BREAKING: Putin demands Ukraine surrender Donetsk in exchange for peace
Telegraph
If that is correct, and Putin is "sincere", then the Ukes should take that. It's a dismal outcome, but continuing this horrific war is even worse
I'd be slightly surprised in this is a genuine offer. Putin will have sacrificed 100,000s of his young men for a fairly impoverished coalmining bit of East Ukraine. Will his nationalist supporters buy that?
So Russia cannot gain it so it wants to be given it.
Continuing the war is far, far better as it steadily ruins the Russian economy, destroys the Russian military and kills hundred of thousands more Russians.
The underlying fact that Europeans leaders need to remember is:
THE MORE DEAD RUSSIANS THE BETTER.
Er, it also means thousands of dead Ukrainians. Maybe tens of thousands
End the war. Do a Korea
By 'do a Korea' do you mean that £50k US troops will be stationed in Ukraine with nuclear weapons ?
Nor did South Korea give up any land.
You really do have a substandard IQ.
Nor do you give a toss about the Ukrainians, if you did you would support them.
Instead you just want to give Russia whatever it wants because you're bored and lack commitment.
Sweet Jesus, are we back to "stop it, you're lowering PB morale"?
I've been to Ukraine, during this war. Twice. You have not.
I've been to Lviv, Chernivtsi, Kyiv, Odesa, all over. I've been in trains and buses and taxis - and bomb shelters. I've been on an Odesan boulevard as a chunk of drone hit the road creating the loudest, most terrifying noise I've ever heard. I've watched from a hotel balcony as Putin tried to bomb my very hotel, at night. The next night a missile took out a building about 300 yards away, as I slept
I've met dozens of Ukrainians of all ages, I've seen the flags of the dead in Maidan square, I've seen all the young men in crutches, missing limbs, in wheelchairs. I've had drinks with Ukrainians and listened to them casually say "oh yes, my three best friends from college are already dead, I'm going back to the front tomorrow, I'm not expecting to survive"
And so on, and so forth
I don't want any more of them to die. I like Ukrainians. I also like Russians (even as I despise their regime). I don't want them to die, either. I like humans in general, and I have a special fondness for young humans, who are the future, I don't want them to die
If the war can be stopped in a way that ends the killing while securing most of Ukraine (ex Donetsk) they should try and do that deal. We will then need to shore up Ukraine's defences, indeed all our defences, so Putin can never try this again because he would meet with certain defeat
So, with all due respect, go jump in a toxic lake
Well said.
Except I would have said 'Go and jump in a toxic lake.'
BREAKING: Putin demands Ukraine surrender Donetsk in exchange for peace
Telegraph
If that is correct, and Putin is "sincere", then the Ukes should take that. It's a dismal outcome, but continuing this horrific war is even worse
I'd be slightly surprised in this is a genuine offer. Putin will have sacrificed 100,000s of his young men for a fairly impoverished coalmining bit of East Ukraine. Will his nationalist supporters buy that?
So Russia cannot gain it so it wants to be given it.
Continuing the war is far, far better as it steadily ruins the Russian economy, destroys the Russian military and kills hundred of thousands more Russians.
The underlying fact that Europeans leaders need to remember is:
THE MORE DEAD RUSSIANS THE BETTER.
Er, it also means thousands of dead Ukrainians. Maybe tens of thousands
End the war. Do a Korea
By 'do a Korea' do you mean that £50k US troops will be stationed in Ukraine with nuclear weapons ?
Nor did South Korea give up any land.
You really do have a substandard IQ.
Nor do you give a toss about the Ukrainians, if you did you would support them.
Instead you just want to give Russia whatever it wants because you're bored and lack commitment.
Sweet Jesus, are we back to "stop it, you're lowering PB morale"?
I've been to Ukraine, during this war. Twice. You have not.
I've been to Lviv, Chernivtsi, Kyiv, Odesa, all over. I've been in trains and buses and taxis - and bomb shelters. I've been on an Odesan boulevard as a chunk of drone hit the road creating the loudest, most terrifying noise I've ever heard. I've watched from a hotel balcony as Putin tried to bomb my very hotel, at night. The next night a missile took out a building about 300 yards away, as I slept
I've met dozens of Ukrainians of all ages, I've seen the flags of the dead in Maidan square, I've seen all the young men in crutches, missing limbs, in wheelchairs. I've had drinks with Ukrainians and listened to them casually say "oh yes, my three best friends from college are already dead, I'm going back to the front tomorrow, I'm not expecting to survive"
And so on, and so forth
I don't want any more of them to die. I like Ukrainians. I also like Russians (even as I despise their regime). I don't want them to die, either. I like humans in general, and I have a special fondness for young humans, who are the future, I don't want them to die
If the war can be stopped in a way that ends the killing while securing most of Ukraine (ex Donetsk) they should try and do that deal. We will then need to shore up Ukraine's defences, indeed all our defences, so Putin can never try this again because he would meet with certain defeat
So, with all due respect, go jump in a toxic lake
Well said.
Except I would have said 'Go and jump in a toxic lake.'
How much land should Russia give up for peace ?
How much current IRA activity should the UK ignore for peace? How many past IRA murderers should the UK Government brush under the carpet for piece? Peace deals aren't satisfactory - by their nature they involve compromise with the enemy, often unjust compromise.
So how much land should Russia give up for peace ?
And it isn't peace if its just the next step for further war.
Ukraine isn't holding any Russian land (as I understand it), so Russia doesn't have to give up any land.
Russia should give up land as part of their reparations for the war.
Russia has been appalling, despicable, and they 'should' have to do many things, but this is isn't about justice, it's about future people being alive, not dead.
More Russian dead is good for Ukraine, Britain and all of Europe.
The more Russians die now the fewer Britons might have to die in the next decade.
This discourse is repulsive
The average Russian is not to blame for Putin
You exult in their innumerable deaths like you are a chicken farmer counting profitable carcasses. Ugh
It is average Russians carrying out the murder, rape and torture. They could frag their officers, mutiny, surrender, lay down their arms and March into soft captivity.
They don't.
You are using this conflict as an excuse to give way to your baser instincts. Being humane isn't something that you do until someone does something you don't like.
Some of you may be aware of my ongoing rant that the privatisation program of 1979-2010s(?) led to an inability of Britain to act as a state and ended up with providing profits for foreign nationals and a servile UK workforce. One book I have recommended to you is "Late Soviet Britain" by Dr Abby Innes. I now find another on a similar theme: "Failed State: Why Nothing Works and How We Fix It" (2025), by Sam Freedman. I haven't read it and so cannot recommend it, but I look forward to reading it.
BREAKING: Putin demands Ukraine surrender Donetsk in exchange for peace
Telegraph
If that is correct, and Putin is "sincere", then the Ukes should take that. It's a dismal outcome, but continuing this horrific war is even worse
I'd be slightly surprised in this is a genuine offer. Putin will have sacrificed 100,000s of his young men for a fairly impoverished coalmining bit of East Ukraine. Will his nationalist supporters buy that?
So Russia cannot gain it so it wants to be given it.
Continuing the war is far, far better as it steadily ruins the Russian economy, destroys the Russian military and kills hundred of thousands more Russians.
The underlying fact that Europeans leaders need to remember is:
THE MORE DEAD RUSSIANS THE BETTER.
Er, it also means thousands of dead Ukrainians. Maybe tens of thousands
End the war. Do a Korea
By 'do a Korea' do you mean that £50k US troops will be stationed in Ukraine with nuclear weapons ?
Nor did South Korea give up any land.
You really do have a substandard IQ.
Nor do you give a toss about the Ukrainians, if you did you would support them.
Instead you just want to give Russia whatever it wants because you're bored and lack commitment.
Sweet Jesus, are we back to "stop it, you're lowering PB morale"?
I've been to Ukraine, during this war. Twice. You have not.
I've been to Lviv, Chernivtsi, Kyiv, Odesa, all over. I've been in trains and buses and taxis - and bomb shelters. I've been on an Odesan boulevard as a chunk of drone hit the road creating the loudest, most terrifying noise I've ever heard. I've watched from a hotel balcony as Putin tried to bomb my very hotel, at night. The next night a missile took out a building about 300 yards away, as I slept
I've met dozens of Ukrainians of all ages, I've seen the flags of the dead in Maidan square, I've seen all the young men in crutches, missing limbs, in wheelchairs. I've had drinks with Ukrainians and listened to them casually say "oh yes, my three best friends from college are already dead, I'm going back to the front tomorrow, I'm not expecting to survive"
And so on, and so forth
I don't want any more of them to die. I like Ukrainians. I also like Russians (even as I despise their regime). I don't want them to die, either. I like humans in general, and I have a special fondness for young humans, who are the future, I don't want them to die
If the war can be stopped in a way that ends the killing while securing most of Ukraine (ex Donetsk) they should try and do that deal. We will then need to shore up Ukraine's defences, indeed all our defences, so Putin can never try this again because he would meet with certain defeat
So, with all due respect, go jump in a toxic lake
Well said.
Except I would have said 'Go and jump in a toxic lake.'
How much land should Russia give up for peace ?
How much current IRA activity should the UK ignore for peace? How many past IRA murderers should the UK Government brush under the carpet for piece? Peace deals aren't satisfactory - by their nature they involve compromise with the enemy, often unjust compromise.
So how much land should Russia give up for peace ?
And it isn't peace if its just the next step for further war.
Ukraine isn't holding any Russian land (as I understand it), so Russia doesn't have to give up any land.
Russia should give up land as part of their reparations for the war.
Russia has been appalling, despicable, and they 'should' have to do many things, but this is isn't about justice, it's about future people being alive, not dead.
More Russian dead is good for Ukraine, Britain and all of Europe.
The more Russians die now the fewer Britons might have to die in the next decade.
This discourse is repulsive
The average Russian is not to blame for Putin
You exult in their innumerable deaths like you are a chicken farmer counting profitable carcasses. Ugh
It is average Russians carrying out the murder, rape and torture. They could frag their officers, mutiny, surrender, lay down their arms and March into soft captivity.
They don't.
You are using this conflict as an excuse to give way to your baser instincts. Being humane isn't something that you do until someone does something you don't like.
Putin started it! He invaded Crimea and Donbass back in 2014!
Surprising to me that there are still people who don’t realise that Putin will not walk down the escalatory ladder unless he has something he can claim as a win domestically.
The alternative course is to work to ensure the total surrender of the Russian army and collapse of his government. But whether any of us want that or not, it has been soundly rejected by successive US administrations, as well as by the Europeans.
So do we rather an everlasting war of attrition, which given the population disparities, is most likely slanted in Russia’s favour? Or trump’s approach of trying to negotiate a cessation of hostilities? Neither are attractive options for the Ukrainians. But here we are.
BREAKING: Putin demands Ukraine surrender Donetsk in exchange for peace
Telegraph
If that is correct, and Putin is "sincere", then the Ukes should take that. It's a dismal outcome, but continuing this horrific war is even worse
I'd be slightly surprised in this is a genuine offer. Putin will have sacrificed 100,000s of his young men for a fairly impoverished coalmining bit of East Ukraine. Will his nationalist supporters buy that?
So Russia cannot gain it so it wants to be given it.
Continuing the war is far, far better as it steadily ruins the Russian economy, destroys the Russian military and kills hundred of thousands more Russians.
The underlying fact that Europeans leaders need to remember is:
THE MORE DEAD RUSSIANS THE BETTER.
Er, it also means thousands of dead Ukrainians. Maybe tens of thousands
End the war. Do a Korea
By 'do a Korea' do you mean that £50k US troops will be stationed in Ukraine with nuclear weapons ?
Nor did South Korea give up any land.
You really do have a substandard IQ.
Nor do you give a toss about the Ukrainians, if you did you would support them.
Instead you just want to give Russia whatever it wants because you're bored and lack commitment.
Sweet Jesus, are we back to "stop it, you're lowering PB morale"?
I've been to Ukraine, during this war. Twice. You have not.
I've been to Lviv, Chernivtsi, Kyiv, Odesa, all over. I've been in trains and buses and taxis - and bomb shelters. I've been on an Odesan boulevard as a chunk of drone hit the road creating the loudest, most terrifying noise I've ever heard. I've watched from a hotel balcony as Putin tried to bomb my very hotel, at night. The next night a missile took out a building about 300 yards away, as I slept
I've met dozens of Ukrainians of all ages, I've seen the flags of the dead in Maidan square, I've seen all the young men in crutches, missing limbs, in wheelchairs. I've had drinks with Ukrainians and listened to them casually say "oh yes, my three best friends from college are already dead, I'm going back to the front tomorrow, I'm not expecting to survive"
And so on, and so forth
I don't want any more of them to die. I like Ukrainians. I also like Russians (even as I despise their regime). I don't want them to die, either. I like humans in general, and I have a special fondness for young humans, who are the future, I don't want them to die
If the war can be stopped in a way that ends the killing while securing most of Ukraine (ex Donetsk) they should try and do that deal. We will then need to shore up Ukraine's defences, indeed all our defences, so Putin can never try this again because he would meet with certain defeat
So, with all due respect, go jump in a toxic lake
Well said.
Except I would have said 'Go and jump in a toxic lake.'
How much land should Russia give up for peace ?
How much current IRA activity should the UK ignore for peace? How many past IRA murderers should the UK Government brush under the carpet for piece? Peace deals aren't satisfactory - by their nature they involve compromise with the enemy, often unjust compromise.
So how much land should Russia give up for peace ?
And it isn't peace if its just the next step for further war.
Ukraine isn't holding any Russian land (as I understand it), so Russia doesn't have to give up any land.
Russia should give up land as part of their reparations for the war.
Russia has been appalling, despicable, and they 'should' have to do many things, but this is isn't about justice, it's about future people being alive, not dead.
More Russian dead is good for Ukraine, Britain and all of Europe.
The more Russians die now the fewer Britons might have to die in the next decade.
This discourse is repulsive
The average Russian is not to blame for Putin
You exult in their innumerable deaths like you are a chicken farmer counting profitable carcasses. Ugh
It is average Russians carrying out the murder, rape and torture. They could frag their officers, mutiny, surrender, lay down their arms and March into soft captivity.
They don't.
You are using this conflict as an excuse to give way to your baser instincts. Being humane isn't something that you do until someone does something you don't like.
When it comes to warfare, yes it absolutely is.
War is inhumane and comes with a requirement to do things we wouldn't normally want to do outside of war, such as kill the enemy until they surrender.
"I’ve said many times that a Golden Rule of politics is that the intelligentsia are the easiest to fool with simple moral propaganda tales, not the ‘low information voters’ as the intelligentsia refers to them. Those with more education and verbal skills use them to build elaborate ideas about what they want to be true — particularly about the ways people like them should have more power (‘more rational this way’), decentralised systems like markets should have less power (‘they’re irrational, more selfish, too much information asymmetry’), and why ‘low information voters’ don’t understand ‘the real issues’ so need to have their information curated by, you guessed it, the intelligentsia. Thanks to Twitter you can build a Twitter list and observe this phenomenon in real time."
