'Mandelson stayed in Epstein's New York home when Epstein was in prison'
I think you have got this BigG. Mandy is toast. Curries all 'round.
The interesting question is why people thought Mandelson's ambassadorship would end any other way.
He has shown staggeringly poor judgement on so many previous occasions and is probably the most scandal-prone British politician of the last generation, most traceable in some way to a love of sucking up to the rich and famous. His wikipedia page is a long list of such incidents, unrelieved by any achievements of note. Yet somehow, despite all the disasters and corruption, and never having done much, he keeps getting appointed to important and prestigious jobs.
As such he is perhaps the perfect embodiment of our incestuous and failing political class. So perhaps I've just answered my own question.
That's correct on his personal failings (and he should resign for this) but it's churlish to deny his talents as a fixer, organiser and administrator. He's not your standard establishment mediocrity by any means.
So Putin has concluded (correctly) that he's faced with the weakest most naive and clueless American president in history and is acting accordingly. Dangerous times.
It's not just about Trump. It's also that European leaders are scared to act without American support.
We can't afford to let this be about Trump. Europe has to determine its own fate.
The way to deal with a bully is to smack him in the face. We learn that at primary school.
No, the way to deal with a bully is to smear their pants with deep heat whilst they are playing games and then when they are getting dressed to go back to lessons they are left with a burning arsehole and ballsack and start crying whilst rubbing their crotch and arse furiously in front of everyone.
That sounds more like the actions *of* a bully.
It’s something someone can do without the bully noticing and issuing a beating which results in the bully being humiliated and in pain.
So someone else probably gets the punishment beating?
So Putin has concluded (correctly) that he's faced with the weakest most naive and clueless American president in history and is acting accordingly. Dangerous times.
It's not just about Trump. It's also that European leaders are scared to act without American support.
We can't afford to let this be about Trump. Europe has to determine its own fate.
The way to deal with a bully is to smack him in the face. We learn that at primary school.
No, the way to deal with a bully is to smear their pants with deep heat whilst they are playing games and then when they are getting dressed to go back to lessons they are left with a burning arsehole and ballsack and start crying whilst rubbing their crotch and arse furiously in front of everyone.
That sounds more like the actions *of* a bully.
It’s something someone can do without the bully noticing and issuing a beating which results in the bully being humiliated and in pain.
So someone else probably gets the punishment beating?
I think sending cruise missiles into Russian drone factories would be a proportionate response to their drone attack on Poland last night, and would make it unlikely Russia would attack NATO with drones again.
If we brush it off at no big deal they will attack again and escalate further.
I think a direct missile attack on Russia would be a massive escalation.
Something like a massive cyberattack perhaps more likely, and perhaps some mysterious explosions.
How? They've just attacked NATO territory.
The problem is that your respone is always going to the sensible and rational one in the short term, but it just induces Russia to keep pushing a little further. At what point will we actually sting back? The murder of a UK citizen on UK soil? The bombing of the British Council? Attack on NATO? An invasion of Estonia? An invasion of northern Norway?
For me, the correct response would be a comprehensive but time-limited assault on Russian assets inside 2014 border Ukraine.
That has the advantage of limiting the response to Ukrainian territory, and not hitting targets inside Russia, but there's a risk that Russia decides NATO is now a full participant in the war.
In any case, the important thing is that there are real consequences for Russia so that they don't repeat it.
The logical response is not to escalate, but instead to give Ukraine the weaponry it needs to defeat the invasion. That is not impossible; its rather a matter of the will to do it, and the willingness to spend what it will cost.
I think that would only invite Russia to attempt to hit the logistics supporting Ukraine in Poland directly.
If NATO isn't fighting Russia directly because Ukraine isn't a member, then it has to show Russia that attacking a NATO member is different and has consequences.
I think sending cruise missiles into Russian drone factories would be a proportionate response to their drone attack on Poland last night, and would make it unlikely Russia would attack NATO with drones again.
If we brush it off at no big deal they will attack again and escalate further.
If the Poles want to send six drones into Russian airspace in response that would be up to them, anything else would be a disproportionate escalation
I think that's wrong. Why would supplying Ukraine with sufficient weapons to defeat the invasion be a "disproportionate escalation" ?
We keep ignoring stuff like this, too. I spent the entire day trying to make someone care about Russia’s murder of 24 people, most of them elderly, who were simply standing in line to collect their pensions.
I think sending cruise missiles into Russian drone factories would be a proportionate response to their drone attack on Poland last night, and would make it unlikely Russia would attack NATO with drones again.
If we brush it off at no big deal they will attack again and escalate further.
I think a direct missile attack on Russia would be a massive escalation.
Something like a massive cyberattack perhaps more likely, and perhaps some mysterious explosions.
A direct attack would be an escalation (attack rather than flying some drones past). But if our Ukrainian friends were to somehow gain the kit and intel to take out facilities supporting the nightly Russian attacks on their country, that would seem proportionate. They would, afterall, only be acting in response to direct attacks.
Sky have a big programme on Immigration tonight hosted by Trevor Phillips and Sam Coates has a yougov poll showing 70% think immigration is too high
I'm surprised it's only 70% - I'd expect it to be higher. There's a pretty broad consensus, including among most parts of the left, that immigration has been too high over the last few years, so it's hardly a revelation. Legal immigration is falling pretty rapidly now, although that will take time to enter the public consciousness. Of course many people see small boat crossings, a small percentage of the total, as a proxy for immigration - so the challenge for the government is both to counter that perception and to reduce such crossings as far as possible.
I think sending cruise missiles into Russian drone factories would be a proportionate response to their drone attack on Poland last night, and would make it unlikely Russia would attack NATO with drones again.
If we brush it off at no big deal they will attack again and escalate further.
If the Poles want to send six drones into Russian airspace in response that would be up to them, anything else would be a disproportionate escalation
Poland are in NATO and have come under attack from Russia and in these circumstances it is de facto a NATO issue
If you want to be seen as a Putin appeaser so be it
Sky have a big programme on Immigration tonight hosted by Trevor Phillips and Sam Coates has a yougov poll showing 70% think immigration is too high
I'm surprised it's only 70% - I'd expect it to be higher. There's a pretty broad consensus, including among most parts of the left, that immigration has been too high over the last few years, so it's hardly a revelation. Legal immigration is falling pretty rapidly now, although that will take time to enter the public consciousness. Of course many people see small boat crossings, a small percentage of the total, as a proxy for immigration - so the challenge for the government is both to counter that perception and to reduce such crossings as far as possible.
Tonight's Sky immigration programme hosted by Sir Trevor Philips should be a very interesting take on the issue
Sky have a big programme on Immigration tonight hosted by Trevor Phillips and Sam Coates has a yougov poll showing 70% think immigration is too high
I'm surprised it's only 70% - I'd expect it to be higher. There's a pretty broad consensus, including among most parts of the left, that immigration has been too high over the last few years, so it's hardly a revelation. Legal immigration is falling pretty rapidly now, although that will take time to enter the public consciousness. Of course many people see small boat crossings, a small percentage of the total, as a proxy for immigration - so the challenge for the government is both to counter that perception and to reduce such crossings as far as possible.
Dare I suggest that what the public want to see isn’t a reduction in the rate of increase in the population, it’s actually a decrease in the population such that the pressure on housing is eased.
The boat-crossers are a different problem, they’re mostly young men who are in many instances causing serious social problems where they are living, and there’s a good case that they shouldn’t be housed alongside the public.
'Mandelson stayed in Epstein's New York home when Epstein was in prison'
I think you have got this BigG. Mandy is toast. Curries all 'round.
The interesting question is why people thought Mandelson's ambassadorship would end any other way.
He has shown staggeringly poor judgement on so many previous occasions and is probably the most scandal-prone British politician of the last generation, most traceable in some way to a love of sucking up to the rich and famous. His wikipedia page is a long list of such incidents, unrelieved by any achievements of note. Yet somehow, despite all the disasters and corruption, and never having done much, he keeps getting appointed to important and prestigious jobs.
As such he is perhaps the perfect embodiment of our incestuous and failing political class. So perhaps I've just answered my own question.
That's correct on his personal failings (and he should resign for this) but it's churlish to deny his talents as a fixer, organiser and administrator. He's not your standard establishment mediocrity by any means.
Yeah, he gets away with it because he's such a talented operator. You may have noticed that amid the general clusterfuck of Trump's approach to international relations the UK has tended to come out relatively unscathed. I would be surprised if Mandelson were not responsible for much of that. Equally, I struggle to see him surviving the Epstein scandal - although as it won't bring down Trump it would arguably be unfair for Mandy to have to fall on his sword. AIUI Trump's relationship with Epstein was a far closer one.
Headline: UK's first 'super-university' to be created as two merge from 2026
"The UK's first "super-university", stretching across an entire region, is to be created through the merger of the universities of Kent and Greenwich, the BBC has learned.
Under the proposed name of London and South East University Group, the single institution will have one vice-chancellor from the academic year starting in autumn 2026."
Edit: the 'super' seems to refer to the structure rather than area (done long ago by UHI in Scotland) or size etc.
I think sending cruise missiles into Russian drone factories would be a proportionate response to their drone attack on Poland last night, and would make it unlikely Russia would attack NATO with drones again.
If we brush it off at no big deal they will attack again and escalate further.
I think a direct missile attack on Russia would be a massive escalation.
Something like a massive cyberattack perhaps more likely, and perhaps some mysterious explosions.
A direct attack would be an escalation (attack rather than flying some drones past). But if our Ukrainian friends were to somehow gain the kit and intel to take out facilities supporting the nightly Russian attacks on their country, that would seem proportionate. They would, afterall, only be acting in response to direct attacks.
One of the Russian drones was nearly 300km into Poland. This is a change in behaviour by Russia. It's not the previous thing where drones would dip into NATO airspace to bypass Ukrainian air defences.
Russia are testing NATO's response. If NATO does not push back firmly enough then Russia will take further steps, with the aim of destroying weapon supplies in Poland bound for Ukraine and creating fear in European civilians to erode support for Ukraine.
If this isn't a "Fuck Around and Find Out" moment for Russia then it will only get worse.
Headline: UK's first 'super-university' to be created as two merge from 2026
"The UK's first "super-university", stretching across an entire region, is to be created through the merger of the universities of Kent and Greenwich, the BBC has learned.
Under the proposed name of London and South East University Group, the single institution will have one vice-chancellor from the academic year starting in autumn 2026."
Savings: one VC salary. Costs: redundancy payments for one VC.
I think sending cruise missiles into Russian drone factories would be a proportionate response to their drone attack on Poland last night, and would make it unlikely Russia would attack NATO with drones again.
If we brush it off at no big deal they will attack again and escalate further.
I think a direct missile attack on Russia would be a massive escalation.
Something like a massive cyberattack perhaps more likely, and perhaps some mysterious explosions.
A direct attack would be an escalation (attack rather than flying some drones past). But if our Ukrainian friends were to somehow gain the kit and intel to take out facilities supporting the nightly Russian attacks on their country, that would seem proportionate. They would, afterall, only be acting in response to direct attacks.
One of the Russian drones was nearly 300km into Poland. This is a change in behaviour by Russia. It's not the previous thing where drones would dip into NATO airspace to bypass Ukrainian air defences.
Russia are testing NATO's response. If NATO does not push back firmly enough then Russia will take further steps, with the aim of destroying weapon supplies in Poland bound for Ukraine and creating fear in European civilians to erode support for Ukraine.
If this isn't a "Fuck Around and Find Out" moment for Russia then it will only get worse.
The response is late though. It should have already happened.
