of 153. Since the beginning of December, they've won 6 out of 40 (presumably the much lower number of contests is a consequence of them not being triggered over Christmas / New Year at anything like the same rate).
In a normal May election round, parties won't (can't) throw the same energy, money or paper at each seat as in a by-election, so results will trend more back to national polling and underlying party resource. In many seats, there'll be precious little campaigning at all. That will suit Reform. I'd expect them to make a proportionately large number of gains but this won't produce dramatic figures because so few seats are up.
I think it unlikely he'll get the sentence reduced to less than a suspended sentence.
And then they voted for Ratner.