BREAKING: Putin demands Ukraine surrender Donetsk in exchange for peace
Telegraph
If that is correct, and Putin is "sincere", then the Ukes should take that. It's a dismal outcome, but continuing this horrific war is even worse
I'd be slightly surprised in this is a genuine offer. Putin will have sacrificed 100,000s of his young men for a fairly impoverished coalmining bit of East Ukraine. Will his nationalist supporters buy that?
So Russia cannot gain it so it wants to be given it.
Continuing the war is far, far better as it steadily ruins the Russian economy, destroys the Russian military and kills hundred of thousands more Russians.
The underlying fact that Europeans leaders need to remember is:
THE MORE DEAD RUSSIANS THE BETTER.
Er, it also means thousands of dead Ukrainians. Maybe tens of thousands
End the war. Do a Korea
By 'do a Korea' do you mean that £50k US troops will be stationed in Ukraine with nuclear weapons ?
Nor did South Korea give up any land.
You really do have a substandard IQ.
Nor do you give a toss about the Ukrainians, if you did you would support them.
Instead you just want to give Russia whatever it wants because you're bored and lack commitment.
Sweet Jesus, are we back to "stop it, you're lowering PB morale"?
I've been to Ukraine, during this war. Twice. You have not.
I've been to Lviv, Chernivtsi, Kyiv, Odesa, all over. I've been in trains and buses and taxis - and bomb shelters. I've been on an Odesan boulevard as a chunk of drone hit the road creating the loudest, most terrifying noise I've ever heard. I've watched from a hotel balcony as Putin tried to bomb my very hotel, at night. The next night a missile took out a building about 300 yards away, as I slept
I've met dozens of Ukrainians of all ages, I've seen the flags of the dead in Maidan square, I've seen all the young men in crutches, missing limbs, in wheelchairs. I've had drinks with Ukrainians and listened to them casually say "oh yes, my three best friends from college are already dead, I'm going back to the front tomorrow, I'm not expecting to survive"
And so on, and so forth
I don't want any more of them to die. I like Ukrainians. I also like Russians (even as I despise their regime). I don't want them to die, either. I like humans in general, and I have a special fondness for young humans, who are the future, I don't want them to die
If the war can be stopped in a way that ends the killing while securing most of Ukraine (ex Donetsk) they should try and do that deal. We will then need to shore up Ukraine's defences, indeed all our defences, so Putin can never try this again because he would meet with certain defeat
So, with all due respect, go jump in a toxic lake
Well said.
Except I would have said 'Go and jump in a toxic lake.'
How much land should Russia give up for peace ?
How much current IRA activity should the UK ignore for peace? How many past IRA murderers should the UK Government brush under the carpet for piece? Peace deals aren't satisfactory - by their nature they involve compromise with the enemy, often unjust compromise.
So how much land should Russia give up for peace ?
And it isn't peace if its just the next step for further war.
Ukraine isn't holding any Russian land (as I understand it), so Russia doesn't have to give up any land.
Russia should give up land as part of their reparations for the war.
Russia has been appalling, despicable, and they 'should' have to do many things, but this is isn't about justice, it's about future people being alive, not dead.
More Russian dead is good for Ukraine, Britain and all of Europe.
The more Russians die now the fewer Britons might have to die in the next decade.
This discourse is repulsive
The average Russian is not to blame for Putin
You exult in their innumerable deaths like you are a chicken farmer counting profitable carcasses. Ugh
It is average Russians carrying out the murder, rape and torture. They could frag their officers, mutiny, surrender, lay down their arms and March into soft captivity.
They don't.
You are using this conflict as an excuse to give way to your baser instincts. Being humane isn't something that you do until someone does something you don't like.
It is a war. If you support one side, you support them in killing the enemy. I want Ukraine to kill more Russians. (I do draw the line at watching the Birds of Magyar's videos though)
As I said, it is ordinary Russians carrying out the murder rape and torture.
Many of my parents' generation are racist towards Germans and Japanese. There is an obvious reason why. That is why Russophobia exists. I'm actually a bit of a Russophile, I have been to Russia, I speak some Russian. I still want more Russians to die. But if I meet some on holiday in a bar in Montenegro, I will address them in their own language and be civil.
I think the most suitable way towards peace is the defeat of Russia, if that is possible. I do believe that if Uncle Vova believes he has got away with it, one of the Baltics will be next.
"I’ve said many times that a Golden Rule of politics is that the intelligentsia are the easiest to fool with simple moral propaganda tales, not the ‘low information voters’ as the intelligentsia refers to them. Those with more education and verbal skills use them to build elaborate ideas about what they want to be true — particularly about the ways people like them should have more power (‘more rational this way’), decentralised systems like markets should have less power (‘they’re irrational, more selfish, too much information asymmetry’), and why ‘low information voters’ don’t understand ‘the real issues’ so need to have their information curated by, you guessed it, the intelligentsia. Thanks to Twitter you can build a Twitter list and observe this phenomenon in real time."
I've been filling a lot of my time as an invalid playing really old computer games
I found online emulators for MSDOS, Amiga and Spectrum games. I finally managed to complete War In Middle Earth, a LOTR game I first played nearly forty years ago
On the Spectrum emulator, I found @NickPalmer 's 1985 Battle of Britain game "Their Finest Hour"
There's also a "Yes, Prime Minister" game on the same page (1987)
I've been intending to find a ZX Spectrum emulator for ages so I can play N.O.M.A.D. which was my favourite game at the time. Thanks for this.
One of my tests for the LLM coding tools is making a version of The Sentinel (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Sentinel_(video_game) ). So far none have even got close - even though they all claim to know the game, the rules, etc.
"I’ve said many times that a Golden Rule of politics is that the intelligentsia are the easiest to fool with simple moral propaganda tales, not the ‘low information voters’ as the intelligentsia refers to them. Those with more education and verbal skills use them to build elaborate ideas about what they want to be true — particularly about the ways people like them should have more power (‘more rational this way’), decentralised systems like markets should have less power (‘they’re irrational, more selfish, too much information asymmetry’), and why ‘low information voters’ don’t understand ‘the real issues’ so need to have their information curated by, you guessed it, the intelligentsia. Thanks to Twitter you can build a Twitter list and observe this phenomenon in real time."
BREAKING: Putin demands Ukraine surrender Donetsk in exchange for peace
Telegraph
If that is correct, and Putin is "sincere", then the Ukes should take that. It's a dismal outcome, but continuing this horrific war is even worse
I'd be slightly surprised in this is a genuine offer. Putin will have sacrificed 100,000s of his young men for a fairly impoverished coalmining bit of East Ukraine. Will his nationalist supporters buy that?
So Russia cannot gain it so it wants to be given it.
Continuing the war is far, far better as it steadily ruins the Russian economy, destroys the Russian military and kills hundred of thousands more Russians.
The underlying fact that Europeans leaders need to remember is:
THE MORE DEAD RUSSIANS THE BETTER.
Er, it also means thousands of dead Ukrainians. Maybe tens of thousands
End the war. Do a Korea
By 'do a Korea' do you mean that £50k US troops will be stationed in Ukraine with nuclear weapons ?
Nor did South Korea give up any land.
You really do have a substandard IQ.
Nor do you give a toss about the Ukrainians, if you did you would support them.
Instead you just want to give Russia whatever it wants because you're bored and lack commitment.
Sweet Jesus, are we back to "stop it, you're lowering PB morale"?
I've been to Ukraine, during this war. Twice. You have not.
I've been to Lviv, Chernivtsi, Kyiv, Odesa, all over. I've been in trains and buses and taxis - and bomb shelters. I've been on an Odesan boulevard as a chunk of drone hit the road creating the loudest, most terrifying noise I've ever heard. I've watched from a hotel balcony as Putin tried to bomb my very hotel, at night. The next night a missile took out a building about 300 yards away, as I slept
I've met dozens of Ukrainians of all ages, I've seen the flags of the dead in Maidan square, I've seen all the young men in crutches, missing limbs, in wheelchairs. I've had drinks with Ukrainians and listened to them casually say "oh yes, my three best friends from college are already dead, I'm going back to the front tomorrow, I'm not expecting to survive"
And so on, and so forth
I don't want any more of them to die. I like Ukrainians. I also like Russians (even as I despise their regime). I don't want them to die, either. I like humans in general, and I have a special fondness for young humans, who are the future, I don't want them to die
If the war can be stopped in a way that ends the killing while securing most of Ukraine (ex Donetsk) they should try and do that deal. We will then need to shore up Ukraine's defences, indeed all our defences, so Putin can never try this again because he would meet with certain defeat
So, with all due respect, go jump in a toxic lake
Well said.
Except I would have said 'Go and jump in a toxic lake.'
How much land should Russia give up for peace ?
How much current IRA activity should the UK ignore for peace? How many past IRA murderers should the UK Government brush under the carpet for piece? Peace deals aren't satisfactory - by their nature they involve compromise with the enemy, often unjust compromise.
So how much land should Russia give up for peace ?
And it isn't peace if its just the next step for further war.
Ukraine isn't holding any Russian land (as I understand it), so Russia doesn't have to give up any land.
Russia should give up land as part of their reparations for the war.
Russia has been appalling, despicable, and they 'should' have to do many things, but this is isn't about justice, it's about future people being alive, not dead.
More Russian dead is good for Ukraine, Britain and all of Europe.
The more Russians die now the fewer Britons might have to die in the next decade.
This discourse is repulsive
The average Russian is not to blame for Putin
You exult in their innumerable deaths like you are a chicken farmer counting profitable carcasses. Ugh
I'm taking a rational view of the world and how it affects others.
Whereas you are a hypocritical weakling and an apologist for Putin's willing minions.
Together with your pseudo-fascist yearnings, they're signifiers of your substandard IQ.
BREAKING: Putin demands Ukraine surrender Donetsk in exchange for peace
Telegraph
If that is correct, and Putin is "sincere", then the Ukes should take that. It's a dismal outcome, but continuing this horrific war is even worse
I'd be slightly surprised in this is a genuine offer. Putin will have sacrificed 100,000s of his young men for a fairly impoverished coalmining bit of East Ukraine. Will his nationalist supporters buy that?
So Russia cannot gain it so it wants to be given it.
Continuing the war is far, far better as it steadily ruins the Russian economy, destroys the Russian military and kills hundred of thousands more Russians.
The underlying fact that Europeans leaders need to remember is:
THE MORE DEAD RUSSIANS THE BETTER.
Er, it also means thousands of dead Ukrainians. Maybe tens of thousands
End the war. Do a Korea
By 'do a Korea' do you mean that £50k US troops will be stationed in Ukraine with nuclear weapons ?
Nor did South Korea give up any land.
You really do have a substandard IQ.
Nor do you give a toss about the Ukrainians, if you did you would support them.
Instead you just want to give Russia whatever it wants because you're bored and lack commitment.
Sweet Jesus, are we back to "stop it, you're lowering PB morale"?
I've been to Ukraine, during this war. Twice. You have not.
I've been to Lviv, Chernivtsi, Kyiv, Odesa, all over. I've been in trains and buses and taxis - and bomb shelters. I've been on an Odesan boulevard as a chunk of drone hit the road creating the loudest, most terrifying noise I've ever heard. I've watched from a hotel balcony as Putin tried to bomb my very hotel, at night. The next night a missile took out a building about 300 yards away, as I slept
I've met dozens of Ukrainians of all ages, I've seen the flags of the dead in Maidan square, I've seen all the young men in crutches, missing limbs, in wheelchairs. I've had drinks with Ukrainians and listened to them casually say "oh yes, my three best friends from college are already dead, I'm going back to the front tomorrow, I'm not expecting to survive"
And so on, and so forth
I don't want any more of them to die. I like Ukrainians. I also like Russians (even as I despise their regime). I don't want them to die, either. I like humans in general, and I have a special fondness for young humans, who are the future, I don't want them to die
If the war can be stopped in a way that ends the killing while securing most of Ukraine (ex Donetsk) they should try and do that deal. We will then need to shore up Ukraine's defences, indeed all our defences, so Putin can never try this again because he would meet with certain defeat
So, with all due respect, go jump in a toxic lake
Well said.
Except I would have said 'Go and jump in a toxic lake.'
How much land should Russia give up for peace ?
How much current IRA activity should the UK ignore for peace? How many past IRA murderers should the UK Government brush under the carpet for piece? Peace deals aren't satisfactory - by their nature they involve compromise with the enemy, often unjust compromise.
So how much land should Russia give up for peace ?
And it isn't peace if its just the next step for further war.
Ukraine isn't holding any Russian land (as I understand it), so Russia doesn't have to give up any land.
Russia should give up land as part of their reparations for the war.
Russia has been appalling, despicable, and they 'should' have to do many things, but this is isn't about justice, it's about future people being alive, not dead.
More Russian dead is good for Ukraine, Britain and all of Europe.
The more Russians die now the fewer Britons might have to die in the next decade.
This discourse is repulsive
The average Russian is not to blame for Putin
You exult in their innumerable deaths like you are a chicken farmer counting profitable carcasses. Ugh
I'm taking a rational view of the world and how it affects others.
Whereas you are a hypocritical weakling and an apologist for Putin's willing minions.
Together with your pseudo-fascist yearnings, they're signifiers of your substandard IQ.
Where do you exactly view the "pseudo" but of your argument?
"Ex-Metropolitan police detective David McKelvey fell victim to phone theft in London and warns the streets are becoming 'lawless' with a dwindling police presence GB News"
Sean Bean will win an Oscar for One Battle After Another. Leo will be nominated but probably not win.
(Film is being released in September but the teaser is out and it looks awesome).
My source - who is close to Warner - says that they have a slate of really subversive films coming out this season and he’s looking forward to seeing the reaction.
Surprising to me that there are still people who don’t realise that Putin will not walk down the escalatory ladder unless he has something he can claim as a win domestically.
The alternative course is to work to ensure the total surrender of the Russian army and collapse of his government. But whether any of us want that or not, it has been soundly rejected by successive US administrations, as well as by the Europeans.
So do we rather an everlasting war of attrition, which given the population disparities, is most likely slanted in Russia’s favour? Or trump’s approach of trying to negotiate a cessation of hostilities? Neither are attractive options for the Ukrainians. But here we are.
You seem to believe that giving Putin anything will end the war. It will not. His regime has made it quite clear what they want, and it is not just the Donbass, or even just Ukraine.
Putin has no desire for any 'escalatory ladder' except for total victory. He is uninterested in peace except on his own terms.
Newsom seems to have taken the decision that the route to being Dem candidate 2028 is to be now seen front and centre to be fighting Trump 2.0 regime day and night and in their face.
Many Dems have been been appalled how little fight there has been from Dem congress members.
Will it work for Newsom?
I'm pretty sure the candidate will be a governor and not a senator.
So maybe?
Might do a header at some point.
Could be a valuable header.
It's certainly a route - we'll only know if it's the route after the event - and it has clearly propelled Newsom from one of the also rans to somewhere near the top of polling for the next nominee. He's as much distrusted as admired in his own party - see for instance "he's Patrick Bateman, but at least he's our Patrick Bateman" - but that's never been, on its own, an insurmountable problem in politics.