Christ alive, Tony Robinson/Baldrick pimping his new book on Today about Alfred the Great says that people think there is a pure line of Englishness but that Alfred made up this idea of Englishness Alfred and “his mates” were all German and then they go on to discuss the importance of accuracy.
Only a minority of idiots think that the English have some purebred status and Alfred and his mates weren’t German.
GermanIC thiough is entirely correct, intermarriage aside. Presumably the -ic was lost somewhere along the line.
The Angles and Saxons had been in England since the 5th century. By Alfred's time that's 300 years given or take some decades. Many, many generations. They would have felt that this country was there's as much as any true born Englishman today. I guess he's making a classic luvvy point and falling rather wide of the mark.
'Mandelson stayed in Epstein's New York home when Epstein was in prison'
I think you have got this BigG. Mandy is toast. Curries all 'round.
The interesting question is why people thought Mandelson's ambassadorship would end any other way.
He has shown staggeringly poor judgement on so many previous occasions and is probably the most scandal-prone British politician of the last generation, most traceable in some way to a love of sucking up to the rich and famous. His wikipedia page is a long list of such incidents, unrelieved by any achievements of note. Yet somehow, despite all the disasters and corruption, and never having done much, he keeps getting appointed to important and prestigious jobs.
As such he is perhaps the perfect embodiment of our incestuous and failing political class. So perhaps I've just answered my own question.
That's correct on his personal failings (and he should resign for this) but it's churlish to deny his talents as a fixer, organiser and administrator. He's not your standard establishment mediocrity by any means.
Yeah, he gets away with it because he's such a talented operator. You may have noticed that amid the general clusterfuck of Trump's approach to international relations the UK has tended to come out relatively unscathed. I would be surprised if Mandelson were not responsible for much of that. Equally, I struggle to see him surviving the Epstein scandal - although as it won't bring down Trump it would arguably be unfair for Mandy to have to fall on his sword. AIUI Trump's relationship with Epstein was a far closer one.
Mandelson, Lammy or both? This is why I suspect, without any inside information, that Mandelson might have influenced Lammy's ousting from the Foreign Office.
Headline: UK's first 'super-university' to be created as two merge from 2026
"The UK's first "super-university", stretching across an entire region, is to be created through the merger of the universities of Kent and Greenwich, the BBC has learned.
Under the proposed name of London and South East University Group, the single institution will have one vice-chancellor from the academic year starting in autumn 2026."
Savings: one VC salary. Costs: redundancy payments for one VC.
Don’t forget the “brand realignment strategy”, and all of the signage, stationery, website etc that also needs to be updated.
Headline: UK's first 'super-university' to be created as two merge from 2026
"The UK's first "super-university", stretching across an entire region, is to be created through the merger of the universities of Kent and Greenwich, the BBC has learned.
Under the proposed name of London and South East University Group, the single institution will have one vice-chancellor from the academic year starting in autumn 2026."
Savings: one VC salary. Costs: redundancy payments for one VC.
No mention of student numbers. And many universities have remote campuses, including overseas. I don't think the title really works.
I think sending cruise missiles into Russian drone factories would be a proportionate response to their drone attack on Poland last night, and would make it unlikely Russia would attack NATO with drones again.
If we brush it off at no big deal they will attack again and escalate further.
I think a direct missile attack on Russia would be a massive escalation.
Something like a massive cyberattack perhaps more likely, and perhaps some mysterious explosions.
A direct attack would be an escalation (attack rather than flying some drones past). But if our Ukrainian friends were to somehow gain the kit and intel to take out facilities supporting the nightly Russian attacks on their country, that would seem proportionate. They would, afterall, only be acting in response to direct attacks.
One of the Russian drones was nearly 300km into Poland. This is a change in behaviour by Russia. It's not the previous thing where drones would dip into NATO airspace to bypass Ukrainian air defences.
Russia are testing NATO's response. If NATO does not push back firmly enough then Russia will take further steps, with the aim of destroying weapon supplies in Poland bound for Ukraine and creating fear in European civilians to erode support for Ukraine.
If this isn't a "Fuck Around and Find Out" moment for Russia then it will only get worse.
The response is late though. It should have already happened.
I think when you have an alliance of more than two dozen democracies it is reasonable to expect it will take some time to respond. I would allow them one week.
Headline: UK's first 'super-university' to be created as two merge from 2026
"The UK's first "super-university", stretching across an entire region, is to be created through the merger of the universities of Kent and Greenwich, the BBC has learned.
Under the proposed name of London and South East University Group, the single institution will have one vice-chancellor from the academic year starting in autumn 2026."
Savings: one VC salary. Costs: redundancy payments for one VC.
Don’t forget the “brand realignment strategy”, and all of the signage, stationery, website etc that also needs to be updated.
I think sending cruise missiles into Russian drone factories would be a proportionate response to their drone attack on Poland last night, and would make it unlikely Russia would attack NATO with drones again.
If we brush it off at no big deal they will attack again and escalate further.
I think a direct missile attack on Russia would be a massive escalation.
(Snip)
You are falling into the trap of calling our potential response a 'massive escalation', whilst seeming to ignore what the Russians did last night was itself a 'massive escalation'.
And we see this time and time again: in the minds of some, the Russians are allowed to escalate, and we are not.
I think sending cruise missiles into Russian drone factories would be a proportionate response to their drone attack on Poland last night, and would make it unlikely Russia would attack NATO with drones again.
If we brush it off at no big deal they will attack again and escalate further.
I think a direct missile attack on Russia would be a massive escalation.
Something like a massive cyberattack perhaps more likely, and perhaps some mysterious explosions.
How? They've just attacked NATO territory.
The problem is that your respone is always going to the sensible and rational one in the short term, but it just induces Russia to keep pushing a little further. At what point will we actually sting back? The murder of a UK citizen on UK soil? The bombing of the British Council? Attack on NATO? An invasion of Estonia? An invasion of northern Norway?
For me, the correct response would be a comprehensive but time-limited assault on Russian assets inside 2014 border Ukraine.
That has the advantage of limiting the response to Ukrainian territory, and not hitting targets inside Russia, but there's a risk that Russia decides NATO is now a full participant in the war.
In any case, the important thing is that there are real consequences for Russia so that they don't repeat it.
The logical response is not to escalate, but instead to give Ukraine the weaponry it needs to defeat the invasion. That is not impossible; its rather a matter of the will to do it, and the willingness to spend what it will cost.
I think that would only invite Russia to attempt to hit the logistics supporting Ukraine in Poland directly.
If NATO isn't fighting Russia directly because Ukraine isn't a member, then it has to show Russia that attacking a NATO member is different and has consequences.
I think that's what they tried to do last night. It was targeted at Rzeszow which is the main logistics base for support to Ukraine.
I think sending cruise missiles into Russian drone factories would be a proportionate response to their drone attack on Poland last night, and would make it unlikely Russia would attack NATO with drones again.
If we brush it off at no big deal they will attack again and escalate further.
If the Poles want to send six drones into Russian airspace in response that would be up to them, anything else would be a disproportionate escalation
That's not what proportionate means in this context.
If your enemy attacks you with drones, it is proportionate to destroy his ability to attack you with drones.
Headline: UK's first 'super-university' to be created as two merge from 2026
"The UK's first "super-university", stretching across an entire region, is to be created through the merger of the universities of Kent and Greenwich, the BBC has learned.
Under the proposed name of London and South East University Group, the single institution will have one vice-chancellor from the academic year starting in autumn 2026."
Savings: one VC salary. Costs: redundancy payments for one VC.
Don’t forget the “brand realignment strategy”, and all of the signage, stationery, website etc that also needs to be updated.
Not really, Greenwich and Kent Uni are remaining as they were and there is a holding “company” above
I think sending cruise missiles into Russian drone factories would be a proportionate response to their drone attack on Poland last night, and would make it unlikely Russia would attack NATO with drones again.
If we brush it off at no big deal they will attack again and escalate further.
I think a direct missile attack on Russia would be a massive escalation.
Something like a massive cyberattack perhaps more likely, and perhaps some mysterious explosions.
A direct attack would be an escalation (attack rather than flying some drones past). But if our Ukrainian friends were to somehow gain the kit and intel to take out facilities supporting the nightly Russian attacks on their country, that would seem proportionate. They would, afterall, only be acting in response to direct attacks.
One of the Russian drones was nearly 300km into Poland. This is a change in behaviour by Russia. It's not the previous thing where drones would dip into NATO airspace to bypass Ukrainian air defences.
Russia are testing NATO's response. If NATO does not push back firmly enough then Russia will take further steps, with the aim of destroying weapon supplies in Poland bound for Ukraine and creating fear in European civilians to erode support for Ukraine.
If this isn't a "Fuck Around and Find Out" moment for Russia then it will only get worse.
The response is late though. It should have already happened.
I think when you have an alliance of more than two dozen democracies it is reasonable to expect it will take some time to respond. I would allow them one week.
This is a known unknown. A variety of Russian attacks should have been wargamed and the response already known. A drone attack on Poland is obviously one, indeed it has already happened with the odd one and I believe people killed
So Putin has concluded (correctly) that he's faced with the weakest most naive and clueless American president in history and is acting accordingly. Dangerous times.
It's not just about Trump. It's also that European leaders are scared to act without American support.
We can't afford to let this be about Trump. Europe has to determine its own fate.
A bit of bellicose ranting on here and nobody wants to go where that might end up.
I'm happy to concede Russia might not have the control over its drones we imagine and while Belarus might have no objections, Poland has quite rightly chosen to defend its airspace.
I doubt it's any kind of serious "test", more logistical bumbling and technological over-reach in Moscow. Had Polish planes shot down drones over Ukraine, that would be different - Ukrainian anti-drone technology is doing no more than the Poles have done.
This conflict has seen the unprecdented use of drones in warfare and as with all new battlefield technologies, they don't always work.
Once again, we can rely on the media (both old school and social) to create a mountain out of a molehill and a crisis out of a small drama.
Headline: UK's first 'super-university' to be created as two merge from 2026
"The UK's first "super-university", stretching across an entire region, is to be created through the merger of the universities of Kent and Greenwich, the BBC has learned.
Under the proposed name of London and South East University Group, the single institution will have one vice-chancellor from the academic year starting in autumn 2026."
Savings: one VC salary. Costs: redundancy payments for one VC.
Don’t forget the “brand realignment strategy”, and all of the signage, stationery, website etc that also needs to be updated.
Not really, Greenwich and Kent Uni are remaining as they were and there is a holding “company” above
Ah, so a whole new office full of six-figure salaries, passing instructions down to the existing of six-figure salaries that remain at each university?
Christ alive, Tony Robinson/Baldrick pimping his new book on Today about Alfred the Great says that people think there is a pure line of Englishness but that Alfred made up this idea of Englishness Alfred and “his mates” were all German and then they go on to discuss the importance of accuracy.
Only a minority of idiots think that the English have some purebred status and Alfred and his mates weren’t German.
GermanIC thiough is entirely correct, intermarriage aside. Presumably the -ic was lost somewhere along the line.
The Angles and Saxons had been in England since the 5th century. By Alfred's time that's 300 years given or take some decades. Many, many generations. They would have felt that this country was there's as much as any true born Englishman today. I guess he's making a classic luvvy point and falling rather wide of the mark.
Agreed: I'd also add: 1) Some studies have suggested that the east of Great Britain has been Germanic in language and genetics for rather longer than that even. 2) While pre-Viking Anglo-Saxons wouldn't have considered themselves as one nation - because the concept of a nation then was quite different, and depended much more on loyalty to a given lord rather than shared culture - they would certainly have recognised cultural (and, importantly, religious) affiliations with other Anglo-Saxons (which were not necessarily shared with the British - i.e. those who spoke Welsh and followed the Celtic church, nor with the Vikings, who spoke Scandinavian languages and were pagan). 3) The process of gradually removing the viking rulers from the east and north of modern-day England was a nation-building event: Englishness came to be defined by it. This is not unique to England: there are countless examples of nation-building in opposition to what a nation is not.
Essentially: Tony Robinson's point is trite - a barb in disguise as a serious point.
Headline: UK's first 'super-university' to be created as two merge from 2026
"The UK's first "super-university", stretching across an entire region, is to be created through the merger of the universities of Kent and Greenwich, the BBC has learned.
Under the proposed name of London and South East University Group, the single institution will have one vice-chancellor from the academic year starting in autumn 2026."
Savings: one VC salary. Costs: redundancy payments for one VC.
No mention of student numbers. And many universities have remote campuses, including overseas. I don't think the title really works.
The title includes the magic word London for overseas students and might be misleadingly abbreviated to LSE.
'Mandelson stayed in Epstein's New York home when Epstein was in prison'
I think you have got this BigG. Mandy is toast. Curries all 'round.
The interesting question is why people thought Mandelson's ambassadorship would end any other way.
He has shown staggeringly poor judgement on so many previous occasions and is probably the most scandal-prone British politician of the last generation, most traceable in some way to a love of sucking up to the rich and famous. His wikipedia page is a long list of such incidents, unrelieved by any achievements of note. Yet somehow, despite all the disasters and corruption, and never having done much, he keeps getting appointed to important and prestigious jobs.
As such he is perhaps the perfect embodiment of our incestuous and failing political class. So perhaps I've just answered my own question.
That's correct on his personal failings (and he should resign for this) but it's churlish to deny his talents as a fixer, organiser and administrator. He's not your standard establishment mediocrity by any means.
Yeah, he gets away with it because he's such a talented operator. You may have noticed that amid the general clusterfuck of Trump's approach to international relations the UK has tended to come out relatively unscathed. I would be surprised if Mandelson were not responsible for much of that. Equally, I struggle to see him surviving the Epstein scandal - although as it won't bring down Trump it would arguably be unfair for Mandy to have to fall on his sword. AIUI Trump's relationship with Epstein was a far closer one.
Yes, the 'drawing' and accompanying words are damningly informative about Trump/Epstein. In my dreams (but sadly only there) it ruins him.
So Putin has concluded (correctly) that he's faced with the weakest most naive and clueless American president in history and is acting accordingly. Dangerous times.
It's not just about Trump. It's also that European leaders are scared to act without American support.
We can't afford to let this be about Trump. Europe has to determine its own fate.
A bit of bellicose ranting on here and nobody wants to go where that might end up.
I'm happy to concede Russia might not have the control over its drones we imagine and while Belarus might have no objections, Poland has quite rightly chosen to defend its airspace.
I doubt it's any kind of serious "test", more logistical bumbling and technological over-reach in Moscow. Had Polish planes shot down drones over Ukraine, that would be different - Ukrainian anti-drone technology is doing no more than the Poles have done.
This conflict has seen the unprecdented use of drones in warfare and as with all new battlefield technologies, they don't always work.
Once again, we can rely on the media (both old school and social) to create a mountain out of a molehill and a crisis out of a small drama.
I fear you are being naive in the extreme.
Putin is cranking up because he needs to broaden the war beyond Ukraine where - at best - he is trapped in a stalled grinding offensive over a country aided by but not explicitly supported by NATO. To change things up (including manufacturing a neck-saving off-ramp) he needs to say "We are now fighting NATO, not Ukraine."
So Putin has concluded (correctly) that he's faced with the weakest most naive and clueless American president in history and is acting accordingly. Dangerous times.
It's not just about Trump. It's also that European leaders are scared to act without American support.
We can't afford to let this be about Trump. Europe has to determine its own fate.
A bit of bellicose ranting on here and nobody wants to go where that might end up.
I'm happy to concede Russia might not have the control over its drones we imagine and while Belarus might have no objections, Poland has quite rightly chosen to defend its airspace.
I doubt it's any kind of serious "test", more logistical bumbling and technological over-reach in Moscow. Had Polish planes shot down drones over Ukraine, that would be different - Ukrainian anti-drone technology is doing no more than the Poles have done.
This conflict has seen the unprecdented use of drones in warfare and as with all new battlefield technologies, they don't always work.
Once again, we can rely on the media (both old school and social) to create a mountain out of a molehill and a crisis out of a small drama.
Frankly that's spin attempting to minimise what was very likely intentional. Russia has been sending its drones over NATO airspace in a regular basis, though up until now, not deep into it. This time, is was several hundred kilometres. The likelihood of its being accidental on so many occasions is pretty small.
We've been turning a blind eye to this stuff, and if we continue to do so, it's likely to get worse.
I agree that direct attack on Russia in response would be risky, and unnecessary. Supplying Ukraine with greater capabilities to defeat the unprovoked Russian invasion would not be either of those things.
A man convicted of the attempted murder of a 14-year-old child is part of a far-right vigilante ‘save our children’ group patrolling Belfast’s streets.
Mark Payne was convicted along with two other men of stabbing the schoolboy, who almost died from his injuries.
He was further convicted of threatening two teenage girls with a knife after they witnessed the unprovoked attack.
Payne is now part of a group of vigilantes, calling themselves East Belfast First Division, who have been ‘patrolling’ the streets. They claim to be protecting women and children from migrants.
In recent days the group has been holding protests outside a fast food outlet in east Belfast, questioning delivery drivers.
I think sending cruise missiles into Russian drone factories would be a proportionate response to their drone attack on Poland last night, and would make it unlikely Russia would attack NATO with drones again.
If we brush it off at no big deal they will attack again and escalate further.
I think a direct missile attack on Russia would be a massive escalation.
Something like a massive cyberattack perhaps more likely, and perhaps some mysterious explosions.
How? They've just attacked NATO territory.
The problem is that your respone is always going to the sensible and rational one in the short term, but it just induces Russia to keep pushing a little further. At what point will we actually sting back? The murder of a UK citizen on UK soil? The bombing of the British Council? Attack on NATO? An invasion of Estonia? An invasion of northern Norway?
For me, the correct response would be a comprehensive but time-limited assault on Russian assets inside 2014 border Ukraine.
That has the advantage of limiting the response to Ukrainian territory, and not hitting targets inside Russia, but there's a risk that Russia decides NATO is now a full participant in the war.
In any case, the important thing is that there are real consequences for Russia so that they don't repeat it.
The logical response is not to escalate, but instead to give Ukraine the weaponry it needs to defeat the invasion. That is not impossible; its rather a matter of the will to do it, and the willingness to spend what it will cost.
I think that would only invite Russia to attempt to hit the logistics supporting Ukraine in Poland directly.
If NATO isn't fighting Russia directly because Ukraine isn't a member, then it has to show Russia that attacking a NATO member is different and has consequences.
I think that's what they tried to do last night. It was targeted at Rzeszow which is the main logistics base for support to Ukraine.
Phillips P. O'Brien has just published a substack calling it a "training wheel attack". This is a test of NATO's military preparedness (reportedly most of the drones weren't shot down) and its political preparedness (there isn't much clarity on calling it an attack).
I think they'd likely use a larger number of drones for an attack where they hoped to do some damage.
I think sending cruise missiles into Russian drone factories would be a proportionate response to their drone attack on Poland last night, and would make it unlikely Russia would attack NATO with drones again.
If we brush it off at no big deal they will attack again and escalate further.
Pathetic. Surely we should just save time and go for a full out nuclear attack? Once Russia is a radioactive wasteland there will be no more drones.
So Putin has concluded (correctly) that he's faced with the weakest most naive and clueless American president in history and is acting accordingly. Dangerous times.
It's not just about Trump. It's also that European leaders are scared to act without American support.
We can't afford to let this be about Trump. Europe has to determine its own fate.
The way to deal with a bully is to smack him in the face. We learn that at primary school.
No, the way to deal with a bully is to smear their pants with deep heat whilst they are playing games and then when they are getting dressed to go back to lessons they are left with a burning arsehole and ballsack and start crying whilst rubbing their crotch and arse furiously in front of everyone.
That sounds more like the actions *of* a bully.
It’s something someone can do without the bully noticing and issuing a beating which results in the bully being humiliated and in pain.
I'm unclear what the metaphorical equivalent of smear their pants with Deep Heat is when it comes to international relations with Russia...?
Sounds like a flagrant breach of the Online Safety Act for a British teenager to see the early stages of a school attack. He must be suitably punished. The case calls for an exemplary sentence, albeit with six months off for averting a massacre.
The best part of the story is the Met taking all the credit – "The swift actions by our officers alerting Ukrainian counterparts have helped to avert what could have been a potentially devastating attack at a school in Ukraine," he said. – when all they did was pass on a tip-off (and even that only to Europol).
ETA actually the report does not specify the age of the original informant.
I think sending cruise missiles into Russian drone factories would be a proportionate response to their drone attack on Poland last night, and would make it unlikely Russia would attack NATO with drones again.
If we brush it off at no big deal they will attack again and escalate further.
I think a direct missile attack on Russia would be a massive escalation.
Something like a massive cyberattack perhaps more likely, and perhaps some mysterious explosions.
A direct attack would be an escalation (attack rather than flying some drones past). But if our Ukrainian friends were to somehow gain the kit and intel to take out facilities supporting the nightly Russian attacks on their country, that would seem proportionate. They would, afterall, only be acting in response to direct attacks.
One of the Russian drones was nearly 300km into Poland. This is a change in behaviour by Russia. It's not the previous thing where drones would dip into NATO airspace to bypass Ukrainian air defences.
Russia are testing NATO's response. If NATO does not push back firmly enough then Russia will take further steps, with the aim of destroying weapon supplies in Poland bound for Ukraine and creating fear in European civilians to erode support for Ukraine.
If this isn't a "Fuck Around and Find Out" moment for Russia then it will only get worse.
The response is late though. It should have already happened.
I think when you have an alliance of more than two dozen democracies it is reasonable to expect it will take some time to respond. I would allow them one week.
This is a known unknown. A variety of Russian attacks should have been wargamed and the response already known. A drone attack on Poland is obviously one, indeed it has already happened with the odd one and I believe people killed
Yes, that is fair. Unfortunately our political leaders are in denial and have not prepared.
I think sending cruise missiles into Russian drone factories would be a proportionate response to their drone attack on Poland last night, and would make it unlikely Russia would attack NATO with drones again.
If we brush it off at no big deal they will attack again and escalate further.
Pathetic. Surely we should just save time and go for a full out nuclear attack? Once Russia is a radioactive wasteland there will be no more drones.
LostPassword I find generally to be a pretty rational poster, but on Russia he loses his password.
So Putin has concluded (correctly) that he's faced with the weakest most naive and clueless American president in history and is acting accordingly. Dangerous times.
It's not just about Trump. It's also that European leaders are scared to act without American support.
We can't afford to let this be about Trump. Europe has to determine its own fate.
A bit of bellicose ranting on here and nobody wants to go where that might end up.
I'm happy to concede Russia might not have the control over its drones we imagine and while Belarus might have no objections, Poland has quite rightly chosen to defend its airspace.
I doubt it's any kind of serious "test", more logistical bumbling and technological over-reach in Moscow. Had Polish planes shot down drones over Ukraine, that would be different - Ukrainian anti-drone technology is doing no more than the Poles have done.
This conflict has seen the unprecdented use of drones in warfare and as with all new battlefield technologies, they don't always work.
Once again, we can rely on the media (both old school and social) to create a mountain out of a molehill and a crisis out of a small drama.
It's because I'm scared of where this might end up that I want a firm response now to nip this in the bud. You are being dangerously naive and complacent.