Sustainable for another two or three years ? I don't know about that.
Next nominee is a big and liquid market, tradeable on Betfair Exchange, with years to run, so it's worth the attention.
BREAKING: Putin demands Ukraine surrender Donetsk in exchange for peace
Telegraph
If that is correct, and Putin is "sincere", then the Ukes should take that. It's a dismal outcome, but continuing this horrific war is even worse
I'd be slightly surprised in this is a genuine offer. Putin will have sacrificed 100,000s of his young men for a fairly impoverished coalmining bit of East Ukraine. Will his nationalist supporters buy that?
So Russia cannot gain it so it wants to be given it.
Continuing the war is far, far better as it steadily ruins the Russian economy, destroys the Russian military and kills hundred of thousands more Russians.
The underlying fact that Europeans leaders need to remember is:
THE MORE DEAD RUSSIANS THE BETTER.
Er, it also means thousands of dead Ukrainians. Maybe tens of thousands
End the war. Do a Korea
By 'do a Korea' do you mean that £50k US troops will be stationed in Ukraine with nuclear weapons ?
Nor did South Korea give up any land.
You really do have a substandard IQ.
Nor do you give a toss about the Ukrainians, if you did you would support them.
Instead you just want to give Russia whatever it wants because you're bored and lack commitment.
Sweet Jesus, are we back to "stop it, you're lowering PB morale"?
I've been to Ukraine, during this war. Twice. You have not.
I've been to Lviv, Chernivtsi, Kyiv, Odesa, all over. I've been in trains and buses and taxis - and bomb shelters. I've been on an Odesan boulevard as a chunk of drone hit the road creating the loudest, most terrifying noise I've ever heard. I've watched from a hotel balcony as Putin tried to bomb my very hotel, at night. The next night a missile took out a building about 300 yards away, as I slept
I've met dozens of Ukrainians of all ages, I've seen the flags of the dead in Maidan square, I've seen all the young men in crutches, missing limbs, in wheelchairs. I've had drinks with Ukrainians and listened to them casually say "oh yes, my three best friends from college are already dead, I'm going back to the front tomorrow, I'm not expecting to survive"
And so on, and so forth
I don't want any more of them to die. I like Ukrainians. I also like Russians (even as I despise their regime). I don't want them to die, either. I like humans in general, and I have a special fondness for young humans, who are the future, I don't want them to die
If the war can be stopped in a way that ends the killing while securing most of Ukraine (ex Donetsk) they should try and do that deal. We will then need to shore up Ukraine's defences, indeed all our defences, so Putin can never try this again because he would meet with certain defeat
So, with all due respect, go jump in a toxic lake
Well said.
Except I would have said 'Go and jump in a toxic lake.'
How much land should Russia give up for peace ?
How much current IRA activity should the UK ignore for peace? How many past IRA murderers should the UK Government brush under the carpet for piece? Peace deals aren't satisfactory - by their nature they involve compromise with the enemy, often unjust compromise.
So how much land should Russia give up for peace ?
And it isn't peace if its just the next step for further war.
Ukraine isn't holding any Russian land (as I understand it), so Russia doesn't have to give up any land.
Russia should give up land as part of their reparations for the war.
Russia has been appalling, despicable, and they 'should' have to do many things, but this is isn't about justice, it's about future people being alive, not dead.
And given Putin wants more than just Ukraine, the best way of doing that is to ensure e cannot go any further - and preferably retreat back to his own borders.
Giving in to Putin now is the best way of getting much more war later, for a variety of reasons.
Newsom seems to have taken the decision that the route to being Dem candidate 2028 is to be now seen front and centre to be fighting Trump 2.0 regime day and night and in their face.
Many Dems have been been appalled how little fight there has been from Dem congress members.
Will it work for Newsom?
I'm pretty sure the candidate will be a governor and not a senator.
So maybe?
Might do a header at some point.
Could be a valuable header.
It's certainly a route - we'll only know if it's the route after the event - and it has clearly propelled Newsom from one of the also rans to somewhere near the top of polling for the next nominee. He's as much distrusted as admired in his own party - see for instance "he's Patrick Bateman, but at least he's our Patrick Bateman" - but that's never been, on its own, an insurmountable problem in politics.
Sustainable for another two or three years ? I don't know about that.
Next nominee is a big and liquid market, tradeable on Betfair Exchange, with years to run, so it's worth the attention.
Indeed:
I've never been a big Newsom fan, but definitely managed to grab the limelight, and get himself noticed as the de facto opposition to Trump.
BREAKING: Putin demands Ukraine surrender Donetsk in exchange for peace
Telegraph
If that is correct, and Putin is "sincere", then the Ukes should take that. It's a dismal outcome, but continuing this horrific war is even worse
I'd be slightly surprised in this is a genuine offer. Putin will have sacrificed 100,000s of his young men for a fairly impoverished coalmining bit of East Ukraine. Will his nationalist supporters buy that?
So Russia cannot gain it so it wants to be given it.
Continuing the war is far, far better as it steadily ruins the Russian economy, destroys the Russian military and kills hundred of thousands more Russians.
The underlying fact that Europeans leaders need to remember is:
THE MORE DEAD RUSSIANS THE BETTER.
Er, it also means thousands of dead Ukrainians. Maybe tens of thousands
End the war. Do a Korea
By 'do a Korea' do you mean that £50k US troops will be stationed in Ukraine with nuclear weapons ?
Nor did South Korea give up any land.
You really do have a substandard IQ.
Nor do you give a toss about the Ukrainians, if you did you would support them.
Instead you just want to give Russia whatever it wants because you're bored and lack commitment.
Sweet Jesus, are we back to "stop it, you're lowering PB morale"?
I've been to Ukraine, during this war. Twice. You have not.
I've been to Lviv, Chernivtsi, Kyiv, Odesa, all over. I've been in trains and buses and taxis - and bomb shelters. I've been on an Odesan boulevard as a chunk of drone hit the road creating the loudest, most terrifying noise I've ever heard. I've watched from a hotel balcony as Putin tried to bomb my very hotel, at night. The next night a missile took out a building about 300 yards away, as I slept
I've met dozens of Ukrainians of all ages, I've seen the flags of the dead in Maidan square, I've seen all the young men in crutches, missing limbs, in wheelchairs. I've had drinks with Ukrainians and listened to them casually say "oh yes, my three best friends from college are already dead, I'm going back to the front tomorrow, I'm not expecting to survive"
And so on, and so forth
I don't want any more of them to die. I like Ukrainians. I also like Russians (even as I despise their regime). I don't want them to die, either. I like humans in general, and I have a special fondness for young humans, who are the future, I don't want them to die
If the war can be stopped in a way that ends the killing while securing most of Ukraine (ex Donetsk) they should try and do that deal. We will then need to shore up Ukraine's defences, indeed all our defences, so Putin can never try this again because he would meet with certain defeat
So, with all due respect, go jump in a toxic lake
Well said.
Except I would have said 'Go and jump in a toxic lake.'
How much land should Russia give up for peace ?
How much current IRA activity should the UK ignore for peace? How many past IRA murderers should the UK Government brush under the carpet for piece? Peace deals aren't satisfactory - by their nature they involve compromise with the enemy, often unjust compromise.
So how much land should Russia give up for peace ?
And it isn't peace if its just the next step for further war.
Ukraine isn't holding any Russian land (as I understand it), so Russia doesn't have to give up any land.
Russia should give up land as part of their reparations for the war.
Russia has been appalling, despicable, and they 'should' have to do many things, but this is isn't about justice, it's about future people being alive, not dead.
I'd disagree that we should entirely ignore justice, but to address your point directly, what previous agreements with Putin for ceasefires have prevented subsequent carnage ?
Not in Ukraine; not in Chechnya; not in Syria.
Even as he is now talking about a deal, he absolutely rejects Ukraine's right to exist. A deal is possible, but only if it is backed by real deterrence. It's been amply demonstrated that previous "security guarantees" were nothing if the sort.
Trump is now publicly backing Putin's land grab, which involves some of Ukraine's most heavily fortified territory, and hundreds of thousands of civilians, in exchange for which essentially nothing is offered, before he has even talked to Ukraine or European leaders, and while Russia continues its hostilities.
I am also strongly in favour of preventing more deaths. Bucha and Mariupol suggest that unilateral concessions won't be enough to do that.
BREAKING: Putin demands Ukraine surrender Donetsk in exchange for peace
Telegraph
If that is correct, and Putin is "sincere", then the Ukes should take that. It's a dismal outcome, but continuing this horrific war is even worse
I'd be slightly surprised in this is a genuine offer. Putin will have sacrificed 100,000s of his young men for a fairly impoverished coalmining bit of East Ukraine. Will his nationalist supporters buy that?
So Russia cannot gain it so it wants to be given it.
Continuing the war is far, far better as it steadily ruins the Russian economy, destroys the Russian military and kills hundred of thousands more Russians.
The underlying fact that Europeans leaders need to remember is:
THE MORE DEAD RUSSIANS THE BETTER.
Er, it also means thousands of dead Ukrainians. Maybe tens of thousands
End the war. Do a Korea
By 'do a Korea' do you mean that £50k US troops will be stationed in Ukraine with nuclear weapons ?
Nor did South Korea give up any land.
You really do have a substandard IQ.
Nor do you give a toss about the Ukrainians, if you did you would support them.
Instead you just want to give Russia whatever it wants because you're bored and lack commitment.
Sweet Jesus, are we back to "stop it, you're lowering PB morale"?
I've been to Ukraine, during this war. Twice. You have not.
I've been to Lviv, Chernivtsi, Kyiv, Odesa, all over. I've been in trains and buses and taxis - and bomb shelters. I've been on an Odesan boulevard as a chunk of drone hit the road creating the loudest, most terrifying noise I've ever heard. I've watched from a hotel balcony as Putin tried to bomb my very hotel, at night. The next night a missile took out a building about 300 yards away, as I slept
I've met dozens of Ukrainians of all ages, I've seen the flags of the dead in Maidan square, I've seen all the young men in crutches, missing limbs, in wheelchairs. I've had drinks with Ukrainians and listened to them casually say "oh yes, my three best friends from college are already dead, I'm going back to the front tomorrow, I'm not expecting to survive"
And so on, and so forth
I don't want any more of them to die. I like Ukrainians. I also like Russians (even as I despise their regime). I don't want them to die, either. I like humans in general, and I have a special fondness for young humans, who are the future, I don't want them to die
If the war can be stopped in a way that ends the killing while securing most of Ukraine (ex Donetsk) they should try and do that deal. We will then need to shore up Ukraine's defences, indeed all our defences, so Putin can never try this again because he would meet with certain defeat
So, with all due respect, go jump in a toxic lake
Well said.
Except I would have said 'Go and jump in a toxic lake.'
How much land should Russia give up for peace ?
How much current IRA activity should the UK ignore for peace? How many past IRA murderers should the UK Government brush under the carpet for piece? Peace deals aren't satisfactory - by their nature they involve compromise with the enemy, often unjust compromise.
So how much land should Russia give up for peace ?
And it isn't peace if its just the next step for further war.
Ukraine isn't holding any Russian land (as I understand it), so Russia doesn't have to give up any land.
Russia should give up land as part of their reparations for the war.
Russia has been appalling, despicable, and they 'should' have to do many things, but this is isn't about justice, it's about future people being alive, not dead.
I'd disagree that we should entirely ignore justice, but to address your point directly, what previous agreements with Putin for ceasefires have prevented subsequent carnage ?
Not in Ukraine; not in Chechnya; not in Syria.
Even as he is now talking about a deal, he absolutely rejects Ukraine's right to exist. A deal is possible, but only if it is backed by real deterrence. It's been amply demonstrated that previous "security guarantees" were nothing if the sort.
Trump is now publicly backing Putin's land grab, which involves some of Ukraine's most heavily fortified territory, and hundreds of thousands of civilians, in exchange for which essentially nothing is offered, before he has even talked to Ukraine or European leaders, and while Russia continues its hostilities.
I am also strongly in favour of preventing more deaths. Bucha and Mariupol suggest that unilateral concessions won't be enough to do that.
There is no deal that Putin will not betray- Russia is a bad faith actor. Unfortunately so is Trump.
"Ex-Metropolitan police detective David McKelvey fell victim to phone theft in London and warns the streets are becoming 'lawless' with a dwindling police presence GB News"
Is London becoming as lawless as DC? In that case right wingers will have to take control of the police. It's nonsense, it's right out of the right wing authoritarian playbook, and just look at your source.
Surprising to me that there are still people who don’t realise that Putin will not walk down the escalatory ladder unless he has something he can claim as a win domestically.
The alternative course is to work to ensure the total surrender of the Russian army and collapse of his government. But whether any of us want that or not, it has been soundly rejected by successive US administrations, as well as by the Europeans.
So do we rather an everlasting war of attrition, which given the population disparities, is most likely slanted in Russia’s favour? Or trump’s approach of trying to negotiate a cessation of hostilities? Neither are attractive options for the Ukrainians. But here we are.
Trump hasn't negotiated anything.
He has literally adopted Putin's demands overnight, after coming out of the meeting saying there was no agreement.
Ukraine giving up the Donbas for “peace” makes as much sense as Czechoslovakia giving up the Sudetenland.
Making concessions to bullies only emboldens them.
Well, quite.
"I'll stop punching you in the face if you give me your car. I am making the generous concession of not demanding your house. Why do you stand in the way of good neighbourly relations?"
Newsom seems to have taken the decision that the route to being Dem candidate 2028 is to be now seen front and centre to be fighting Trump 2.0 regime day and night and in their face.
Many Dems have been been appalled how little fight there has been from Dem congress members.
Will it work for Newsom?
I'm pretty sure the candidate will be a governor and not a senator.
So maybe?
Might do a header at some point.
Could be a valuable header.
It's certainly a route - we'll only know if it's the route after the event - and it has clearly propelled Newsom from one of the also rans to somewhere near the top of polling for the next nominee. He's as much distrusted as admired in his own party - see for instance "he's Patrick Bateman, but at least he's our Patrick Bateman" - but that's never been, on its own, an insurmountable problem in politics.
Sustainable for another two or three years ? I don't know about that.
Next nominee is a big and liquid market, tradeable on Betfair Exchange, with years to run, so it's worth the attention.
Indeed:
I've never been a big Newsom fan, but definitely managed to grab the limelight, and get himself noticed as the de facto opposition to Trump.
Should Gavin avoid standing too close to high rise windows?
"Ex-Metropolitan police detective David McKelvey fell victim to phone theft in London and warns the streets are becoming 'lawless' with a dwindling police presence GB News"
Is London becoming as lawless as DC? In that case right wingers will have to take control of the police. It's nonsense, it's right out of the right wing authoritarian playbook, and just look at your source.
'"My Local Bobby'" the company I run......'