It's no coincidence that these drones went into Poland, rather than Hungary or Slovakia, for example.
Sky have a big programme on Immigration tonight hosted by Trevor Phillips and Sam Coates has a yougov poll showing 70% think immigration is too high
I'm surprised it's only 70% - I'd expect it to be higher. There's a pretty broad consensus, including among most parts of the left, that immigration has been too high over the last few years, so it's hardly a revelation. Legal immigration is falling pretty rapidly now, although that will take time to enter the public consciousness. Of course many people see small boat crossings, a small percentage of the total, as a proxy for immigration - so the challenge for the government is both to counter that perception and to reduce such crossings as far as possible.
I think the key question is how quickly the current large fall in immigration does enter the public consciousness. Should Labour be doing more to get that message out? The 2024 figure is less than half the 2022 figure, but people might think the 2024 figure is still relatively high. I presume the 2025 figure will be lower than the 2024 figure.
'Mandelson stayed in Epstein's New York home when Epstein was in prison'
I think you have got this BigG. Mandy is toast. Curries all 'round.
The interesting question is why people thought Mandelson's ambassadorship would end any other way.
He has shown staggeringly poor judgement on so many previous occasions and is probably the most scandal-prone British politician of the last generation, most traceable in some way to a love of sucking up to the rich and famous. His wikipedia page is a long list of such incidents, unrelieved by any achievements of note. Yet somehow, despite all the disasters and corruption, and never having done much, he keeps getting appointed to important and prestigious jobs.
As such he is perhaps the perfect embodiment of our incestuous and failing political class. So perhaps I've just answered my own question.
That's correct on his personal failings (and he should resign for this) but it's churlish to deny his talents as a fixer, organiser and administrator. He's not your standard establishment mediocrity by any means.
Yeah, he gets away with it because he's such a talented operator. You may have noticed that amid the general clusterfuck of Trump's approach to international relations the UK has tended to come out relatively unscathed. I would be surprised if Mandelson were not responsible for much of that. Equally, I struggle to see him surviving the Epstein scandal - although as it won't bring down Trump it would arguably be unfair for Mandy to have to fall on his sword. AIUI Trump's relationship with Epstein was a far closer one.
Yes, the 'drawing' and accompanying words are damningly informative about Trump/Epstein. In my dreams (but sadly only there) it ruins him.
Maybe Mandy was picked because of his and Trump’s closeness to Epstein
I see the PB gung-ho faction is in full cry. A missile strike into Russia would indeed be a huge, material escalation.
Not if the Ukrainians do it. Maybe we slip them enough kit to destroy the Yelabuga drone plant
I any case, what is wrong with escalation exactly? "Escalation" s a Russian propaganda point. NATO's response to Russia has been pretty supine to this point and maybe we doo need to escalate our response
So Putin has concluded (correctly) that he's faced with the weakest most naive and clueless American president in history and is acting accordingly. Dangerous times.
It's not just about Trump. It's also that European leaders are scared to act without American support.
We can't afford to let this be about Trump. Europe has to determine its own fate.
A bit of bellicose ranting on here and nobody wants to go where that might end up.
I'm happy to concede Russia might not have the control over its drones we imagine and while Belarus might have no objections, Poland has quite rightly chosen to defend its airspace.
I doubt it's any kind of serious "test", more logistical bumbling and technological over-reach in Moscow. Had Polish planes shot down drones over Ukraine, that would be different - Ukrainian anti-drone technology is doing no more than the Poles have done.
This conflict has seen the unprecdented use of drones in warfare and as with all new battlefield technologies, they don't always work.
Once again, we can rely on the media (both old school and social) to create a mountain out of a molehill and a crisis out of a small drama.
What an utter fool you are.
Russia does everything it does - not just last night, but all of the political interference in western democracies, the attacks on Ukraine, Georgia etc - and you accuse *us* of being bellicose.
I sometimes wonder what Russia would have to do before some idiots say: "Okay, Putin's gone a little too far..."
Christ alive, Tony Robinson/Baldrick pimping his new book on Today about Alfred the Great says that people think there is a pure line of Englishness but that Alfred made up this idea of Englishness Alfred and “his mates” were all German and then they go on to discuss the importance of accuracy.
Only a minority of idiots think that the English have some purebred status and Alfred and his mates weren’t German.
GermanIC thiough is entirely correct, intermarriage aside. Presumably the -ic was lost somewhere along the line.
The Angles and Saxons had been in England since the 5th century. By Alfred's time that's 300 years given or take some decades. Many, many generations. They would have felt that this country was there's as much as any true born Englishman today. I guess he's making a classic luvvy point and falling rather wide of the mark.
Agreed: I'd also add: 1) Some studies have suggested that the east of Great Britain has been Germanic in language and genetics for rather longer than that even. 2) While pre-Viking Anglo-Saxons wouldn't have considered themselves as one nation - because the concept of a nation then was quite different, and depended much more on loyalty to a given lord rather than shared culture - they would certainly have recognised cultural (and, importantly, religious) affiliations with other Anglo-Saxons (which were not necessarily shared with the British - i.e. those who spoke Welsh and followed the Celtic church, nor with the Vikings, who spoke Scandinavian languages and were pagan). 3) The process of gradually removing the viking rulers from the east and north of modern-day England was a nation-building event: Englishness came to be defined by it. This is not unique to England: there are countless examples of nation-building in opposition to what a nation is not.
Essentially: Tony Robinson's point is trite - a barb in disguise as a serious point.
I would struggle to think of a nation that does not have this as a major component of its identity.
It's one of the things that makes the EU so fractious of course. All those nations whose identity is bound up in opposition to their neighbours. Although I suppose you also have it on terms of local and regional identities: Tyne/Wear, Yorks/Lancs, North and South of the river.
It's why the Russian war on Ukraine is a nation-building opportunity for the EU. One that has largely been missed so far. A sense of European national identity could be created on the bedrock of fighting Russian imperialism to defend European democracy.
I think sending cruise missiles into Russian drone factories would be a proportionate response to their drone attack on Poland last night, and would make it unlikely Russia would attack NATO with drones again.
If we brush it off at no big deal they will attack again and escalate further.
I think a direct missile attack on Russia would be a massive escalation.
Something like a massive cyberattack perhaps more likely, and perhaps some mysterious explosions.
A direct attack would be an escalation (attack rather than flying some drones past). But if our Ukrainian friends were to somehow gain the kit and intel to take out facilities supporting the nightly Russian attacks on their country, that would seem proportionate. They would, afterall, only be acting in response to direct attacks.
One of the Russian drones was nearly 300km into Poland. This is a change in behaviour by Russia. It's not the previous thing where drones would dip into NATO airspace to bypass Ukrainian air defences.
Russia are testing NATO's response. If NATO does not push back firmly enough then Russia will take further steps, with the aim of destroying weapon supplies in Poland bound for Ukraine and creating fear in European civilians to erode support for Ukraine.
If this isn't a "Fuck Around and Find Out" moment for Russia then it will only get worse.
I think a significant degradation of Russian ability to mount drone attacks would be a fuck around and find out moment. But a direct NATO attack is an escalation on playing silly buggers with some drones (which, as most Russian probes, has some implausible deniability. Play the same game. Give the Ukranians, who have been attacked and are therefore not escalating, just responding in kind, everything that NATO would use in such a response.
Or, do some NATO silly buggers work with drones 'accidentally' buzzing some sites in Russia, but that's just performative. Taking out Russian drone capability would have real impact.
ETA: Or, basically, what NigelB said. Stop fucking around and give Ukraine whatever they need with no use restrictions. Every test of NATO to result in a significantly stronger Ukraine.
So Putin has concluded (correctly) that he's faced with the weakest most naive and clueless American president in history and is acting accordingly. Dangerous times.
It's not just about Trump. It's also that European leaders are scared to act without American support.
We can't afford to let this be about Trump. Europe has to determine its own fate.
A bit of bellicose ranting on here and nobody wants to go where that might end up.
I'm happy to concede Russia might not have the control over its drones we imagine and while Belarus might have no objections, Poland has quite rightly chosen to defend its airspace.
I doubt it's any kind of serious "test", more logistical bumbling and technological over-reach in Moscow. Had Polish planes shot down drones over Ukraine, that would be different - Ukrainian anti-drone technology is doing no more than the Poles have done.
This conflict has seen the unprecdented use of drones in warfare and as with all new battlefield technologies, they don't always work.
Once again, we can rely on the media (both old school and social) to create a mountain out of a molehill and a crisis out of a small drama.
It's because I'm scared of where this might end up that I want a firm response now to nip this in the bud. You are being dangerously naive and complacent.
It's no coincidence that these drones went into Poland, rather than Hungary or Slovakia, for example.
I don't agree at all. I'm all for a "firm" response and Poland has done that by defending its own airspace but I see absolutely no reason to go all "gung ho" with some form of retaliatory response.
We all know where extending this conflict beyond its current parameters could take us - at the moment, it is contained. It may be Putin is seeking to widen the conflict - I'm much less convinced he's the Machiavellian genius some on here seem to think. However, we don't have to play his game. Defending our airspace and our borders is all we need to do until and unless Putin launches a direct assault on a NATO country - he hasn't done so yet, I don't believe that's his intention.
This is part of the old shadow boxing, dancing game which we've had for the last 80 years - no reason to think it's anything more.
So Putin has concluded (correctly) that he's faced with the weakest most naive and clueless American president in history and is acting accordingly. Dangerous times.
It's not just about Trump. It's also that European leaders are scared to act without American support.
We can't afford to let this be about Trump. Europe has to determine its own fate.
A bit of bellicose ranting on here and nobody wants to go where that might end up.
I'm happy to concede Russia might not have the control over its drones we imagine and while Belarus might have no objections, Poland has quite rightly chosen to defend its airspace.
I doubt it's any kind of serious "test", more logistical bumbling and technological over-reach in Moscow. Had Polish planes shot down drones over Ukraine, that would be different - Ukrainian anti-drone technology is doing no more than the Poles have done.
This conflict has seen the unprecdented use of drones in warfare and as with all new battlefield technologies, they don't always work.
Once again, we can rely on the media (both old school and social) to create a mountain out of a molehill and a crisis out of a small drama.
Frankly that's spin attempting to minimise what was very likely intentional. Russia has been sending its drones over NATO airspace in a regular basis, though up until now, not deep into it. This time, is was several hundred kilometres. The likelihood of its being accidental on so many occasions is pretty small.
We've been turning a blind eye to this stuff, and if we continue to do so, it's likely to get worse.
I agree that direct attack on Russia in response would be risky, and unnecessary. Supplying Ukraine with greater capabilities to defeat the unprovoked Russian invasion would not be either of those things.
Several hundred kilometres ?? 300km, say, would be more than halfway to the German border...
So Putin has concluded (correctly) that he's faced with the weakest most naive and clueless American president in history and is acting accordingly. Dangerous times.
It's not just about Trump. It's also that European leaders are scared to act without American support.
We can't afford to let this be about Trump. Europe has to determine its own fate.
Is it true that Israel's also selling drones to Putin?
Another worrying thing about the drone incident is that we were using F35s to shoot down cheap drones. And we didn't even manage to shoot them all down.
If another European country were facing the kind of mass attacks that Ukraine faces, that simply isn't sustainable for much more than a couple of weeks.
In a world without the US element of the NATO guarantee, what, in our current capacity, is to prevent Russia threatening or blackmailing some of the smaller European states ? It's not as though international norms will do that.
I think sending cruise missiles into Russian drone factories would be a proportionate response to their drone attack on Poland last night, and would make it unlikely Russia would attack NATO with drones again.
If we brush it off at no big deal they will attack again and escalate further.
Pathetic. Surely we should just save time and go for a full out nuclear attack? Once Russia is a radioactive wasteland there will be no more drones.
That is not the reductio ad absurdam you think. It's just absurd.
Headline: UK's first 'super-university' to be created as two merge from 2026
"The UK's first "super-university", stretching across an entire region, is to be created through the merger of the universities of Kent and Greenwich, the BBC has learned.
Under the proposed name of London and South East University Group, the single institution will have one vice-chancellor from the academic year starting in autumn 2026."
Savings: one VC salary. Costs: redundancy payments for one VC.
They're doing this to save money. The sector is broke. They will be looking to cut costs across back office activities: HR, marketing, legal, etc. There will probably be academic savings: why have two departments teaching the same thing? Rationalise them on to one campus and increase the student:lecturer ratio.
I think sending cruise missiles into Russian drone factories would be a proportionate response to their drone attack on Poland last night, and would make it unlikely Russia would attack NATO with drones again.
If we brush it off at no big deal they will attack again and escalate further.
Pathetic. Surely we should just save time and go for a full out nuclear attack? Once Russia is a radioactive wasteland there will be no more drones.
That is not the reductio ad absurdam you think. It's just absurd.
So is a missile attack on Russian soil. We are not at war with Russia. Yet. Personally, I would prefer to keep it that way.
To be honest, these are the same woes which have afflicted Spelthorne since a previous administration believed there was a pot of gold at the end of the investment property rainbow and borrowed accordingly from the Public Works Loan Board.
Presumably, this debt, and Woking's, for which neither a single councillor nor officer has to my knowledge been held to judicial account (electoral account has already been paid), will have to be written off when the new Surrey Unitaries come into being in 2027.
I think sending cruise missiles into Russian drone factories would be a proportionate response to their drone attack on Poland last night, and would make it unlikely Russia would attack NATO with drones again.
If we brush it off at no big deal they will attack again and escalate further.
I think a direct missile attack on Russia would be a massive escalation.
Something like a massive cyberattack perhaps more likely, and perhaps some mysterious explosions.
A direct attack would be an escalation (attack rather than flying some drones past). But if our Ukrainian friends were to somehow gain the kit and intel to take out facilities supporting the nightly Russian attacks on their country, that would seem proportionate. They would, afterall, only be acting in response to direct attacks.
One of the Russian drones was nearly 300km into Poland. This is a change in behaviour by Russia. It's not the previous thing where drones would dip into NATO airspace to bypass Ukrainian air defences.
Russia are testing NATO's response. If NATO does not push back firmly enough then Russia will take further steps, with the aim of destroying weapon supplies in Poland bound for Ukraine and creating fear in European civilians to erode support for Ukraine.
If this isn't a "Fuck Around and Find Out" moment for Russia then it will only get worse.
I think a significant degradation of Russian ability to mount drone attacks would be a fuck around and find out moment. But a direct NATO attack is an escalation on playing silly buggers with some drones (which, as most Russian probes, has some implausible deniability. Play the same game. Give the Ukranians, who have been attacked and are therefore not escalating, just responding in kind, everything that NATO would use in such a response.
Or, do some NATO silly buggers work with drones 'accidentally' buzzing some sites in Russia, but that's just performative. Taking out Russian drone capability would have real impact.
ETA: Or, basically, what NigelB said. Stop fucking around and give Ukraine whatever they need with no use restrictions. Every test of NATO to result in a significantly stronger Ukraine.
I think there's an obvious reason that Russia did this. At the moment NATO are somewhat depleting our air defence capability, with many systems being sent to Ukraine. If Poland, Romania and the other states neighbouring Russia and Belarus face this sort of attack regularly, then NATO will be forced to withhold AD systems from Ukraine for their own use.
Another worrying thing about the drone incident is that we were using F35s to shoot down cheap drones. And we didn't even manage to shoot them all down.
If another European country were facing the kind of mass attacks that Ukraine faces, that simply isn't sustainable for much more than a couple of weeks.
In a world without the US element of the NATO guarantee, what, in our current capacity, is to prevent Russia threatening or blackmailing some of the smaller European states ? It's not as though international norms will do that.
This is another reason to take out Russian drone manufacturing capacity, because we aren't capable of sitting back and shooting them down indefinitely.
I think sending cruise missiles into Russian drone factories would be a proportionate response to their drone attack on Poland last night, and would make it unlikely Russia would attack NATO with drones again.
If we brush it off at no big deal they will attack again and escalate further.
I think a direct missile attack on Russia would be a massive escalation.
Something like a massive cyberattack perhaps more likely, and perhaps some mysterious explosions.
How? They've just attacked NATO territory.
The problem is that your respone is always going to the sensible and rational one in the short term, but it just induces Russia to keep pushing a little further. At what point will we actually sting back? The murder of a UK citizen on UK soil? The bombing of the British Council? Attack on NATO? An invasion of Estonia? An invasion of northern Norway?
For me, the correct response would be a comprehensive but time-limited assault on Russian assets inside 2014 border Ukraine.
That has the advantage of limiting the response to Ukrainian territory, and not hitting targets inside Russia, but there's a risk that Russia decides NATO is now a full participant in the war.
In any case, the important thing is that there are real consequences for Russia so that they don't repeat it.
The logical response is not to escalate, but instead to give Ukraine the weaponry it needs to defeat the invasion. That is not impossible; its rather a matter of the will to do it, and the willingness to spend what it will cost.
I think that would only invite Russia to attempt to hit the logistics supporting Ukraine in Poland directly.
If NATO isn't fighting Russia directly because Ukraine isn't a member, then it has to show Russia that attacking a NATO member is different and has consequences.
I think that's what they tried to do last night. It was targeted at Rzeszow which is the main logistics base for support to Ukraine.
Phillips P. O'Brien has just published a substack calling it a "training wheel attack". This is a test of NATO's military preparedness (reportedly most of the drones weren't shot down) and its political preparedness (there isn't much clarity on calling it an attack).
I think they'd likely use a larger number of drones for an attack where they hoped to do some damage.
Is NATO without the US capable of containing Russia, do we think?
So Putin has concluded (correctly) that he's faced with the weakest most naive and clueless American president in history and is acting accordingly. Dangerous times.
It's not just about Trump. It's also that European leaders are scared to act without American support.
We can't afford to let this be about Trump. Europe has to determine its own fate.
A bit of bellicose ranting on here and nobody wants to go where that might end up.
I'm happy to concede Russia might not have the control over its drones we imagine and while Belarus might have no objections, Poland has quite rightly chosen to defend its airspace.
I doubt it's any kind of serious "test", more logistical bumbling and technological over-reach in Moscow. Had Polish planes shot down drones over Ukraine, that would be different - Ukrainian anti-drone technology is doing no more than the Poles have done.
This conflict has seen the unprecdented use of drones in warfare and as with all new battlefield technologies, they don't always work.
Once again, we can rely on the media (both old school and social) to create a mountain out of a molehill and a crisis out of a small drama.
What an utter fool you are.
Russia does everything it does - not just last night, but all of the political interference in western democracies, the attacks on Ukraine, Georgia etc - and you accuse *us* of being bellicose.
I sometimes wonder what Russia would have to do before some idiots say: "Okay, Putin's gone a little too far..."
A hell of a lot more than flying a few drones over Poland. A 100 division armoured invasion towards Warsaw would do it but are we seeing that? No.
Yet there are people on here openly advocating some sort of retaliatory strike into Russia - seriously?
And you accuse ME of ridiculing the term "beliicose".
So Putin has concluded (correctly) that he's faced with the weakest most naive and clueless American president in history and is acting accordingly. Dangerous times.
It's not just about Trump. It's also that European leaders are scared to act without American support.
We can't afford to let this be about Trump. Europe has to determine its own fate.
Is it true that Israel's also selling drones to Putin?
There are stories from 10-15 years ago about Israel selling drones to Russia, but I'm not seeing anything more recent. Do you have a link?
The Ukrainians haven't been shy about identifying which countries have supplied components used in drones and missiles against Ukraine, including many from the US and Europe, but I don't recall them identifying Israeli drones or components.
I think sending cruise missiles into Russian drone factories would be a proportionate response to their drone attack on Poland last night, and would make it unlikely Russia would attack NATO with drones again.
If we brush it off at no big deal they will attack again and escalate further.
Pathetic. Surely we should just save time and go for a full out nuclear attack? Once Russia is a radioactive wasteland there will be no more drones.
That is not the reductio ad absurdam you think. It's just absurd.
So is a missile attack on Russian soil. We are not at war with Russia. Yet. Personally, I would prefer to keep it that way.
I haven't, and wouldn't suggest one, though it would not be entirely absurd. Note that the BBC is reporting that both Poland and EU officials are saying that the drone incursion was deliberate.
Frank Gardner adds that "every conversation I have had recently with Nato military officials or academic experts on what Russia’s next moves are likely to be all conclude that Moscow will want to test Nato’s resolve in some way".
This was the Russian response from their chargé d'affaires in Poland, which is transparently dishonest. "There has been no evidence that these drones are of Russian provenance.."
I think sending cruise missiles into Russian drone factories would be a proportionate response to their drone attack on Poland last night, and would make it unlikely Russia would attack NATO with drones again.
If we brush it off at no big deal they will attack again and escalate further.
Pathetic. Surely we should just save time and go for a full out nuclear attack? Once Russia is a radioactive wasteland there will be no more drones.
That is not the reductio ad absurdam you think. It's just absurd.
So is a missile attack on Russian soil. We are not at war with Russia. Yet. Personally, I would prefer to keep it that way.
We are absolutely at war with Russia, and have been for well over a decade. It's a coldish war, but you'd have to try very hard to spin something like the Salisbury attack as a friendly act. They are interfering with our elections, attacking neighbouring states, and sowing discord.
So Putin has concluded (correctly) that he's faced with the weakest most naive and clueless American president in history and is acting accordingly. Dangerous times.
It's not just about Trump. It's also that European leaders are scared to act without American support.
We can't afford to let this be about Trump. Europe has to determine its own fate.
A bit of bellicose ranting on here and nobody wants to go where that might end up.
I'm happy to concede Russia might not have the control over its drones we imagine and while Belarus might have no objections, Poland has quite rightly chosen to defend its airspace.
I doubt it's any kind of serious "test", more logistical bumbling and technological over-reach in Moscow. Had Polish planes shot down drones over Ukraine, that would be different - Ukrainian anti-drone technology is doing no more than the Poles have done.
This conflict has seen the unprecdented use of drones in warfare and as with all new battlefield technologies, they don't always work.
Once again, we can rely on the media (both old school and social) to create a mountain out of a molehill and a crisis out of a small drama.
What an utter fool you are.
Russia does everything it does - not just last night, but all of the political interference in western democracies, the attacks on Ukraine, Georgia etc - and you accuse *us* of being bellicose.
I sometimes wonder what Russia would have to do before some idiots say: "Okay, Putin's gone a little too far..."
Well, he could steal 100k children and have them brought up as Russians. Nope, tried that one. He could use deadly poisons in public places in the UK at great risk to our public. Nope, done that too. He could murder many people who have displeased him in some way by chucking them out of windows. Nope, already done that. he could launch by far the largest war in Europe since WW2 resulting in over 1m deaths. No, apparently that is not enough either. He could fire drones at a NATO country. Decision on that is pending.
As I have said otherwise we do not want to go to war and should not be looking to escalate matters with missile attacks. But neither can we fail to respond firmly.
So Putin has concluded (correctly) that he's faced with the weakest most naive and clueless American president in history and is acting accordingly. Dangerous times.
It's not just about Trump. It's also that European leaders are scared to act without American support.