I think that gives you a bit of a clue what this ex-policeman now businessman is doing. Quite why they're prepared to give him free advertising for something that is more than likely a spurious story I can't imagine. As I understand it pinching an I Phone is now a waste of time. Unless you have the phone ID you'll never get into it. You have to contact Apple with the receipt from where you bought it or otherwise you might as well throw the phone away.
Surprising to me that there are still people who don’t realise that Putin will not walk down the escalatory ladder unless he has something he can claim as a win domestically.
The alternative course is to work to ensure the total surrender of the Russian army and collapse of his government. But whether any of us want that or not, it has been soundly rejected by successive US administrations, as well as by the Europeans.
So do we rather an everlasting war of attrition, which given the population disparities, is most likely slanted in Russia’s favour? Or trump’s approach of trying to negotiate a cessation of hostilities? Neither are attractive options for the Ukrainians. But here we are.
Trump hasn't negotiated anything.
He has literally adopted Putin's demands overnight, after coming out of the meeting saying there was no agreement.
Just 4 days ago he was promising "severe consequences" for Russia if Putin didn't agree to a ceasefire by the weekend. He's dropped that for absolutely nothing.
He seems to like Putin, and seems to support the idea that bigger countries should be allowed to invade their smaller neighbours. We can't expect the US to put any meaningful pressure on Russia.
Surprising to me that there are still people who don’t realise that Putin will not walk down the escalatory ladder unless he has something he can claim as a win domestically.
The alternative course is to work to ensure the total surrender of the Russian army and collapse of his government. But whether any of us want that or not, it has been soundly rejected by successive US administrations, as well as by the Europeans.
So do we rather an everlasting war of attrition, which given the population disparities, is most likely slanted in Russia’s favour? Or trump’s approach of trying to negotiate a cessation of hostilities? Neither are attractive options for the Ukrainians. But here we are.
Trump hasn't negotiated anything.
He has literally adopted Putin's demands overnight, after coming out of the meeting saying there was no agreement.
Just 4 days ago he was promising "severe consequences" for Russia if Putin didn't agree to a ceasefire by the weekend. He's dropped that for absolutely nothing.
He seems to like Putin, and seems to support the idea that bigger countries should be allowed to invade their smaller neighbours. We can't expect the US to put any meaningful pressure on Russia.
NOTHING???
Are you kidding me. Putin told him that 2020 was rigged, and that Trump actually won.
What more do you think the US could possibly get out of any summit???
Ukraine giving up the Donbas for “peace” makes as much sense as Czechoslovakia giving up the Sudetenland.
Making concessions to bullies only emboldens them.
The comparison with Munich is uncomfortably close. The great power has negotiated with the aggressor, in the absence of the victim, agreed to its demands, and is now trying to impose them on the victim.
The difference is that the UK and Europe still have a chance to refuse the terms of a bargain that threatens to severely weaken their security.
Surprising to me that there are still people who don’t realise that Putin will not walk down the escalatory ladder unless he has something he can claim as a win domestically.
The alternative course is to work to ensure the total surrender of the Russian army and collapse of his government. But whether any of us want that or not, it has been soundly rejected by successive US administrations, as well as by the Europeans.
So do we rather an everlasting war of attrition, which given the population disparities, is most likely slanted in Russia’s favour? Or trump’s approach of trying to negotiate a cessation of hostilities? Neither are attractive options for the Ukrainians. But here we are.
Trump hasn't negotiated anything.
He has literally adopted Putin's demands overnight, after coming out of the meeting saying there was no agreement.
Just 4 days ago he was promising "severe consequences" for Russia if Putin didn't agree to a ceasefire by the weekend. He's dropped that for absolutely nothing.
He seems to like Putin, and seems to support the idea that bigger countries should be allowed to invade their smaller neighbours. We can't expect the US to put any meaningful pressure on Russia.
Trump’s method of negotiation is to grovel to those he sees as strong, and bully those he sees as weak.
Surprising to me that there are still people who don’t realise that Putin will not walk down the escalatory ladder unless he has something he can claim as a win domestically.
The alternative course is to work to ensure the total surrender of the Russian army and collapse of his government. But whether any of us want that or not, it has been soundly rejected by successive US administrations, as well as by the Europeans.
So do we rather an everlasting war of attrition, which given the population disparities, is most likely slanted in Russia’s favour? Or trump’s approach of trying to negotiate a cessation of hostilities? Neither are attractive options for the Ukrainians. But here we are.
Trump hasn't negotiated anything.
He has literally adopted Putin's demands overnight, after coming out of the meeting saying there was no agreement.
Much is in flux. But I go on the reports that western aviation would be policing the skies within a week of a deal, and Merz’s comments. No doubt part of the optics will be Zelensky making way for Zaluzhny in fresh elections, which I imagine suits all parties too.
It’s a strange one this however. Assume no deal gets done. And a year or two from now the Russian army collapses and withdraws from the whole of Donbas. I would be elated to have been proven wrong. I get the sense that many here would not feel the same if a deal now leads to a lasting peace and robust state for what remains of Ukraine.
"Ex-Metropolitan police detective David McKelvey fell victim to phone theft in London and warns the streets are becoming 'lawless' with a dwindling police presence GB News"
Is London becoming as lawless as DC? In that case right wingers will have to take control of the police. It's nonsense, it's right out of the right wing authoritarian playbook, and just look at your source.
'"My Local Bobby'" the company I run......'
I think that gives you a bit of a clue what this ex-policeman now businessman is doing. Quite why they're prepared to give him free advertising for something that is more than likely a spurious story I can't imagine. As I understand it pinching an I Phone is now a waste of time. Unless you have the phone ID you'll never get into it. You have to contact Apple with the receipt from where you bought it or otherwise you might as well throw the phone away.
As I traverse the country listening to news radio, I have noticed that both the BBC and LBC use a very small pool of these ex Metropolitan Police (and it is normally the Met) talking heads. They tend to be quite reactionary.
There are a couple of less reactionary ex - coppers like Dal Babu doing the rounds but their opinion seems to be confined to James O'Brien's show.
Surprising to me that there are still people who don’t realise that Putin will not walk down the escalatory ladder unless he has something he can claim as a win domestically.
The alternative course is to work to ensure the total surrender of the Russian army and collapse of his government. But whether any of us want that or not, it has been soundly rejected by successive US administrations, as well as by the Europeans.
So do we rather an everlasting war of attrition, which given the population disparities, is most likely slanted in Russia’s favour? Or trump’s approach of trying to negotiate a cessation of hostilities? Neither are attractive options for the Ukrainians. But here we are.
Trump hasn't negotiated anything.
He has literally adopted Putin's demands overnight, after coming out of the meeting saying there was no agreement.
Much is in flux. But I go on the reports that western aviation would be policing the skies within a week of a deal, and Merz’s comments. No doubt part of the optics will be Zelensky making way for Zaluzhny in fresh elections, which I imagine suits all parties too.
It’s a strange one this however. Assume no deal gets done. And a year or two from now the Russian army collapses and withdraws from the whole of Donbas. I would be elated to have been proven wrong. I get the sense that many here would not feel the same if a deal now leads to a lasting peace and robust state for what remains of Ukraine.
Western aviation would be policing what skies? Russian jets are firing missiles from inside Russian airspace. This is what nixed calls for a no-fly zone at the start of the SMO. It cannot be enforced without effectively invading Russia.
Ukraine giving up the Donbas for “peace” makes as much sense as Czechoslovakia giving up the Sudetenland.
Making concessions to bullies only emboldens them.
The comparison with Munich is uncomfortably close. The great power has negotiated with the aggressor, in the absence of the victim, agreed to its demands, and is now trying to impose them on the victim.
The difference is that the UK and Europe still have a chance to refuse the terms of a bargain that threatens to severely weaken their security.
Given the EU has done absolutely zilch to ensure its own security I cant see that happening
Surprising to me that there are still people who don’t realise that Putin will not walk down the escalatory ladder unless he has something he can claim as a win domestically.
The alternative course is to work to ensure the total surrender of the Russian army and collapse of his government. But whether any of us want that or not, it has been soundly rejected by successive US administrations, as well as by the Europeans.
So do we rather an everlasting war of attrition, which given the population disparities, is most likely slanted in Russia’s favour? Or trump’s approach of trying to negotiate a cessation of hostilities? Neither are attractive options for the Ukrainians. But here we are.
Trump hasn't negotiated anything.
He has literally adopted Putin's demands overnight, after coming out of the meeting saying there was no agreement.
Much is in flux. But I go on the reports that western aviation would be policing the skies within a week of a deal, and Merz’s comments. No doubt part of the optics will be Zelensky making way for Zaluzhny in fresh elections, which I imagine suits all parties too.
It’s a strange one this however. Assume no deal gets done. And a year or two from now the Russian army collapses and withdraws from the whole of Donbas. I would be elated to have been proven wrong. I get the sense that many here would not feel the same if a deal now leads to a lasting peace and robust state for what remains of Ukraine.
Western aviation would be policing what skies? Russian jets are firing missiles from inside Russian airspace. This is what nixed calls for a no-fly zone at the start of the SMO. It cannot be enforced without effectively invading Russia.
The reports are they would be policing Ukrainian skies. There is a difference between enforcing a NFZ in an already hot conflict. And policing one in a deterrent capacity. But you already knew this of course.
I don't want to fire cheap shots at Melania Trump. At least she said something. Stealing children is not something you can pussyfoot around.
Melania's problem is the company she has chosen to keep, and to continue keeping, and that she stays silent about protection of children when it is close to home.
In his first term Trump ran a policy splitting migrant children from their families. Biden created an organisation which reunited thousands. Not perfect, but the correct thing to do.
Trump closed the organisation via Executive Order, and has repeatedly stated publicly that the threat to remove their children was a good deterrent. It's just his view; like everything else, they are poker chips.
He will pay attention to a photo of a starving child in front of him, for half a day, or indulge in meaningless rhetoric, but he does not give a damn what happens out of his sight.
That surely is also the message of Trump's close relationship with Epstein, including his public jokes about sex abuse. He does not care. And she says nothing.
OT. I'm just listening to Nicola Sturgeon's book read by herself and it's a very good listen. Politics is full of ugly racists at the moment so it's good to hear from one who isn't
Some of you may be aware of my ongoing rant that the privatisation program of 1979-2010s(?) led to an inability of Britain to act as a state and ended up with providing profits for foreign nationals and a servile UK workforce. One book I have recommended to you is "Late Soviet Britain" by Dr Abby Innes. I now find another on a similar theme: "Failed State: Why Nothing Works and How We Fix It" (2025), by Sam Freedman. I haven't read it and so cannot recommend it, but I look forward to reading it.
I’ve read that, and recommended it here previously. It’s clear and well written and argued, but is one of those books that starts well, with incisive and convincing analysis, but peters out towards the end when it comes to proposing how to put things right.
Surprising to me that there are still people who don’t realise that Putin will not walk down the escalatory ladder unless he has something he can claim as a win domestically.
The alternative course is to work to ensure the total surrender of the Russian army and collapse of his government. But whether any of us want that or not, it has been soundly rejected by successive US administrations, as well as by the Europeans.
So do we rather an everlasting war of attrition, which given the population disparities, is most likely slanted in Russia’s favour? Or trump’s approach of trying to negotiate a cessation of hostilities? Neither are attractive options for the Ukrainians. But here we are.
Trump hasn't negotiated anything.
He has literally adopted Putin's demands overnight, after coming out of the meeting saying there was no agreement.
Much is in flux. But I go on the reports that western aviation would be policing the skies within a week of a deal, and Merz’s comments. No doubt part of the optics will be Zelensky making way for Zaluzhny in fresh elections, which I imagine suits all parties too.
It’s a strange one this however. Assume no deal gets done. And a year or two from now the Russian army collapses and withdraws from the whole of Donbas. I would be elated to have been proven wrong. I get the sense that many here would not feel the same if a deal now leads to a lasting peace and robust state for what remains of Ukraine.
Western aviation would be policing what skies? Russian jets are firing missiles from inside Russian airspace. This is what nixed calls for a no-fly zone at the start of the SMO. It cannot be enforced without effectively invading Russia.
The reports are they would be policing Ukrainian skies. There is a difference between enforcing a NFZ in an already hot conflict. And policing one in a deterrent capacity. But you already knew this of course.
So Russia gets to waste a lot of Nato fuel by flying up to the border every hour. Russia's economy might be tanking but it has oil literally coming out of the ground. But you already knew this of course. And which Nato member will risk shooting at a Russian plane, other than America. None. But you already knew this of course.
OT. I'm just listening to Nicola Sturgeon's book read by herself and it's a very good listen. Politics is full of ugly racists at the moment so it's good to hear from one who isn't
"Ex-Metropolitan police detective David McKelvey fell victim to phone theft in London and warns the streets are becoming 'lawless' with a dwindling police presence GB News"
Is London becoming as lawless as DC? In that case right wingers will have to take control of the police. It's nonsense, it's right out of the right wing authoritarian playbook, and just look at your source.
'"My Local Bobby'" the company I run......'
I think that gives you a bit of a clue what this ex-policeman now businessman is doing. Quite why they're prepared to give him free advertising for something that is more than likely a spurious story I can't imagine. As I understand it pinching an I Phone is now a waste of time. Unless you have the phone ID you'll never get into it. You have to contact Apple with the receipt from where you bought it or otherwise you might as well throw the phone away.
As I traverse the country listening to news radio, I have noticed that both the BBC and LBC use a very small pool of these ex Metropolitan Police (and it is normally the Met) talking heads. They tend to be quite reactionary.
There are a couple of less reactionary ex - coppers like Dal Babu doing the rounds but their opinion seems to be confined to James O'Brien's show.
Ex-Met because the BBC and LBC are based in London and because the Met is largest:-
Surprising to me that there are still people who don’t realise that Putin will not walk down the escalatory ladder unless he has something he can claim as a win domestically.
The alternative course is to work to ensure the total surrender of the Russian army and collapse of his government. But whether any of us want that or not, it has been soundly rejected by successive US administrations, as well as by the Europeans.
So do we rather an everlasting war of attrition, which given the population disparities, is most likely slanted in Russia’s favour? Or trump’s approach of trying to negotiate a cessation of hostilities? Neither are attractive options for the Ukrainians. But here we are.
Trump hasn't negotiated anything.
He has literally adopted Putin's demands overnight, after coming out of the meeting saying there was no agreement.
Just 4 days ago he was promising "severe consequences" for Russia if Putin didn't agree to a ceasefire by the weekend. He's dropped that for absolutely nothing.
He seems to like Putin, and seems to support the idea that bigger countries should be allowed to invade their smaller neighbours. We can't expect the US to put any meaningful pressure on Russia.
NOTHING???
Are you kidding me. Putin told him that 2020 was rigged, and that Trump actually won.
What more do you think the US could possibly get out of any summit???
Actually probably accurate.
Zelenskyy needs to top that. Say 2020 was rigged, blame Biden for Russia's invasion, and say that Hunter Biden was running a paedophile ring in Ukraine. Throw in something about Obama being born in Kiev, should be enough.