We can't afford to let this be about Trump. Europe has to determine its own fate.
A bit of bellicose ranting on here and nobody wants to go where that might end up.
I'm happy to concede Russia might not have the control over its drones we imagine and while Belarus might have no objections, Poland has quite rightly chosen to defend its airspace.
I doubt it's any kind of serious "test", more logistical bumbling and technological over-reach in Moscow. Had Polish planes shot down drones over Ukraine, that would be different - Ukrainian anti-drone technology is doing no more than the Poles have done.
This conflict has seen the unprecdented use of drones in warfare and as with all new battlefield technologies, they don't always work.
Once again, we can rely on the media (both old school and social) to create a mountain out of a molehill and a crisis out of a small drama.
What an utter fool you are.
Russia does everything it does - not just last night, but all of the political interference in western democracies, the attacks on Ukraine, Georgia etc - and you accuse *us* of being bellicose.
I sometimes wonder what Russia would have to do before some idiots say: "Okay, Putin's gone a little too far..."
A hell of a lot more than flying a few drones over Poland. A 100 division armoured invasion towards Warsaw would do it but are we seeing that? No.
Yet there are people on here openly advocating some sort of retaliatory strike into Russia - seriously?
And you accuse ME of ridiculing the term "beliicose".
What do you suggest as an appropriate response?
I don’t think “do nothing” is an option. History shows that if Russia/Putin sees no response, they will go further next time
Another worrying thing about the drone incident is that we were using F35s to shoot down cheap drones. And we didn't even manage to shoot them all down.
If another European country were facing the kind of mass attacks that Ukraine faces, that simply isn't sustainable for much more than a couple of weeks.
In a world without the US element of the NATO guarantee, what, in our current capacity, is to prevent Russia threatening or blackmailing some of the smaller European states ? It's not as though international norms will do that.
This is what I keep thinking - what is the point of NATO article 5 if America are no longer underwriting it?
I think sending cruise missiles into Russian drone factories would be a proportionate response to their drone attack on Poland last night, and would make it unlikely Russia would attack NATO with drones again.
If we brush it off at no big deal they will attack again and escalate further.
Pathetic. Surely we should just save time and go for a full out nuclear attack? Once Russia is a radioactive wasteland there will be no more drones.
That is not the reductio ad absurdam you think. It's just absurd.
So is a missile attack on Russian soil. We are not at war with Russia. Yet. Personally, I would prefer to keep it that way.
We are at war with Russia already. We are just standing the right side of deniability according to the letter of international law
I think sending cruise missiles into Russian drone factories would be a proportionate response to their drone attack on Poland last night, and would make it unlikely Russia would attack NATO with drones again.
If we brush it off at no big deal they will attack again and escalate further.
I think a direct missile attack on Russia would be a massive escalation.
Something like a massive cyberattack perhaps more likely, and perhaps some mysterious explosions.
How? They've just attacked NATO territory.
The problem is that your respone is always going to the sensible and rational one in the short term, but it just induces Russia to keep pushing a little further. At what point will we actually sting back? The murder of a UK citizen on UK soil? The bombing of the British Council? Attack on NATO? An invasion of Estonia? An invasion of northern Norway?
For me, the correct response would be a comprehensive but time-limited assault on Russian assets inside 2014 border Ukraine.
That has the advantage of limiting the response to Ukrainian territory, and not hitting targets inside Russia, but there's a risk that Russia decides NATO is now a full participant in the war.
In any case, the important thing is that there are real consequences for Russia so that they don't repeat it.
The logical response is not to escalate, but instead to give Ukraine the weaponry it needs to defeat the invasion. That is not impossible; its rather a matter of the will to do it, and the willingness to spend what it will cost.
I think that would only invite Russia to attempt to hit the logistics supporting Ukraine in Poland directly.
If NATO isn't fighting Russia directly because Ukraine isn't a member, then it has to show Russia that attacking a NATO member is different and has consequences.
I think that's what they tried to do last night. It was targeted at Rzeszow which is the main logistics base for support to Ukraine.
Phillips P. O'Brien has just published a substack calling it a "training wheel attack". This is a test of NATO's military preparedness (reportedly most of the drones weren't shot down) and its political preparedness (there isn't much clarity on calling it an attack).
I think they'd likely use a larger number of drones for an attack where they hoped to do some damage.
Is NATO without the US capable of containing Russia, do we think?
I think Ukraine is now more important for Europe's defence than the US, and that Europe better work out how to defend itself without the US.
Essentially the US has chosen to make itself irrelevant in this conflict. Diplomatically Europe has to do all it can to keep the US as close as possible, but we're on our own now.
So Putin has concluded (correctly) that he's faced with the weakest most naive and clueless American president in history and is acting accordingly. Dangerous times.
It's not just about Trump. It's also that European leaders are scared to act without American support.
We can't afford to let this be about Trump. Europe has to determine its own fate.
A bit of bellicose ranting on here and nobody wants to go where that might end up.
I'm happy to concede Russia might not have the control over its drones we imagine and while Belarus might have no objections, Poland has quite rightly chosen to defend its airspace.
I doubt it's any kind of serious "test", more logistical bumbling and technological over-reach in Moscow. Had Polish planes shot down drones over Ukraine, that would be different - Ukrainian anti-drone technology is doing no more than the Poles have done.
This conflict has seen the unprecdented use of drones in warfare and as with all new battlefield technologies, they don't always work.
Once again, we can rely on the media (both old school and social) to create a mountain out of a molehill and a crisis out of a small drama.
What an utter fool you are.
Russia does everything it does - not just last night, but all of the political interference in western democracies, the attacks on Ukraine, Georgia etc - and you accuse *us* of being bellicose.
I sometimes wonder what Russia would have to do before some idiots say: "Okay, Putin's gone a little too far..."
Well, he could steal 100k children and have them brought up as Russians. Nope, tried that one. He could use deadly poisons in public places in the UK at great risk to our public. Nope, done that too. He could murder many people who have displeased him in some way by chucking them out of windows. Nope, already done that. he could launch by far the largest war in Europe since WW2 resulting in over 1m deaths. No, apparently that is not enough either. He could fire drones at a NATO country. Decision on that is pending.
As I have said otherwise we do not want to go to war and should not be looking to escalate matters with missile attacks. But neither can we fail to respond firmly.
Russia escalates all the effing time, and we twiddle our thumbs. This state of affairs cannot continue forever.
I think sending cruise missiles into Russian drone factories would be a proportionate response to their drone attack on Poland last night, and would make it unlikely Russia would attack NATO with drones again.
If we brush it off at no big deal they will attack again and escalate further.
Pathetic. Surely we should just save time and go for a full out nuclear attack? Once Russia is a radioactive wasteland there will be no more drones.
It's an attack on NATO; an attack on Russian territory would be a like-for-like, not an escalation. You're one of the biggest advocates of increased defence spending, yet always find an excuse for not doing anything to deter Russian aggression. Virtue signalling.
Headline: UK's first 'super-university' to be created as two merge from 2026
"The UK's first "super-university", stretching across an entire region, is to be created through the merger of the universities of Kent and Greenwich, the BBC has learned.
Under the proposed name of London and South East University Group, the single institution will have one vice-chancellor from the academic year starting in autumn 2026."
Savings: one VC salary. Costs: redundancy payments for one VC.
They're doing this to save money. The sector is broke. They will be looking to cut costs across back office activities: HR, marketing, legal, etc. There will probably be academic savings: why have two departments teaching the same thing? Rationalise them on to one campus and increase the student:lecturer ratio.
To save money they should close Greenwich and keep Canterbury. Trouble is, it is London that attracts students and most importantly, foreign students.
I doubt there is any real saving to be made by combining less popular subjects onto one campus, as presumably those departments are small anyway. Combining expensive laboratory-based subjects risks losing the London factor (see above).
And it is not even Britain's first ‘super-university’ – City recently combined with St George's Medical School, and it is not that long since universities moved in the other direction, with the ‘super-universities’ of London and of Wales breaking up into their constituent colleges which are now universities in their own right. London's medical schools did consolidate but that was more to do with size than money, as the small teaching hospitals (cynically likened to Noah's ark, where consultants came in two by two) did not have enough staff as specialisms splintered.
So Putin has concluded (correctly) that he's faced with the weakest most naive and clueless American president in history and is acting accordingly. Dangerous times.
It's not just about Trump. It's also that European leaders are scared to act without American support.
We can't afford to let this be about Trump. Europe has to determine its own fate.
A bit of bellicose ranting on here and nobody wants to go where that might end up.
I'm happy to concede Russia might not have the control over its drones we imagine and while Belarus might have no objections, Poland has quite rightly chosen to defend its airspace.
I doubt it's any kind of serious "test", more logistical bumbling and technological over-reach in Moscow. Had Polish planes shot down drones over Ukraine, that would be different - Ukrainian anti-drone technology is doing no more than the Poles have done.
This conflict has seen the unprecdented use of drones in warfare and as with all new battlefield technologies, they don't always work.
Once again, we can rely on the media (both old school and social) to create a mountain out of a molehill and a crisis out of a small drama.
What an utter fool you are.
Russia does everything it does - not just last night, but all of the political interference in western democracies, the attacks on Ukraine, Georgia etc - and you accuse *us* of being bellicose.
I sometimes wonder what Russia would have to do before some idiots say: "Okay, Putin's gone a little too far..."
Well, he could steal 100k children and have them brought up as Russians. Nope, tried that one. He could use deadly poisons in public places in the UK at great risk to our public. Nope, done that too. He could murder many people who have displeased him in some way by chucking them out of windows. Nope, already done that. he could launch by far the largest war in Europe since WW2 resulting in over 1m deaths. No, apparently that is not enough either. He could fire drones at a NATO country. Decision on that is pending.
As I have said otherwise we do not want to go to war and should not be looking to escalate matters with missile attacks. But neither can we fail to respond firmly.
What would a firm response be in your view?
What would be enough to deter Russia from sending more drones next time?
So Putin has concluded (correctly) that he's faced with the weakest most naive and clueless American president in history and is acting accordingly. Dangerous times.
It's not just about Trump. It's also that European leaders are scared to act without American support.
We can't afford to let this be about Trump. Europe has to determine its own fate.
A bit of bellicose ranting on here and nobody wants to go where that might end up.
I'm happy to concede Russia might not have the control over its drones we imagine and while Belarus might have no objections, Poland has quite rightly chosen to defend its airspace.
I doubt it's any kind of serious "test", more logistical bumbling and technological over-reach in Moscow. Had Polish planes shot down drones over Ukraine, that would be different - Ukrainian anti-drone technology is doing no more than the Poles have done.
This conflict has seen the unprecdented use of drones in warfare and as with all new battlefield technologies, they don't always work.
Once again, we can rely on the media (both old school and social) to create a mountain out of a molehill and a crisis out of a small drama.
What an utter fool you are.
Russia does everything it does - not just last night, but all of the political interference in western democracies, the attacks on Ukraine, Georgia etc - and you accuse *us* of being bellicose.
I sometimes wonder what Russia would have to do before some idiots say: "Okay, Putin's gone a little too far..."
A hell of a lot more than flying a few drones over Poland. A 100 division armoured invasion towards Warsaw would do it but are we seeing that? No.
Yet there are people on here openly advocating some sort of retaliatory strike into Russia - seriously?
And you accuse ME of ridiculing the term "beliicose".
Lest we forget, there are currently thousands of east Asian troops from a vicious dictatorship seeking to subjugate a nascent European democracy. A country which is an EU applicant. That's a fair old escalation and quite unprecedented. Mind boggling, really.
Moreover from the Baltic Sea to the North Sea the Russians are up to all sorts with regard to our vital infrastructure.