Surprising to me that there are still people who don’t realise that Putin will not walk down the escalatory ladder unless he has something he can claim as a win domestically.
The alternative course is to work to ensure the total surrender of the Russian army and collapse of his government. But whether any of us want that or not, it has been soundly rejected by successive US administrations, as well as by the Europeans.
So do we rather an everlasting war of attrition, which given the population disparities, is most likely slanted in Russia’s favour? Or trump’s approach of trying to negotiate a cessation of hostilities? Neither are attractive options for the Ukrainians. But here we are.
Trump hasn't negotiated anything.
He has literally adopted Putin's demands overnight, after coming out of the meeting saying there was no agreement.
Much is in flux. But I go on the reports that western aviation would be policing the skies within a week of a deal, and Merz’s comments. No doubt part of the optics will be Zelensky making way for Zaluzhny in fresh elections, which I imagine suits all parties too.
It’s a strange one this however. Assume no deal gets done. And a year or two from now the Russian army collapses and withdraws from the whole of Donbas. I would be elated to have been proven wrong. I get the sense that many here would not feel the same if a deal now leads to a lasting peace and robust state for what remains of Ukraine.
Western aviation would be policing what skies? Russian jets are firing missiles from inside Russian airspace. This is what nixed calls for a no-fly zone at the start of the SMO. It cannot be enforced without effectively invading Russia.
The reports are they would be policing Ukrainian skies. There is a difference between enforcing a NFZ in an already hot conflict. And policing one in a deterrent capacity. But you already knew this of course.
So Russia gets to waste a lot of Nato fuel by flying up to the border every hour. Russia's economy might be tanking but it has oil literally coming out of the ground. But you already knew this of course. And which Nato member will risk shooting at a Russian plane, other than America. None. But you already knew this of course.
Turkiye would and have. I highly doubt any other member has the fortitude for it though.
SKS would be fucking mad to commit the RAF to air policing over Ukraine although if Trump tells him to do it, he may feel he has no choice.
OT. I'm just listening to Nicola Sturgeon's book read by herself and it's a very good listen. Politics is full of ugly racists at the moment so it's good to hear from one who isn't
So youre backing an ugly nationalist instead ?
Didnt think nationalism was your thing.
I think there are many of us who would have wanted to extricate ourselves from the yoke of Thatcherism if we could have found a way......
Anyway isn't that rather a harsh judgement from a (I'm guessing) bowler hatted emigre from Northern Ireland?
Say what you like about Boris Johnson's many failings but he is still holding the line on supporting Ukraine.
Mind you he was rooting for a Trump win last November. That raises an inconsistency in his support for Ukraine.
I was not and I still remain no fan of Boris Johnson before or after he was elected as Conservative leader and PM, I voted for Jeremy Hunt in that leadership contest. But the idea that there was ever any inconsistency in his support for Ukraine is simple wrong, and for all his faults as a politician or PM, he saw and addressed the danger of an imminent Russian invasion of Ukriane along with the US when some of their European counterparts refused to listen because of their 'very poor' intelligence which left them not only totally wrong footed when Russian did invaded Ukraine, but also left them humiliated because they didn't listen to the US or the UK.
But if I had to concede the one Foreign policy he got right and backed up in spades with his actions as UK PM, it was his early proactive response to the threat of a Russian invasion and thanks to listening to UK intelligence and acting on upon it and then seeing this through afterwards with equally clear early and sustained UK support provided for Ukraine before and after the Russian invasion. For all his previous and subsequent faults as a politician and a party leader and PM here in the UK, there is no doubt that he was incredibe highly regarded in Ukraine for his early and sustained strong support when it really mattered when his was PM.
1982: Can COMPUTERS THINK? | The Computer Programme | Retro Technology | BBC Archive
Chris Searle, Ian McNaught-Davis and Gill Neville present an edition of The Computer Programme that explores artificial intelligence in computers. Can computers be programmed to think out the answers to problems and come up with winning strategies in games?
And 13 years later computers were beating GMs at chess. The Rubik cube now gets solved in a second or two by robots.
Cool program, bookmarked to watch later.
Which doesn't show that they can think. (John Searle's 'The Chinese Room'.) Though I guess the jury must be out about this in relation to to modern forms of AI and its future - is it possible that a stage is reached where it is doing what can only be done by an actually thinking being.
There's no obvious pathway to actual machine thinking. Current AIs are complex creations that do a very simple task, they string words together to form something related to a question they've been asked. They don't understand those words, they just pattern match the data they've been trained on.
This is why LLMs like ChartGPT, etc, will confidently produce plausible answers that are complete bollocks. There's no thinking go on, the AI is not intelligent and cannot understand what it is telling you. It just knows the answer it gives you resembles what it knows an answer to that question should look like.
It's cargo cult intelligence; it creates a facsimile of something it does not and cannot understand and hopes it works like the original.
That's not to say LLMs are useless, but they don't think and never will.
You may well be right, though proof/strong evidence is lacking either way. However, if matter in particular configurations is conscious (standard naturalist view of brains - there is no backup non material thinking entity) then in principle nothing prevents other constructed configurations of being conscious too.
Which is why it is in the top 10 interesting questions in the universe.
Say what you like about Boris Johnson's many failings but he is still holding the line on supporting Ukraine.
Mind you he was rooting for a Trump win last November. That raises an inconsistency in his support for Ukraine.
I was not and I still remain no fan of Boris Johnson before or after he was elected as Conservative leader and PM, I voted for Jeremy Hunt in that leadership contest. But the idea that there was ever any inconsistency in his support for Ukraine is simple wrong, and for all his faults as a politician or PM, he saw and addressed the danger of an imminent Russian invasion of Ukriane along with the US when some of their European counterparts refused to listen because of their 'very poor' intelligence which left them not only totally wrong footed when Russian did invaded Ukraine, but also left them humiliated because they didn't listen to the US or the UK.
But if I had to concede the one Foreign policy he got right and backed up in spades with his actions as UK PM, it was his early proactive response to the threat of a Russian invasion and thanks to listening to UK intelligence and acting on upon it and then seeing this through afterwards with equally clear early and sustained UK support provided for Ukraine before and after the Russian invasion. For all his previous and subsequent faults as a politician and a party leader and PM here in the UK, there is no doubt that he was incredibe highly regarded in Ukraine for his early and sustained strong support when it really mattered when his was PM.
According to Dominic Cummings, Boris supported Ukraine in order to distract attention from the various -gates he was embroiled in. Of course, #ClassicDom might not be an unbiased observer and Boris could have had more than one reason to support Ukraine.
OT. I'm just listening to Nicola Sturgeon's book read by herself and it's a very good listen. Politics is full of ugly racists at the moment so it's good to hear from one who isn't
So youre backing an ugly nationalist instead ?
Didnt think nationalism was your thing.
I think there are many of us who would have wanted to extricate ourselves from the yoke of Thatcherism if we could have found a way......
Anyway isn't that rather a harsh judgement from a (I'm guessing) bowler hatted emigre from Northern Ireland?
Just typical of you to victimise us minority cultures and in mid marching season too.
Antway I didnt think Thatcher had that big an influence in Cannes.
I've been filling a lot of my time as an invalid playing really old computer games
I found online emulators for MSDOS, Amiga and Spectrum games. I finally managed to complete War In Middle Earth, a LOTR game I first played nearly forty years ago
On the Spectrum emulator, I found @NickPalmer 's 1985 Battle of Britain game "Their Finest Hour"
There's also a "Yes, Prime Minister" game on the same page (1987)
I've been intending to find a ZX Spectrum emulator for ages so I can play N.O.M.A.D. which was my favourite game at the time. Thanks for this.
A few years ago I found an emulator for one of my favourite games from the 80s, Raid over Moscow on the Commodore 64.
Trivia from the wikipedia page:
"Unauthorized copies of Raid on Moscow circulated widely in East Germany during the 1980s, despite the Stasi describing it as among those games having "a particularly militaristic and inhumane nature". The West German Federal Department for Media Harmful to Young Persons added the game to its index in 1985, stating that "In older adolescents, playing ... can lead to physical tension, anger, aggressiveness, agitated thinking, difficulty concentrating, headaches, etc." The ban automatically ended in 2010."
The goal of the game is to stop unprovoked Russian aggression against a complacent and helpless West. For decades it seemed out of date, but since 2022 for some reason it's felt much more topical ...
Say what you like about Boris Johnson's many failings but he is still holding the line on supporting Ukraine.
Mind you he was rooting for a Trump win last November. That raises an inconsistency in his support for Ukraine.
I was not and I still remain no fan of Boris Johnson before or after he was elected as Conservative leader and PM, I voted for Jeremy Hunt in that leadership contest. But the idea that there was ever any inconsistency in his support for Ukraine is simple wrong, and for all his faults as a politician or PM, he saw and addressed the danger of an imminent Russian invasion of Ukriane along with the US when some of their European counterparts refused to listen because of their 'very poor' intelligence which left them not only totally wrong footed when Russian did invaded Ukraine, but also left them humiliated because they didn't listen to the US or the UK.
But if I had to concede the one Foreign policy he got right and backed up in spades with his actions as UK PM, it was his early proactive response to the threat of a Russian invasion and thanks to listening to UK intelligence and acting on upon it and then seeing this through afterwards with equally clear early and sustained UK support provided for Ukraine before and after the Russian invasion. For all his previous and subsequent faults as a politician and a party leader and PM here in the UK, there is no doubt that he was incredibe highly regarded in Ukraine for his early and sustained strong support when it really mattered when his was PM.
According to Dominic Cummings, Boris supported Ukraine in order to distract attention from the various -gates he was embroiled in. Of course, #ClassicDom might not be an unbiased observer and Boris could have had more than one reason to support Ukraine.
To paraphrase, Boris will do the right thing after trying everything else and calculating there’s no personal sacrifice involved.
Say what you like about Boris Johnson's many failings but he is still holding the line on supporting Ukraine.
Mind you he was rooting for a Trump win last November. That raises an inconsistency in his support for Ukraine.
I was not and I still remain no fan of Boris Johnson before or after he was elected as Conservative leader and PM, I voted for Jeremy Hunt in that leadership contest. But the idea that there was ever any inconsistency in his support for Ukraine is simple wrong, and for all his faults as a politician or PM, he saw and addressed the danger of an imminent Russian invasion of Ukriane along with the US when some of their European counterparts refused to listen because of their 'very poor' intelligence which left them not only totally wrong footed when Russian did invaded Ukraine, but also left them humiliated because they didn't listen to the US or the UK.
But if I had to concede the one Foreign policy he got right and backed up in spades with his actions as UK PM, it was his early proactive response to the threat of a Russian invasion and thanks to listening to UK intelligence and acting on upon it and then seeing this through afterwards with equally clear early and sustained UK support provided for Ukraine before and after the Russian invasion. For all his previous and subsequent faults as a politician and a party leader and PM here in the UK, there is no doubt that he was incredibe highly regarded in Ukraine for his early and sustained strong support when it really mattered when his was PM.
Or, alternatively, was knee deep in personal connections to Russia and Russian oligarchs (remember that trip to Italy where he shook off his security to go meet some rich Russian?), and when Russia became global pariah was bright enough to quickly pivot to the opposite position. He saw that supporting Russia was no longer a good look, whereas poor Leon was stuck with his back catalogue of written posts telling us how Putin was a great guy and would be the saviour of western culture, and could only change his account name and hope we'd all forget.
Say what you like about Boris Johnson's many failings but he is still holding the line on supporting Ukraine.
Mind you he was rooting for a Trump win last November. That raises an inconsistency in his support for Ukraine.
I was not and I still remain no fan of Boris Johnson before or after he was elected as Conservative leader and PM, I voted for Jeremy Hunt in that leadership contest. But the idea that there was ever any inconsistency in his support for Ukraine is simple wrong, and for all his faults as a politician or PM, he saw and addressed the danger of an imminent Russian invasion of Ukriane along with the US when some of their European counterparts refused to listen because of their 'very poor' intelligence which left them not only totally wrong footed when Russian did invaded Ukraine, but also left them humiliated because they didn't listen to the US or the UK.
But if I had to concede the one Foreign policy he got right and backed up in spades with his actions as UK PM, it was his early proactive response to the threat of a Russian invasion and thanks to listening to UK intelligence and acting on upon it and then seeing this through afterwards with equally clear early and sustained UK support provided for Ukraine before and after the Russian invasion. For all his previous and subsequent faults as a politician and a party leader and PM here in the UK, there is no doubt that he was incredibe highly regarded in Ukraine for his early and sustained strong support when it really mattered when his was PM.
According to Dominic Cummings, Boris supported Ukraine in order to distract attention from the various -gates he was embroiled in. Of course, #ClassicDom might not be an unbiased observer and Boris could have had more than one reason to support Ukraine.
It would be a nice idea to judge ex PMs on the number of -gates they had to manoeuvre.
"I’ve said many times that a Golden Rule of politics is that the intelligentsia are the easiest to fool with simple moral propaganda tales, not the ‘low information voters’ as the intelligentsia refers to them. Those with more education and verbal skills use them to build elaborate ideas about what they want to be true — particularly about the ways people like them should have more power (‘more rational this way’), decentralised systems like markets should have less power (‘they’re irrational, more selfish, too much information asymmetry’), and why ‘low information voters’ don’t understand ‘the real issues’ so need to have their information curated by, you guessed it, the intelligentsia. Thanks to Twitter you can build a Twitter list and observe this phenomenon in real time."
He's correct. As I've noted here before, there is a profound lack of curiosity and actual research/evidence in the posts of very many of our shrewdies, because they are so convinced that they hold the superior view, and that therefore the facts must follow. Either that or there's a self-conscious suspicion that actually the facts aren't there, so they need to resort to "cutting ourselves off from our closest trading partner", "letting the world burn", "being on the wrong side of history", "refugees welcome" and other such highly-charged and ultimately inaccurate or unprovable sentiments.
Now, I'll freely admit that my arguments are on occasion poorly researched. But when someone schools me in the facts on something, I acknowledge it openly and withdraw. I think it makes for an interesting argument and draws good information out sometimes, though I don't do it deliberately.
But our 'intelligentsia' aren't making mistakes, their world view cannot be mistaken. They are precisely as Cummings describes them - self-regarding and self-deceiving.
"I’ve said many times that a Golden Rule of politics is that the intelligentsia are the easiest to fool with simple moral propaganda tales, not the ‘low information voters’ as the intelligentsia refers to them. Those with more education and verbal skills use them to build elaborate ideas about what they want to be true — particularly about the ways people like them should have more power (‘more rational this way’), decentralised systems like markets should have less power (‘they’re irrational, more selfish, too much information asymmetry’), and why ‘low information voters’ don’t understand ‘the real issues’ so need to have their information curated by, you guessed it, the intelligentsia. Thanks to Twitter you can build a Twitter list and observe this phenomenon in real time."
He's correct. As I've noted here before, there is a profound lack of curiosity and actual research/evidence in the posts of very many of our shrewdies, because they are so convinced that they hold the superior view, and that therefore the facts must follow. Either that or there's a self-conscious suspicion that actually the facts aren't there, so they need to resort to "cutting ourselves off from our closest trading partner", "letting the world burn", "being on the wrong side of history", "refugees welcome" and other such highly-charged and ultimately inaccurate or unprovable sentiments.
Now, I'll freely admit that my arguments are on occasion poorly researched. But when someone schools me in the facts on something, I acknowledge it openly and withdraw. I think it makes for an interesting argument and draws good information out sometimes, though I don't do it deliberately.
But our 'intelligentsia' aren't making mistakes, their world view cannot be mistaken. They are precisely as Cummings describes them - self-regarding and self-deceiving.
Like so much of modern Cummings, though, it lacks relatable examples. (Rather than his rather contrived strawmanning, that don't actually relate to anything that any actual human being might have come across.)
I mean, it *might* be true. But then again, it might not be.
It also assumes that the intelligentsia is a single bloc, when I'm fairly sure they're not. I'd struggle to find any definition of intelligentsia that didn't include Dominic Cummings, for example.
Say what you like about Boris Johnson's many failings but he is still holding the line on supporting Ukraine.
Mind you he was rooting for a Trump win last November. That raises an inconsistency in his support for Ukraine.
I was not and I still remain no fan of Boris Johnson before or after he was elected as Conservative leader and PM, I voted for Jeremy Hunt in that leadership contest. But the idea that there was ever any inconsistency in his support for Ukraine is simple wrong, and for all his faults as a politician or PM, he saw and addressed the danger of an imminent Russian invasion of Ukriane along with the US when some of their European counterparts refused to listen because of their 'very poor' intelligence which left them not only totally wrong footed when Russian did invaded Ukraine, but also left them humiliated because they didn't listen to the US or the UK.
But if I had to concede the one Foreign policy he got right and backed up in spades with his actions as UK PM, it was his early proactive response to the threat of a Russian invasion and thanks to listening to UK intelligence and acting on upon it and then seeing this through afterwards with equally clear early and sustained UK support provided for Ukraine before and after the Russian invasion. For all his previous and subsequent faults as a politician and a party leader and PM here in the UK, there is no doubt that he was incredibe highly regarded in Ukraine for his early and sustained strong support when it really mattered when his was PM.
I don't dispute that Johnson flew the flag for Ukraine as indeed did his successor Sunak. Cynics amongst us might question whether his enthusiasm was a final throw of the dice for his mortally wounded premiership. Only Johnson knows the truth there, so we have to give him credit.
Nonetheless it still stands that Johnson along with several other high profile Tories and Farage were keen to see a return of the Trump presidency. Trump's Putin adjacency was well documented from his first term so why would a "friend of Ukraine" even countenance Trump as President being anything but a negative for Ukraine?
Say what you like about Boris Johnson's many failings but he is still holding the line on supporting Ukraine.
Mind you he was rooting for a Trump win last November. That raises an inconsistency in his support for Ukraine.
I was not and I still remain no fan of Boris Johnson before or after he was elected as Conservative leader and PM, I voted for Jeremy Hunt in that leadership contest. But the idea that there was ever any inconsistency in his support for Ukraine is simple wrong, and for all his faults as a politician or PM, he saw and addressed the danger of an imminent Russian invasion of Ukriane along with the US when some of their European counterparts refused to listen because of their 'very poor' intelligence which left them not only totally wrong footed when Russian did invaded Ukraine, but also left them humiliated because they didn't listen to the US or the UK.
But if I had to concede the one Foreign policy he got right and backed up in spades with his actions as UK PM, it was his early proactive response to the threat of a Russian invasion and thanks to listening to UK intelligence and acting on upon it and then seeing this through afterwards with equally clear early and sustained UK support provided for Ukraine before and after the Russian invasion. For all his previous and subsequent faults as a politician and a party leader and PM here in the UK, there is no doubt that he was incredibe highly regarded in Ukraine for his early and sustained strong support when it really mattered when his was PM.
I don't dispute that Johnson flew the flag for Ukraine as indeed did his successor Sunak. Cynics amongst us might question whether his enthusiasm was a final throw of the dice for his mortally wounded premiership. Only Johnson knows the truth there, so we have to give him credit.
Nonetheless it still stands that Johnson along with several other high profile Tories and Farage were keen to see a return of the Trump presidency. Trump's Putin adjacency was well documented from his first term so why would a "friend of Ukraine" even countenance Trump as President being anything but a negative for Ukraine?
And yet the people who emboldenen Putin were Merkel and Obama
Say what you like about Boris Johnson's many failings but he is still holding the line on supporting Ukraine.
Mind you he was rooting for a Trump win last November. That raises an inconsistency in his support for Ukraine.
I was not and I still remain no fan of Boris Johnson before or after he was elected as Conservative leader and PM, I voted for Jeremy Hunt in that leadership contest. But the idea that there was ever any inconsistency in his support for Ukraine is simple wrong, and for all his faults as a politician or PM, he saw and addressed the danger of an imminent Russian invasion of Ukriane along with the US when some of their European counterparts refused to listen because of their 'very poor' intelligence which left them not only totally wrong footed when Russian did invaded Ukraine, but also left them humiliated because they didn't listen to the US or the UK.
But if I had to concede the one Foreign policy he got right and backed up in spades with his actions as UK PM, it was his early proactive response to the threat of a Russian invasion and thanks to listening to UK intelligence and acting on upon it and then seeing this through afterwards with equally clear early and sustained UK support provided for Ukraine before and after the Russian invasion. For all his previous and subsequent faults as a politician and a party leader and PM here in the UK, there is no doubt that he was incredibe highly regarded in Ukraine for his early and sustained strong support when it really mattered when his was PM.
I don't dispute that Johnson flew the flag for Ukraine as indeed did his successor Sunak. Cynics amongst us might question whether his enthusiasm was a final throw of the dice for his mortally wounded premiership. Only Johnson knows the truth there, so we have to give him credit.
Nonetheless it still stands that Johnson along with several other high profile Tories and Farage were keen to see a return of the Trump presidency. Trump's Putin adjacency was well documented from his first term so why would a "friend of Ukraine" even countenance Trump as President being anything but a negative for Ukraine?
And yet the people who emboldenen Putin were Merkel and Obama
Citations needed.
If you are alluding to the response to the 2014 invasion of Crimea you have a point. Nonetheless sitting on their hands isn't quite the same as blowing smoke up Putin's ass.
Say what you like about Boris Johnson's many failings but he is still holding the line on supporting Ukraine.
Mind you he was rooting for a Trump win last November. That raises an inconsistency in his support for Ukraine.
I was not and I still remain no fan of Boris Johnson before or after he was elected as Conservative leader and PM, I voted for Jeremy Hunt in that leadership contest. But the idea that there was ever any inconsistency in his support for Ukraine is simple wrong, and for all his faults as a politician or PM, he saw and addressed the danger of an imminent Russian invasion of Ukriane along with the US when some of their European counterparts refused to listen because of their 'very poor' intelligence which left them not only totally wrong footed when Russian did invaded Ukraine, but also left them humiliated because they didn't listen to the US or the UK.
But if I had to concede the one Foreign policy he got right and backed up in spades with his actions as UK PM, it was his early proactive response to the threat of a Russian invasion and thanks to listening to UK intelligence and acting on upon it and then seeing this through afterwards with equally clear early and sustained UK support provided for Ukraine before and after the Russian invasion. For all his previous and subsequent faults as a politician and a party leader and PM here in the UK, there is no doubt that he was incredibe highly regarded in Ukraine for his early and sustained strong support when it really mattered when his was PM.
I don't dispute that Johnson flew the flag for Ukraine as indeed did his successor Sunak. Cynics amongst us might question whether his enthusiasm was a final throw of the dice for his mortally wounded premiership. Only Johnson knows the truth there, so we have to give him credit.
Nonetheless it still stands that Johnson along with several other high profile Tories and Farage were keen to see a return of the Trump presidency. Trump's Putin adjacency was well documented from his first term so why would a "friend of Ukraine" even countenance Trump as President being anything but a negative for Ukraine?
And yet the people who emboldenen Putin were Merkel and Obama
Citations needed.
2014 She ran Europe, he ran USA, Crimea was invaded and they did next to nothing.
Say what you like about Boris Johnson's many failings but he is still holding the line on supporting Ukraine.
Mind you he was rooting for a Trump win last November. That raises an inconsistency in his support for Ukraine.
I was not and I still remain no fan of Boris Johnson before or after he was elected as Conservative leader and PM, I voted for Jeremy Hunt in that leadership contest. But the idea that there was ever any inconsistency in his support for Ukraine is simple wrong, and for all his faults as a politician or PM, he saw and addressed the danger of an imminent Russian invasion of Ukriane along with the US when some of their European counterparts refused to listen because of their 'very poor' intelligence which left them not only totally wrong footed when Russian did invaded Ukraine, but also left them humiliated because they didn't listen to the US or the UK.
But if I had to concede the one Foreign policy he got right and backed up in spades with his actions as UK PM, it was his early proactive response to the threat of a Russian invasion and thanks to listening to UK intelligence and acting on upon it and then seeing this through afterwards with equally clear early and sustained UK support provided for Ukraine before and after the Russian invasion. For all his previous and subsequent faults as a politician and a party leader and PM here in the UK, there is no doubt that he was incredibe highly regarded in Ukraine for his early and sustained strong support when it really mattered when his was PM.
According to Dominic Cummings, Boris supported Ukraine in order to distract attention from the various -gates he was embroiled in. Of course, #ClassicDom might not be an unbiased observer and Boris could have had more than one reason to support Ukraine.
To be fair to Boris Johnson, Dominic Cummings is also a fluent liar and while observant has a tendency to fit facts to his own beliefs about what should have happened rather than to reality, as befits a man who believes he is the cream of his own 'intelligentsia.'
So I am willing to suggest we give Johnson the benefit of the doubt here.
Surprising to me that there are still people who don’t realise that Putin will not walk down the escalatory ladder unless he has something he can claim as a win domestically.
The alternative course is to work to ensure the total surrender of the Russian army and collapse of his government. But whether any of us want that or not, it has been soundly rejected by successive US administrations, as well as by the Europeans.
So do we rather an everlasting war of attrition, which given the population disparities, is most likely slanted in Russia’s favour? Or trump’s approach of trying to negotiate a cessation of hostilities? Neither are attractive options for the Ukrainians. But here we are.
Trump hasn't negotiated anything.
He has literally adopted Putin's demands overnight, after coming out of the meeting saying there was no agreement.
Much is in flux. But I go on the reports that western aviation would be policing the skies within a week of a deal, and Merz’s comments. No doubt part of the optics will be Zelensky making way for Zaluzhny in fresh elections, which I imagine suits all parties too.
It’s a strange one this however. Assume no deal gets done. And a year or two from now the Russian army collapses and withdraws from the whole of Donbas. I would be elated to have been proven wrong. I get the sense that many here would not feel the same if a deal now leads to a lasting peace and robust state for what remains of Ukraine.
SFAICS Merz and Carney's comments on USA security guarantees are not backed up by anything coming from Trump's outfit or from Zelenskyy. It may be made up hopecasting.
It is more likely that the obvious case is true: USA is in the process of changing sides. If they were not in that process it would be obvious that they were being 'nicer' (a Trump word!) to Ukraine than to Russia. From the current facts the most likely explanation is that USA wants Russia to have a sphere of influence in eastern Europe larger than it did, but the boundaries are not yet decided. This coheres with the view that Trumpism believes in the 'big global blocs', mutually respecting and mutually suspicious of each other.
Say what you like about Boris Johnson's many failings but he is still holding the line on supporting Ukraine.
Mind you he was rooting for a Trump win last November. That raises an inconsistency in his support for Ukraine.
I was not and I still remain no fan of Boris Johnson before or after he was elected as Conservative leader and PM, I voted for Jeremy Hunt in that leadership contest. But the idea that there was ever any inconsistency in his support for Ukraine is simple wrong, and for all his faults as a politician or PM, he saw and addressed the danger of an imminent Russian invasion of Ukriane along with the US when some of their European counterparts refused to listen because of their 'very poor' intelligence which left them not only totally wrong footed when Russian did invaded Ukraine, but also left them humiliated because they didn't listen to the US or the UK.
But if I had to concede the one Foreign policy he got right and backed up in spades with his actions as UK PM, it was his early proactive response to the threat of a Russian invasion and thanks to listening to UK intelligence and acting on upon it and then seeing this through afterwards with equally clear early and sustained UK support provided for Ukraine before and after the Russian invasion. For all his previous and subsequent faults as a politician and a party leader and PM here in the UK, there is no doubt that he was incredibe highly regarded in Ukraine for his early and sustained strong support when it really mattered when his was PM.
I don't dispute that Johnson flew the flag for Ukraine as indeed did his successor Sunak. Cynics amongst us might question whether his enthusiasm was a final throw of the dice for his mortally wounded premiership. Only Johnson knows the truth there, so we have to give him credit.
Nonetheless it still stands that Johnson along with several other high profile Tories and Farage were keen to see a return of the Trump presidency. Trump's Putin adjacency was well documented from his first term so why would a "friend of Ukraine" even countenance Trump as President being anything but a negative for Ukraine?
And yet the people who emboldenen Putin were Merkel and Obama
Citations needed.
2014 She ran Europe, he ran USA, Crimea was invaded and they did next to nothing.
Indeed, who can forget her thrilling victory in the Spanish election that year?
Say what you like about Boris Johnson's many failings but he is still holding the line on supporting Ukraine.
Mind you he was rooting for a Trump win last November. That raises an inconsistency in his support for Ukraine.
I was not and I still remain no fan of Boris Johnson before or after he was elected as Conservative leader and PM, I voted for Jeremy Hunt in that leadership contest. But the idea that there was ever any inconsistency in his support for Ukraine is simple wrong, and for all his faults as a politician or PM, he saw and addressed the danger of an imminent Russian invasion of Ukriane along with the US when some of their European counterparts refused to listen because of their 'very poor' intelligence which left them not only totally wrong footed when Russian did invaded Ukraine, but also left them humiliated because they didn't listen to the US or the UK.
But if I had to concede the one Foreign policy he got right and backed up in spades with his actions as UK PM, it was his early proactive response to the threat of a Russian invasion and thanks to listening to UK intelligence and acting on upon it and then seeing this through afterwards with equally clear early and sustained UK support provided for Ukraine before and after the Russian invasion. For all his previous and subsequent faults as a politician and a party leader and PM here in the UK, there is no doubt that he was incredibe highly regarded in Ukraine for his early and sustained strong support when it really mattered when his was PM.
I don't dispute that Johnson flew the flag for Ukraine as indeed did his successor Sunak. Cynics amongst us might question whether his enthusiasm was a final throw of the dice for his mortally wounded premiership. Only Johnson knows the truth there, so we have to give him credit.
Nonetheless it still stands that Johnson along with several other high profile Tories and Farage were keen to see a return of the Trump presidency. Trump's Putin adjacency was well documented from his first term so why would a "friend of Ukraine" even countenance Trump as President being anything but a negative for Ukraine?