This is a test of wills, surely? There has to be consequences for swarming drones into a NATO member.
And we certainly don't need to directly strike Russia, at all. Give the Ukrainians the weapons to hit harder and further. A balanced and measured response. No response is ultimately more dangerous than doing something.
If ever there is a moment in time that Europe needs to wake up and realise they cannot rely on the US to come to their assistance, it is now
All the embarrassing fawning over Trump, not least by Mark Rutte of NATO, only proves western leaders need to keep their dignity, ignore Trump, and act together with the strongest of reaction
I don't think it was a coincidence that this happened overnight following the Israeli attack on key Hamas figures in Qatar yesterday. Despite all Trump's failed efforts to use heavy handed diplomacy to try to ride rough shod over Zelensky and Ukraine in an attempt to give Russia generous face saving concessions to bring about the end of this war on Europe's doorstep its now clear that Putin believes that NATO has been severely weakened by Trump and JD Vance's isolationist stance since he was re-elected.
Putin has just escalated tensions in Europe at a time when Trump is already distracted and trying to calm tensions in the Middle East among various US allies following events in Qatar in the hope that Trump will back down further and force Ukraine to concede defeat to Russia while piling pressure on European leaders at home to back off from their own firm stance to stand by Ukraine. Putin is now openly mocking the European NATO allies which is no surprise after the way Trump and Vance have been treating them since they were elected, he will also be hoping that public opinion in Europe has no stomach to see any response that risks a further escalation of the war in Ukraine into other neighbouring countries.
Another worrying thing about the drone incident is that we were using F35s to shoot down cheap drones. And we didn't even manage to shoot them all down.
If another European country were facing the kind of mass attacks that Ukraine faces, that simply isn't sustainable for much more than a couple of weeks.
In a world without the US element of the NATO guarantee, what, in our current capacity, is to prevent Russia threatening or blackmailing some of the smaller European states ? It's not as though international norms will do that.
This is what I keep thinking - what is the point of NATO article 5 if America are no longer underwriting it?
In fact what is NATO without America?
NATO without America is still the collective self-defence of dozens of democracies that would mostly struggle to defend themselves individually.
In some ways NATO is even more important without America.
So Putin has concluded (correctly) that he's faced with the weakest most naive and clueless American president in history and is acting accordingly. Dangerous times.
It's not just about Trump. It's also that European leaders are scared to act without American support.
We can't afford to let this be about Trump. Europe has to determine its own fate.
Is it true that Israel's also selling drones to Putin?
There are stories from 10-15 years ago about Israel selling drones to Russia, but I'm not seeing anything more recent. Do you have a link?
The Ukrainians haven't been shy about identifying which countries have supplied components used in drones and missiles against Ukraine, including many from the US and Europe, but I don't recall them identifying Israeli drones or components.
Ah, my mistake, looks like the biggest sales were around 2016, but still after the occupation of Crimea and Donbass.
So Putin has concluded (correctly) that he's faced with the weakest most naive and clueless American president in history and is acting accordingly. Dangerous times.
It's not just about Trump. It's also that European leaders are scared to act without American support.
We can't afford to let this be about Trump. Europe has to determine its own fate.
A bit of bellicose ranting on here and nobody wants to go where that might end up.
I'm happy to concede Russia might not have the control over its drones we imagine and while Belarus might have no objections, Poland has quite rightly chosen to defend its airspace.
I doubt it's any kind of serious "test", more logistical bumbling and technological over-reach in Moscow. Had Polish planes shot down drones over Ukraine, that would be different - Ukrainian anti-drone technology is doing no more than the Poles have done.
This conflict has seen the unprecdented use of drones in warfare and as with all new battlefield technologies, they don't always work.
Once again, we can rely on the media (both old school and social) to create a mountain out of a molehill and a crisis out of a small drama.
What an utter fool you are.
Russia does everything it does - not just last night, but all of the political interference in western democracies, the attacks on Ukraine, Georgia etc - and you accuse *us* of being bellicose.
I sometimes wonder what Russia would have to do before some idiots say: "Okay, Putin's gone a little too far..."
A hell of a lot more than flying a few drones over Poland. A 100 division armoured invasion towards Warsaw would do it but are we seeing that? No.
Yet there are people on here openly advocating some sort of retaliatory strike into Russia - seriously?
And you accuse ME of ridiculing the term "beliicose".
Look at everything Russia has been doing - and not just in Ukraine.
And when that 100 divisions head towards Warsaw, you'd just be saying: "Well, that's Poland fucked. There's nothing we can do..."
Our attitude towards Putin over the last near-two decades - since Georgia in 2008 - is one of utter appeasement.
So Putin has concluded (correctly) that he's faced with the weakest most naive and clueless American president in history and is acting accordingly. Dangerous times.
It's not just about Trump. It's also that European leaders are scared to act without American support.
We can't afford to let this be about Trump. Europe has to determine its own fate.
A bit of bellicose ranting on here and nobody wants to go where that might end up.
I'm happy to concede Russia might not have the control over its drones we imagine and while Belarus might have no objections, Poland has quite rightly chosen to defend its airspace.
I doubt it's any kind of serious "test", more logistical bumbling and technological over-reach in Moscow. Had Polish planes shot down drones over Ukraine, that would be different - Ukrainian anti-drone technology is doing no more than the Poles have done.
This conflict has seen the unprecdented use of drones in warfare and as with all new battlefield technologies, they don't always work.
Once again, we can rely on the media (both old school and social) to create a mountain out of a molehill and a crisis out of a small drama.
What an utter fool you are.
Russia does everything it does - not just last night, but all of the political interference in western democracies, the attacks on Ukraine, Georgia etc - and you accuse *us* of being bellicose.
I sometimes wonder what Russia would have to do before some idiots say: "Okay, Putin's gone a little too far..."
A hell of a lot more than flying a few drones over Poland. A 100 division armoured invasion towards Warsaw would do it but are we seeing that? No.
Yet there are people on here openly advocating some sort of retaliatory strike into Russia - seriously?
And you accuse ME of ridiculing the term "beliicose".
Russia won't ever send divisions into Poland. It will be kilometre by kilometre, coup by coup. Boiling frog syndrome - at every stage it won't be rational to respond with force, but they'll keep on creeping up towards Berlin/Vienna/Helsinki.
Another worrying thing about the drone incident is that we were using F35s to shoot down cheap drones. And we didn't even manage to shoot them all down.
If another European country were facing the kind of mass attacks that Ukraine faces, that simply isn't sustainable for much more than a couple of weeks.
In a world without the US element of the NATO guarantee, what, in our current capacity, is to prevent Russia threatening or blackmailing some of the smaller European states ? It's not as though international norms will do that.
This is what I keep thinking - what is the point of NATO article 5 if America are no longer underwriting it?
In fact what is NATO without America?
NATO without America is still the collective self-defence of dozens of democracies that would mostly struggle to defend themselves individually.
In some ways NATO is even more important without America.
I think sending cruise missiles into Russian drone factories would be a proportionate response to their drone attack on Poland last night, and would make it unlikely Russia would attack NATO with drones again.
If we brush it off at no big deal they will attack again and escalate further.
Pathetic. Surely we should just save time and go for a full out nuclear attack? Once Russia is a radioactive wasteland there will be no more drones.
That is not the reductio ad absurdam you think. It's just absurd.
So is a missile attack on Russian soil. We are not at war with Russia. Yet. Personally, I would prefer to keep it that way.
We are absolutely at war with Russia, and have been for well over a decade. It's a coldish war, but you'd have to try very hard to spin something like the Salisbury attack as a friendly act. They are interfering with our elections, attacking neighbouring states, and sowing discord.
Yes, and we need to take it much more seriously than we do.
There has been some messaging from military bods etc in recent years but I still don’t think our politicians address this with the gravity that they should. We should be seeing much more bipartisan comms on this topic.
I think sending cruise missiles into Russian drone factories would be a proportionate response to their drone attack on Poland last night, and would make it unlikely Russia would attack NATO with drones again.
If we brush it off at no big deal they will attack again and escalate further.
I think a direct missile attack on Russia would be a massive escalation.
Something like a massive cyberattack perhaps more likely, and perhaps some mysterious explosions.
How? They've just attacked NATO territory.
The problem is that your respone is always going to the sensible and rational one in the short term, but it just induces Russia to keep pushing a little further. At what point will we actually sting back? The murder of a UK citizen on UK soil? The bombing of the British Council? Attack on NATO? An invasion of Estonia? An invasion of northern Norway?
For me, the correct response would be a comprehensive but time-limited assault on Russian assets inside 2014 border Ukraine.
That has the advantage of limiting the response to Ukrainian territory, and not hitting targets inside Russia, but there's a risk that Russia decides NATO is now a full participant in the war.
In any case, the important thing is that there are real consequences for Russia so that they don't repeat it.
The logical response is not to escalate, but instead to give Ukraine the weaponry it needs to defeat the invasion. That is not impossible; its rather a matter of the will to do it, and the willingness to spend what it will cost.
I think that would only invite Russia to attempt to hit the logistics supporting Ukraine in Poland directly.
If NATO isn't fighting Russia directly because Ukraine isn't a member, then it has to show Russia that attacking a NATO member is different and has consequences.
I think that's what they tried to do last night. It was targeted at Rzeszow which is the main logistics base for support to Ukraine.
Phillips P. O'Brien has just published a substack calling it a "training wheel attack". This is a test of NATO's military preparedness (reportedly most of the drones weren't shot down) and its political preparedness (there isn't much clarity on calling it an attack).
I think they'd likely use a larger number of drones for an attack where they hoped to do some damage.
Is NATO without the US capable of containing Russia, do we think?
If we want to be specific to the threat, perhaps we could indicate that we are prepared to intercept drones on any bearing considered a potential threat NATO territory over Western Belarus, over Kaliningrad, over the Russia/Baltic border and, much more extensively, over Ukraine.
If we want to be specific to the threat, perhaps we could indicate that we are prepared to intercept drones on any bearing considered a potential threat NATO territory over Western Belarus, over Kaliningrad, over the Russia/Baltic border and, much more extensively, over Ukraine.
I don't think we have the capability to do that in response to the numbers of drones that Russia is now using. That is why I suggest destroying the factory that manufactures the drones, which would more effectively put a stop to drone attacks, at least in the short term.
Christ alive, Tony Robinson/Baldrick pimping his new book on Today about Alfred the Great says that people think there is a pure line of Englishness but that Alfred made up this idea of Englishness Alfred and “his mates” were all German and then they go on to discuss the importance of accuracy.
Only a minority of idiots think that the English have some purebred status and Alfred and his mates weren’t German.
........every schoolboy knows that Alfred is Adolf in German
Another worrying thing about the drone incident is that we were using F35s to shoot down cheap drones. And we didn't even manage to shoot them all down.
If another European country were facing the kind of mass attacks that Ukraine faces, that simply isn't sustainable for much more than a couple of weeks.
In a world without the US element of the NATO guarantee, what, in our current capacity, is to prevent Russia threatening or blackmailing some of the smaller European states ? It's not as though international norms will do that.
This is what I keep thinking - what is the point of NATO article 5 if America are no longer underwriting it?
In fact what is NATO without America?
According to the https://www.globalfirepower.com/countries-listing.php military power rankings, NATO without the US still contains the 6th, 7th, 9th, 10th, 14th, 17th, 21st, 27th, 28th and 30th strongest countries in the world. NATO without the US combined has the second largest aircraft carrier fleet in the world (after the US). If you add up the number of active military personnel, NATO without the US comes in second (after China).
I think sending cruise missiles into Russian drone factories would be a proportionate response to their drone attack on Poland last night, and would make it unlikely Russia would attack NATO with drones again.