And yet the people who emboldenen Putin were Merkel and Obama
Citations needed.
2014 She ran Europe, he ran USA, Crimea was invaded and they did next to nothing.
Why pick out Merkel as uniquely responsible for the inaction from Europe? If Starmer had been UK Prime Minister at the time he would have been equally remiss, particularly as we were still a key driver within the EU. So please add Starmer to your list of the guilty.
Surprising to me that there are still people who don’t realise that Putin will not walk down the escalatory ladder unless he has something he can claim as a win domestically.
The alternative course is to work to ensure the total surrender of the Russian army and collapse of his government. But whether any of us want that or not, it has been soundly rejected by successive US administrations, as well as by the Europeans.
So do we rather an everlasting war of attrition, which given the population disparities, is most likely slanted in Russia’s favour? Or trump’s approach of trying to negotiate a cessation of hostilities? Neither are attractive options for the Ukrainians. But here we are.
Trump hasn't negotiated anything.
He has literally adopted Putin's demands overnight, after coming out of the meeting saying there was no agreement.
Much is in flux. But I go on the reports that western aviation would be policing the skies within a week of a deal, and Merz’s comments. No doubt part of the optics will be Zelensky making way for Zaluzhny in fresh elections, which I imagine suits all parties too.
It’s a strange one this however. Assume no deal gets done. And a year or two from now the Russian army collapses and withdraws from the whole of Donbas. I would be elated to have been proven wrong. I get the sense that many here would not feel the same if a deal now leads to a lasting peace and robust state for what remains of Ukraine.
Western aviation would be policing what skies? Russian jets are firing missiles from inside Russian airspace. This is what nixed calls for a no-fly zone at the start of the SMO. It cannot be enforced without effectively invading Russia.
The reports are they would be policing Ukrainian skies. There is a difference between enforcing a NFZ in an already hot conflict. And policing one in a deterrent capacity. But you already knew this of course.
So Russia gets to waste a lot of Nato fuel by flying up to the border every hour. Russia's economy might be tanking but it has oil literally coming out of the ground. But you already knew this of course. And which Nato member will risk shooting at a Russian plane, other than America. None. But you already knew this of course.
Turkiye would and have. I highly doubt any other member has the fortitude for it though.
SKS would be fucking mad to commit the RAF to air policing over Ukraine although if Trump tells him to do it, he may feel he has no choice.
This pretty much describes nato though doesn’t it. Ukraines goal should be the same as any other country. To have such a prickly conventional deterrent that no one would even try to attack again.
They singularly failed after 2014 and there are serious questions how easily Russia managed to spring north of crimea in 2022 given the geographic advantage Ukraine had in that section of the battlefield.
I too am not mad keen on British aviation in Ukraine when we don’t seem to have enough to properly police our own air space.
Say what you like about Boris Johnson's many failings but he is still holding the line on supporting Ukraine.
Mind you he was rooting for a Trump win last November. That raises an inconsistency in his support for Ukraine.
I was not and I still remain no fan of Boris Johnson before or after he was elected as Conservative leader and PM, I voted for Jeremy Hunt in that leadership contest. But the idea that there was ever any inconsistency in his support for Ukraine is simple wrong, and for all his faults as a politician or PM, he saw and addressed the danger of an imminent Russian invasion of Ukriane along with the US when some of their European counterparts refused to listen because of their 'very poor' intelligence which left them not only totally wrong footed when Russian did invaded Ukraine, but also left them humiliated because they didn't listen to the US or the UK.
But if I had to concede the one Foreign policy he got right and backed up in spades with his actions as UK PM, it was his early proactive response to the threat of a Russian invasion and thanks to listening to UK intelligence and acting on upon it and then seeing this through afterwards with equally clear early and sustained UK support provided for Ukraine before and after the Russian invasion. For all his previous and subsequent faults as a politician and a party leader and PM here in the UK, there is no doubt that he was incredibe highly regarded in Ukraine for his early and sustained strong support when it really mattered when his was PM.
I don't dispute that Johnson flew the flag for Ukraine as indeed did his successor Sunak. Cynics amongst us might question whether his enthusiasm was a final throw of the dice for his mortally wounded premiership. Only Johnson knows the truth there, so we have to give him credit.
Nonetheless it still stands that Johnson along with several other high profile Tories and Farage were keen to see a return of the Trump presidency. Trump's Putin adjacency was well documented from his first term so why would a "friend of Ukraine" even countenance Trump as President being anything but a negative for Ukraine?
And yet the people who emboldenen Putin were Merkel and Obama
Citations needed.
2014 She ran Europe, he ran USA, Crimea was invaded and they did next to nothing.
Indeed, who can forget her thrilling victory in the Spanish election that year?
Ive been reading Wolfgang Munchau's Kaput. He makes some interesting points on how the German establishment got itself in to a Putin dependent mess.
Sean Bean will win an Oscar for One Battle After Another. Leo will be nominated but probably not win.
(Film is being released in September but the teaser is out and it looks awesome).
My source - who is close to Warner - says that they have a slate of really subversive films coming out this season and he’s looking forward to seeing the reaction.
Sean Penn surely?
Although I love the thought of Sean Bean’s Oscar acceptance speech “thanks ya bastads”.
Say what you like about Boris Johnson's many failings but he is still holding the line on supporting Ukraine.
Mind you he was rooting for a Trump win last November. That raises an inconsistency in his support for Ukraine.
I was not and I still remain no fan of Boris Johnson before or after he was elected as Conservative leader and PM, I voted for Jeremy Hunt in that leadership contest. But the idea that there was ever any inconsistency in his support for Ukraine is simple wrong, and for all his faults as a politician or PM, he saw and addressed the danger of an imminent Russian invasion of Ukriane along with the US when some of their European counterparts refused to listen because of their 'very poor' intelligence which left them not only totally wrong footed when Russian did invaded Ukraine, but also left them humiliated because they didn't listen to the US or the UK.
But if I had to concede the one Foreign policy he got right and backed up in spades with his actions as UK PM, it was his early proactive response to the threat of a Russian invasion and thanks to listening to UK intelligence and acting on upon it and then seeing this through afterwards with equally clear early and sustained UK support provided for Ukraine before and after the Russian invasion. For all his previous and subsequent faults as a politician and a party leader and PM here in the UK, there is no doubt that he was incredibe highly regarded in Ukraine for his early and sustained strong support when it really mattered when his was PM.
I don't dispute that Johnson flew the flag for Ukraine as indeed did his successor Sunak. Cynics amongst us might question whether his enthusiasm was a final throw of the dice for his mortally wounded premiership. Only Johnson knows the truth there, so we have to give him credit.
Nonetheless it still stands that Johnson along with several other high profile Tories and Farage were keen to see a return of the Trump presidency. Trump's Putin adjacency was well documented from his first term so why would a "friend of Ukraine" even countenance Trump as President being anything but a negative for Ukraine?
And yet the people who emboldenen Putin were Merkel and Obama
Citations needed.
2014 She ran Europe, he ran USA, Crimea was invaded and they did next to nothing.
Why pick out Merkel as uniquely responsible for the inaction from Europe? If Starmer had been UK Prime Minister at the time he would have been equally remiss, particularly as we were still a key driver within the EU. So please add Starmer to your list of the guilty.
I pick out Merkel becasuse at the time she was top dog in Europe and the person who should have led a response. She didnt.
Say what you like about Boris Johnson's many failings but he is still holding the line on supporting Ukraine.
Mind you he was rooting for a Trump win last November. That raises an inconsistency in his support for Ukraine.
I was not and I still remain no fan of Boris Johnson before or after he was elected as Conservative leader and PM, I voted for Jeremy Hunt in that leadership contest. But the idea that there was ever any inconsistency in his support for Ukraine is simple wrong, and for all his faults as a politician or PM, he saw and addressed the danger of an imminent Russian invasion of Ukriane along with the US when some of their European counterparts refused to listen because of their 'very poor' intelligence which left them not only totally wrong footed when Russian did invaded Ukraine, but also left them humiliated because they didn't listen to the US or the UK.
But if I had to concede the one Foreign policy he got right and backed up in spades with his actions as UK PM, it was his early proactive response to the threat of a Russian invasion and thanks to listening to UK intelligence and acting on upon it and then seeing this through afterwards with equally clear early and sustained UK support provided for Ukraine before and after the Russian invasion. For all his previous and subsequent faults as a politician and a party leader and PM here in the UK, there is no doubt that he was incredibe highly regarded in Ukraine for his early and sustained strong support when it really mattered when his was PM.
According to Dominic Cummings, Boris supported Ukraine in order to distract attention from the various -gates he was embroiled in. Of course, #ClassicDom might not be an unbiased observer and Boris could have had more than one reason to support Ukraine.
To be fair to Boris Johnson, Dominic Cummings is also a fluent liar and while observant has a tendency to fit facts to his own beliefs about what should have happened rather than to reality, as befits a man who believes he is the cream of his own 'intelligentsia.'
So I am willing to suggest we give Johnson the benefit of the doubt here.
We have to simply because we have no tangible evidence to the contrary. We cannot read Johnson's mind. On the other hand we do have an insight into why he reached any positive conclusion, namely it benefitted Johnson. So was this a unique example of altruism in a life of self gratification, or is Cummings telling the truth?
Surprising to me that there are still people who don’t realise that Putin will not walk down the escalatory ladder unless he has something he can claim as a win domestically.
The alternative course is to work to ensure the total surrender of the Russian army and collapse of his government. But whether any of us want that or not, it has been soundly rejected by successive US administrations, as well as by the Europeans.
So do we rather an everlasting war of attrition, which given the population disparities, is most likely slanted in Russia’s favour? Or trump’s approach of trying to negotiate a cessation of hostilities? Neither are attractive options for the Ukrainians. But here we are.
Trump hasn't negotiated anything.
He has literally adopted Putin's demands overnight, after coming out of the meeting saying there was no agreement.
Much is in flux. But I go on the reports that western aviation would be policing the skies within a week of a deal, and Merz’s comments. No doubt part of the optics will be Zelensky making way for Zaluzhny in fresh elections, which I imagine suits all parties too.
It’s a strange one this however. Assume no deal gets done. And a year or two from now the Russian army collapses and withdraws from the whole of Donbas. I would be elated to have been proven wrong. I get the sense that many here would not feel the same if a deal now leads to a lasting peace and robust state for what remains of Ukraine.
Western aviation would be policing what skies? Russian jets are firing missiles from inside Russian airspace. This is what nixed calls for a no-fly zone at the start of the SMO. It cannot be enforced without effectively invading Russia.
The reports are they would be policing Ukrainian skies. There is a difference between enforcing a NFZ in an already hot conflict. And policing one in a deterrent capacity. But you already knew this of course.
So Russia gets to waste a lot of Nato fuel by flying up to the border every hour. Russia's economy might be tanking but it has oil literally coming out of the ground. But you already knew this of course. And which Nato member will risk shooting at a Russian plane, other than America. None. But you already knew this of course.
Turkiye would and have. I highly doubt any other member has the fortitude for it though.
SKS would be fucking mad to commit the RAF to air policing over Ukraine although if Trump tells him to do it, he may feel he has no choice.
This pretty much describes nato though doesn’t it. Ukraines goal should be the same as any other country. To have such a prickly conventional deterrent that no one would even try to attack again.
They singularly failed after 2014 and there are serious questions how easily Russia managed to spring north of crimea in 2022 given the geographic advantage Ukraine had in that section of the battlefield.
I too am not mad keen on British aviation in Ukraine when we don’t seem to have enough to properly police our own air space.
AIR the Governor of Kherson was subsequently accused of treason, but I may not be remembering correctly, I was rather busy at the time.
A better question might be, why they didn't actually reinvade Crimea in 2014? Because that undoubtedly is what emboldened Twatface into his later ventures in the Donbas and then Crimea as a whole.
(And in the absence of a willingness to fight, there wasn't an awful lot more that the US and EU could do. The training of the Ukrainian army they put in place has born fruit, and the sanctions did quite a lot of damage to Putin's wealth and also to his standing in the major cities. But you can't invade a country to uphold its sovereignty without its permission.)
Say what you like about Boris Johnson's many failings but he is still holding the line on supporting Ukraine.
Mind you he was rooting for a Trump win last November. That raises an inconsistency in his support for Ukraine.
I was not and I still remain no fan of Boris Johnson before or after he was elected as Conservative leader and PM, I voted for Jeremy Hunt in that leadership contest. But the idea that there was ever any inconsistency in his support for Ukraine is simple wrong, and for all his faults as a politician or PM, he saw and addressed the danger of an imminent Russian invasion of Ukriane along with the US when some of their European counterparts refused to listen because of their 'very poor' intelligence which left them not only totally wrong footed when Russian did invaded Ukraine, but also left them humiliated because they didn't listen to the US or the UK.
But if I had to concede the one Foreign policy he got right and backed up in spades with his actions as UK PM, it was his early proactive response to the threat of a Russian invasion and thanks to listening to UK intelligence and acting on upon it and then seeing this through afterwards with equally clear early and sustained UK support provided for Ukraine before and after the Russian invasion. For all his previous and subsequent faults as a politician and a party leader and PM here in the UK, there is no doubt that he was incredibe highly regarded in Ukraine for his early and sustained strong support when it really mattered when his was PM.
According to Dominic Cummings, Boris supported Ukraine in order to distract attention from the various -gates he was embroiled in. Of course, #ClassicDom might not be an unbiased observer and Boris could have had more than one reason to support Ukraine.
To be fair to Boris Johnson, Dominic Cummings is also a fluent liar and while observant has a tendency to fit facts to his own beliefs about what should have happened rather than to reality, as befits a man who believes he is the cream of his own 'intelligentsia.'
So I am willing to suggest we give Johnson the benefit of the doubt here.
We have to simply because we have no tangible evidence to the contrary. We cannot read Johnson's mind. On the other hand we do have an insight into why he reached any positive conclusion, namely it benefitted Johnson. So was this a unique example of altruism in a life of self gratification, or is Cummings telling the truth?
The latter would be a unique example too...
As a general rule, assume Cummings is lying or mistaken unless you have hard evidence to the contrary.
I too am not mad keen on British aviation in Ukraine when we don’t seem to have enough to properly police our own air space.
There are 3x Typhoon FGR4 (front line) squadrons at Coningsby and 4x at Lossie. Easily enough to maintain QRA over the UK and trip over their own dicks starting WW3 in Eastern Europe.
OT. I'm just listening to Nicola Sturgeon's book read by herself and it's a very good listen. Politics is full of ugly racists at the moment so it's good to hear from one who isn't
I'm amazed she recalls enough to write an essay, let alone a book. A mendacious, devious liar who tried to frame Alec Salmond, played politics over COVID and is married to a man charged with embezzling money from the party she led. Someone who believes men in a dress ought to be in a woman's prison because of them saying they are a woman.
"I’ve said many times that a Golden Rule of politics is that the intelligentsia are the easiest to fool with simple moral propaganda tales, not the ‘low information voters’ as the intelligentsia refers to them. Those with more education and verbal skills use them to build elaborate ideas about what they want to be true — particularly about the ways people like them should have more power (‘more rational this way’), decentralised systems like markets should have less power (‘they’re irrational, more selfish, too much information asymmetry’), and why ‘low information voters’ don’t understand ‘the real issues’ so need to have their information curated by, you guessed it, the intelligentsia. Thanks to Twitter you can build a Twitter list and observe this phenomenon in real time."
He's correct. As I've noted here before, there is a profound lack of curiosity and actual research/evidence in the posts of very many of our shrewdies, because they are so convinced that they hold the superior view, and that therefore the facts must follow. Either that or there's a self-conscious suspicion that actually the facts aren't there, so they need to resort to "cutting ourselves off from our closest trading partner", "letting the world burn", "being on the wrong side of history", "refugees welcome" and other such highly-charged and ultimately inaccurate or unprovable sentiments.
Now, I'll freely admit that my arguments are on occasion poorly researched. But when someone schools me in the facts on something, I acknowledge it openly and withdraw. I think it makes for an interesting argument and draws good information out sometimes, though I don't do it deliberately.
But our 'intelligentsia' aren't making mistakes, their world view cannot be mistaken. They are precisely as Cummings describes them - self-regarding and self-deceiving.
Pseuds Corner would have it earmarked before you could say Barnard Castle. It's inverted sneering. It's what he does. It's what he's always done. Has he ever gripped you with an idea?
"I’ve said many times that a Golden Rule of politics is that the intelligentsia are the easiest to fool with simple moral propaganda tales, not the ‘low information voters’ as the intelligentsia refers to them. Those with more education and verbal skills use them to build elaborate ideas about what they want to be true — particularly about the ways people like them should have more power (‘more rational this way’), decentralised systems like markets should have less power (‘they’re irrational, more selfish, too much information asymmetry’), and why ‘low information voters’ don’t understand ‘the real issues’ so need to have their information curated by, you guessed it, the intelligentsia. Thanks to Twitter you can build a Twitter list and observe this phenomenon in real time."
He's correct. As I've noted here before, there is a profound lack of curiosity and actual research/evidence in the posts of very many of our shrewdies, because they are so convinced that they hold the superior view, and that therefore the facts must follow. Either that or there's a self-conscious suspicion that actually the facts aren't there, so they need to resort to "cutting ourselves off from our closest trading partner", "letting the world burn", "being on the wrong side of history", "refugees welcome" and other such highly-charged and ultimately inaccurate or unprovable sentiments.
Now, I'll freely admit that my arguments are on occasion poorly researched. But when someone schools me in the facts on something, I acknowledge it openly and withdraw. I think it makes for an interesting argument and draws good information out sometimes, though I don't do it deliberately.
But our 'intelligentsia' aren't making mistakes, their world view cannot be mistaken. They are precisely as Cummings describes them - self-regarding and self-deceiving.
Pseuds Corner would have it earmarked before you could say Barnard Castle. It's inverted sneering. It's what he does. It's what he's always done. Has he ever gripped you with an idea?
No, because for all Cummings vaunted intelligence, he has no scientific method in his thinking and lacks any social skills to explain it. His contrarian nature is rooted in a lack of social acceptance, and he simply lacks empathy to engage with differing points of view. He's not always wrong, but most often he projects onto his opponents in ways which defeat any argument he makes. His weak social skills reinforce the impression that he is arrogant and after that few choose to engage with any small flecks of gold there may be amidst the dross. John Redwood has a similar fault and his lack of empathy and understanding seriously weakened his political career. Confused thinking, badly presented may be the current norm in British politics but it reflects a mediocre mindset not supppsed genius.
Comments
The alternative course is to work to ensure the total surrender of the Russian army and collapse of his government. But whether any of us want that or not, it has been soundly rejected by successive US administrations, as well as by the Europeans.
So do we rather an everlasting war of attrition, which given the population disparities, is most likely slanted in Russia’s favour? Or trump’s approach of trying to negotiate a cessation of hostilities? Neither are attractive options for the Ukrainians. But here we are.
War is inhumane and comes with a requirement to do things we wouldn't normally want to do outside of war, such as kill the enemy until they surrender.
"I’ve said many times that a Golden Rule of politics is that the intelligentsia are the easiest to fool with simple moral propaganda tales, not the ‘low information voters’ as the intelligentsia refers to them. Those with more education and verbal skills use them to build elaborate ideas about what they want to be true — particularly about the ways people like them should have more power (‘more rational this way’), decentralised systems like markets should have less power (‘they’re irrational, more selfish, too much information asymmetry’), and why ‘low information voters’ don’t understand ‘the real issues’ so need to have their information curated by, you guessed it, the intelligentsia. Thanks to Twitter you can build a Twitter list and observe this phenomenon in real time."
https://dominiccummings.substack.com/p/snippets-14-us-polls-the-westminster?open=false#§delusions-of-npc-intelligentsia-immigration-false-consciousness
As I said, it is ordinary Russians carrying out the murder rape and torture.
Many of my parents' generation are racist towards Germans and Japanese. There is an obvious reason why. That is why Russophobia exists. I'm actually a bit of a Russophile, I have been to Russia, I speak some Russian. I still want more Russians to die. But if I meet some on holiday in a bar in Montenegro, I will address them in their own language and be civil.
I think the most suitable way towards peace is the defeat of Russia, if that is possible. I do believe that if Uncle Vova believes he has got away with it, one of the Baltics will be next.
Couldn't help but snigger at the item "P. Pool Spray at Top"
https://www.npr.org/2025/08/16/nx-s1-5504196/trump-putin-summit-documents-left-behind?s=09
I don't want to fire cheap shots at Melania Trump. At least she said something. Stealing children is not something you can pussyfoot around.
Whereas you are a hypocritical weakling and an apologist for Putin's willing minions.
Together with your pseudo-fascist yearnings, they're signifiers of your substandard IQ.
Tesla: $240 million of punitive damages on top of compensatory damages, wrt to Autopilot.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2znwoOp2rw4
GB News"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DZGIhJOciVw
Sean Bean will win an Oscar for One Battle After Another. Leo will be nominated but probably not win.
(Film is being released in September but the teaser is out and it looks awesome).
My source - who is close to Warner - says that they have a slate of really subversive films coming out this season and he’s looking forward to seeing the reaction.
Putin has no desire for any 'escalatory ladder' except for total victory. He is uninterested in peace except on his own terms.
It's certainly a route - we'll only know if it's the route after the event - and it has clearly propelled Newsom from one of the also rans to somewhere near the top of polling for the next nominee.
He's as much distrusted as admired in his own party - see for instance "he's Patrick Bateman, but at least he's our Patrick Bateman" - but that's never been, on its own, an insurmountable problem in politics.
Sustainable for another two or three years ?
I don't know about that.
Next nominee is a big and liquid market, tradeable on Betfair Exchange, with years to run, so it's worth the attention.
Giving in to Putin now is the best way of getting much more war later, for a variety of reasons.
I've never been a big Newsom fan, but definitely managed to grab the limelight, and get himself noticed as the de facto opposition to Trump.
Not in Ukraine; not in Chechnya; not in Syria.
Even as he is now talking about a deal, he absolutely rejects Ukraine's right to exist.
A deal is possible, but only if it is backed by real deterrence. It's been amply demonstrated that previous "security guarantees" were nothing if the sort.
Trump is now publicly backing Putin's land grab, which involves some of Ukraine's most heavily fortified territory, and hundreds of thousands of civilians, in exchange for which essentially nothing is offered, before he has even talked to Ukraine or European leaders, and while Russia continues its hostilities.
I am also strongly in favour of preventing more deaths.
Bucha and Mariupol suggest that unilateral concessions won't be enough to do that.
He has literally adopted Putin's demands overnight, after coming out of the meeting saying there was no agreement.
Making concessions to bullies only emboldens them.
"I'll stop punching you in the face if you give me your car. I am making the generous concession of not demanding your house. Why do you stand in the way of good neighbourly relations?"
I think that gives you a bit of a clue what this ex-policeman now businessman is doing. Quite why they're prepared to give him free advertising for something that is more than likely a spurious story I can't imagine. As I understand it pinching an I Phone is now a waste of time. Unless you have the phone ID you'll never get into it. You have to contact Apple with the receipt from where you bought it or otherwise you might as well throw the phone away.
He seems to like Putin, and seems to support the idea that bigger countries should be allowed to invade their smaller neighbours. We can't expect the US to put any meaningful pressure on Russia.
Are you kidding me. Putin told him that 2020 was rigged, and that Trump actually won.
What more do you think the US could possibly get out of any summit???
The great power has negotiated with the aggressor, in the absence of the victim, agreed to its demands, and is now trying to impose them on the victim.
The difference is that the UK and Europe still have a chance to refuse the terms of a bargain that threatens to severely weaken their security.
It’s a strange one this however. Assume no deal gets done. And a year or two from now the Russian army collapses and withdraws from the whole of Donbas. I would be elated to have been proven wrong. I get the sense that many here would not feel the same if a deal now leads to a lasting peace and robust state for what remains of Ukraine.
There are a couple of less reactionary ex - coppers like Dal Babu doing the rounds but their opinion seems to be confined to James O'Brien's show.
In his first term Trump ran a policy splitting migrant children from their families. Biden created an organisation which reunited thousands. Not perfect, but the correct thing to do.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/ng-interactive/2025/jan/17/trump-policy-family-separation-future
Trump closed the organisation via Executive Order, and has repeatedly stated publicly that the threat to remove their children was a good deterrent. It's just his view; like everything else, they are poker chips.
https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/01/protecting-the-american-people-against-invasion/
(From 2018) https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/first-read/trump-says-separation-isn-t-his-policy-here-are-all-n884616
He will pay attention to a photo of a starving child in front of him, for half a day, or indulge in meaningless rhetoric, but he does not give a damn what happens out of his sight.
That surely is also the message of Trump's close relationship with Epstein, including his public jokes about sex abuse. He does not care. And she says nothing.
Does pear go well with rhubarb in a crumble?
Didnt think nationalism was your thing.
Strawberries are better
Metropolitan Police: 33,293 coppers
Police Scotland: 16,500
Greater Manchester: 8,112
West Midlands: 7,991
West Yorkshire: 6,138
Thames Valley: 5,000
Kent: 4,168
Merseyside: 4,159
Northumbria: 3,829
Essex: 3,760
https://www.kentonline.co.uk/news/national/full-list-of-police-officer-numbers-in-england-and-wales-by-force-151429/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Police_Scotland
Zelenskyy needs to top that. Say 2020 was rigged, blame Biden for Russia's invasion, and say that Hunter Biden was running a paedophile ring in Ukraine. Throw in something about Obama being born in Kiev, should be enough.
But I've hardly been in the garden this year so no strawberries.
SKS would be fucking mad to commit the RAF to air policing over Ukraine although if Trump tells him to do it, he may feel he has no choice.
Anyway isn't that rather a harsh judgement from a (I'm guessing) bowler hatted emigre from Northern Ireland?
But if I had to concede the one Foreign policy he got right and backed up in spades with his actions as UK PM, it was his early proactive response to the threat of a Russian invasion and thanks to listening to UK intelligence and acting on upon it and then seeing this through afterwards with equally clear early and sustained UK support provided for Ukraine before and after the Russian invasion. For all his previous and subsequent faults as a politician and a party leader and PM here in the UK, there is no doubt that he was incredibe highly regarded in Ukraine for his early and sustained strong support when it really mattered when his was PM.
https://x.com/piyushmittal/status/1956891279352025371?s=61&t=LYVEHh2mqFy1oUJAdCfe-Q
https://x.com/acnewsitics/status/1956711307153223862?s=61&t=LYVEHh2mqFy1oUJAdCfe-Q
Which is why it is in the top 10 interesting questions in the universe.
Antway I didnt think Thatcher had that big an influence in Cannes.
Trivia from the wikipedia page:
"Unauthorized copies of Raid on Moscow circulated widely in East Germany during the 1980s, despite the Stasi describing it as among those games having "a particularly militaristic and inhumane nature". The West German Federal Department for Media Harmful to Young Persons added the game to its index in 1985, stating that "In older adolescents, playing ... can lead to physical tension, anger, aggressiveness, agitated thinking, difficulty concentrating, headaches, etc." The ban automatically ended in 2010."
The goal of the game is to stop unprovoked Russian aggression against a complacent and helpless West. For decades it seemed out of date, but since 2022 for some reason it's felt much more topical ...
Blackberries go very well.
Now, I'll freely admit that my arguments are on occasion poorly researched. But when someone schools me in the facts on something, I acknowledge it openly and withdraw. I think it makes for an interesting argument and draws good information out sometimes, though I don't do it deliberately.
But our 'intelligentsia' aren't making mistakes, their world view cannot be mistaken. They are precisely as Cummings describes them - self-regarding and self-deceiving.
I mean, it *might* be true. But then again, it might not be.
It also assumes that the intelligentsia is a single bloc, when I'm fairly sure they're not. I'd struggle to find any definition of intelligentsia that didn't include Dominic Cummings, for example.
Nonetheless it still stands that Johnson along with several other high profile Tories and Farage were keen to see a return of the Trump presidency. Trump's Putin adjacency was well documented from his first term so why would a "friend of Ukraine" even countenance Trump as President being anything but a negative for Ukraine?
But I also have 2kg of frozen rhubarb chunks !
If you are alluding to the response to the 2014 invasion of Crimea you have a point. Nonetheless sitting on their hands isn't quite the same as blowing smoke up Putin's ass.
So I am willing to suggest we give Johnson the benefit of the doubt here.
It is more likely that the obvious case is true: USA is in the process of changing sides. If they were not in that process it would be obvious that they were being 'nicer' (a Trump word!) to Ukraine than to Russia. From the current facts the most likely explanation is that USA wants Russia to have a sphere of influence in eastern Europe larger than it did, but the boundaries are not yet decided. This coheres with the view that Trumpism believes in the 'big global blocs', mutually respecting and mutually suspicious of each other.
They singularly failed after 2014 and there are serious questions how easily Russia managed to spring north of crimea in 2022 given the geographic advantage Ukraine had in that section of the battlefield.
I too am not mad keen on British aviation in Ukraine when we don’t seem to have enough to properly police our own air space.
NEW THREAD
Although I love the thought of Sean Bean’s Oscar acceptance speech “thanks ya bastads”.
She didnt.
A better question might be, why they didn't actually reinvade Crimea in 2014? Because that undoubtedly is what emboldened Twatface into his later ventures in the Donbas and then Crimea as a whole.
(And in the absence of a willingness to fight, there wasn't an awful lot more that the US and EU could do. The training of the Ukrainian army they put in place has born fruit, and the sanctions did quite a lot of damage to Putin's wealth and also to his standing in the major cities. But you can't invade a country to uphold its sovereignty without its permission.)
As a general rule, assume Cummings is lying or mistaken unless you have hard evidence to the contrary.
Enjoy being lied too