If we brush it off at no big deal they will attack again and escalate further.
Pathetic. Surely we should just save time and go for a full out nuclear attack? Once Russia is a radioactive wasteland there will be no more drones.
That is not the reductio ad absurdam you think. It's just absurd.
So is a missile attack on Russian soil. We are not at war with Russia. Yet. Personally, I would prefer to keep it that way.
We are absolutely at war with Russia, and have been for well over a decade. It's a coldish war, but you'd have to try very hard to spin something like the Salisbury attack as a friendly act. They are interfering with our elections, attacking neighbouring states, and sowing discord.
Yes, and we need to take it much more seriously than we do.
There has been some messaging from military bods etc in recent years but I still don’t think our politicians address this with the gravity that they should. We should be seeing much more bipartisan comms on this topic.
Good luck getting a bipartisan response out of Nigel "Russia Today" Farage.
Headline: UK's first 'super-university' to be created as two merge from 2026
"The UK's first "super-university", stretching across an entire region, is to be created through the merger of the universities of Kent and Greenwich, the BBC has learned.
Under the proposed name of London and South East University Group, the single institution will have one vice-chancellor from the academic year starting in autumn 2026."
Savings: one VC salary. Costs: redundancy payments for one VC.
They're doing this to save money. The sector is broke. They will be looking to cut costs across back office activities: HR, marketing, legal, etc. There will probably be academic savings: why have two departments teaching the same thing? Rationalise them on to one campus and increase the student:lecturer ratio.
To save money they should close Greenwich and keep Canterbury. Trouble is, it is London that attracts students and most importantly, foreign students.
I doubt there is any real saving to be made by combining less popular subjects onto one campus, as presumably those departments are small anyway. Combining expensive laboratory-based subjects risks losing the London factor (see above).
And it is not even Britain's first ‘super-university’ – City recently combined with St George's Medical School, and it is not that long since universities moved in the other direction, with the ‘super-universities’ of London and of Wales breaking up into their constituent colleges which are now universities in their own right. London's medical schools did consolidate but that was more to do with size than money, as the small teaching hospitals (cynically likened to Noah's ark, where consultants came in two by two) did not have enough staff as specialisms splintered.
"I doubt there is any real saving to be made by combining less popular subjects onto one campus, as presumably those departments are small anyway." I didn't say "less popular" subjects. There are clearly extensive cost savings possible here.
City St George's is not a "super-university". It's considerably smaller than UCL.
The super-universities of London and Wales did break up, but that was decades ago, a different time.
So Putin has concluded (correctly) that he's faced with the weakest most naive and clueless American president in history and is acting accordingly. Dangerous times.
It's not just about Trump. It's also that European leaders are scared to act without American support.
We can't afford to let this be about Trump. Europe has to determine its own fate.
A bit of bellicose ranting on here and nobody wants to go where that might end up.
I'm happy to concede Russia might not have the control over its drones we imagine and while Belarus might have no objections, Poland has quite rightly chosen to defend its airspace.
I doubt it's any kind of serious "test", more logistical bumbling and technological over-reach in Moscow. Had Polish planes shot down drones over Ukraine, that would be different - Ukrainian anti-drone technology is doing no more than the Poles have done.
This conflict has seen the unprecdented use of drones in warfare and as with all new battlefield technologies, they don't always work.
Once again, we can rely on the media (both old school and social) to create a mountain out of a molehill and a crisis out of a small drama.
What an utter fool you are.
Russia does everything it does - not just last night, but all of the political interference in western democracies, the attacks on Ukraine, Georgia etc - and you accuse *us* of being bellicose.
I sometimes wonder what Russia would have to do before some idiots say: "Okay, Putin's gone a little too far..."
A hell of a lot more than flying a few drones over Poland. A 100 division armoured invasion towards Warsaw would do it but are we seeing that? No.
Yet there are people on here openly advocating some sort of retaliatory strike into Russia - seriously?
And you accuse ME of ridiculing the term "beliicose".
Russia won't ever send divisions into Poland. It will be kilometre by kilometre, coup by coup. Boiling frog syndrome - at every stage it won't be rational to respond with force, but they'll keep on creeping up towards Berlin/Vienna/Helsinki.
I think sending cruise missiles into Russian drone factories would be a proportionate response to their drone attack on Poland last night, and would make it unlikely Russia would attack NATO with drones again.
If we brush it off at no big deal they will attack again and escalate further.
I think a direct missile attack on Russia would be a massive escalation.
Something like a massive cyberattack perhaps more likely, and perhaps some mysterious explosions.
How? They've just attacked NATO territory.
The problem is that your respone is always going to the sensible and rational one in the short term, but it just induces Russia to keep pushing a little further. At what point will we actually sting back? The murder of a UK citizen on UK soil? The bombing of the British Council? Attack on NATO? An invasion of Estonia? An invasion of northern Norway?
For me, the correct response would be a comprehensive but time-limited assault on Russian assets inside 2014 border Ukraine.
That has the advantage of limiting the response to Ukrainian territory, and not hitting targets inside Russia, but there's a risk that Russia decides NATO is now a full participant in the war.
In any case, the important thing is that there are real consequences for Russia so that they don't repeat it.
The logical response is not to escalate, but instead to give Ukraine the weaponry it needs to defeat the invasion. That is not impossible; its rather a matter of the will to do it, and the willingness to spend what it will cost.
I think that would only invite Russia to attempt to hit the logistics supporting Ukraine in Poland directly.
If NATO isn't fighting Russia directly because Ukraine isn't a member, then it has to show Russia that attacking a NATO member is different and has consequences.
I think that's what they tried to do last night. It was targeted at Rzeszow which is the main logistics base for support to Ukraine.
Phillips P. O'Brien has just published a substack calling it a "training wheel attack". This is a test of NATO's military preparedness (reportedly most of the drones weren't shot down) and its political preparedness (there isn't much clarity on calling it an attack).
I think they'd likely use a larger number of drones for an attack where they hoped to do some damage.
Is NATO without the US capable of containing Russia, do we think?
I think Ukraine is now more important for Europe's defence than the US, and that Europe better work out how to defend itself without the US.
Essentially the US has chosen to make itself irrelevant in this conflict. Diplomatically Europe has to do all it can to keep the US as close as possible, but we're on our own now.
Yes, regarding how this conflict goes from here "EUROPE" rather than "NATO" better describes the reality. America isn't an ally. Which might be liberating, longer term, but can we get to that longer term without (i) Russian advance in Ukraine and possibly elsewhere or (ii) a devastating wider war? One hopes so because either of those are terrible outcomes.
I think sending cruise missiles into Russian drone factories would be a proportionate response to their drone attack on Poland last night, and would make it unlikely Russia would attack NATO with drones again.
If we brush it off at no big deal they will attack again and escalate further.
Pathetic. Surely we should just save time and go for a full out nuclear attack? Once Russia is a radioactive wasteland there will be no more drones.
That is not the reductio ad absurdam you think. It's just absurd.
So is a missile attack on Russian soil. We are not at war with Russia. Yet. Personally, I would prefer to keep it that way.
We are absolutely at war with Russia, and have been for well over a decade. It's a coldish war, but you'd have to try very hard to spin something like the Salisbury attack as a friendly act. They are interfering with our elections, attacking neighbouring states, and sowing discord.
Yes, and we need to take it much more seriously than we do.
There has been some messaging from military bods etc in recent years but I still don’t think our politicians address this with the gravity that they should. We should be seeing much more bipartisan comms on this topic.
Good luck getting a bipartisan response out of Nigel "Russia Today" Farage.
Farage getting into Number Ten is one of Putin's wet dreams. Already we've seen a Faragist on here ask why we need a nuclear deterrent...
So Putin has concluded (correctly) that he's faced with the weakest most naive and clueless American president in history and is acting accordingly. Dangerous times.
It's not just about Trump. It's also that European leaders are scared to act without American support.
We can't afford to let this be about Trump. Europe has to determine its own fate.
A bit of bellicose ranting on here and nobody wants to go where that might end up.
I'm happy to concede Russia might not have the control over its drones we imagine and while Belarus might have no objections, Poland has quite rightly chosen to defend its airspace.
I doubt it's any kind of serious "test", more logistical bumbling and technological over-reach in Moscow. Had Polish planes shot down drones over Ukraine, that would be different - Ukrainian anti-drone technology is doing no more than the Poles have done.
This conflict has seen the unprecdented use of drones in warfare and as with all new battlefield technologies, they don't always work.
Once again, we can rely on the media (both old school and social) to create a mountain out of a molehill and a crisis out of a small drama.
What an utter fool you are.
Russia does everything it does - not just last night, but all of the political interference in western democracies, the attacks on Ukraine, Georgia etc - and you accuse *us* of being bellicose.
I sometimes wonder what Russia would have to do before some idiots say: "Okay, Putin's gone a little too far..."
A hell of a lot more than flying a few drones over Poland. A 100 division armoured invasion towards Warsaw would do it but are we seeing that? No.
Yet there are people on here openly advocating some sort of retaliatory strike into Russia - seriously?
And you accuse ME of ridiculing the term "beliicose".
Look at everything Russia has been doing - and not just in Ukraine.
And when that 100 divisions head towards Warsaw, you'd just be saying: "Well, that's Poland fucked. There's nothing we can do..."
Our attitude towards Putin over the last near-two decades - since Georgia in 2008 - is one of utter appeasement.
The Russian "Liberal Democrats" also believe in Russian irredentism
Christ alive, Tony Robinson/Baldrick pimping his new book on Today about Alfred the Great says that people think there is a pure line of Englishness but that Alfred made up this idea of Englishness Alfred and “his mates” were all German and then they go on to discuss the importance of accuracy.
Only a minority of idiots think that the English have some purebred status and Alfred and his mates weren’t German.
........every schoolboy knows that Alfred is Adolf in German
Another worrying thing about the drone incident is that we were using F35s to shoot down cheap drones. And we didn't even manage to shoot them all down.
If another European country were facing the kind of mass attacks that Ukraine faces, that simply isn't sustainable for much more than a couple of weeks.
In a world without the US element of the NATO guarantee, what, in our current capacity, is to prevent Russia threatening or blackmailing some of the smaller European states ? It's not as though international norms will do that.
This is what I keep thinking - what is the point of NATO article 5 if America are no longer underwriting it?
In fact what is NATO without America?
According to the https://www.globalfirepower.com/countries-listing.php military power rankings, NATO without the US still contains the 6th, 7th, 9th, 10th, 14th, 17th, 21st, 27th, 28th and 30th strongest countries in the world. NATO without the US combined has the second largest aircraft carrier fleet in the world (after the US). If you add up the number of active military personnel, NATO without the US comes in second (after China).
But it's my understanding that in things like key weaponry, intelligence, surveillance, command and control, it's America and American capabilities that makes NATO what it is.
Comments
If NATO isn't fighting Russia directly because Ukraine isn't a member, then it has to show Russia that attacking a NATO member is different and has consequences.
Why would supplying Ukraine with sufficient weapons to defeat the invasion be a "disproportionate escalation" ?
We keep ignoring stuff like this, too.
I spent the entire day trying to make someone care about Russia’s murder of 24 people, most of them elderly, who were simply standing in line to collect their pensions.
Russia dropped an aerial bomb on them as if they were a military command or strategic object. They were simple people trying to survive the russian war...
https://x.com/BohuslavskaKate/status/1965510493965078953
If you want to be seen as a Putin appeaser so be it
The boat-crossers are a different problem, they’re mostly young men who are in many instances causing serious social problems where they are living, and there’s a good case that they shouldn’t be housed alongside the public.
Headline: UK's first 'super-university' to be created as two merge from 2026
"The UK's first "super-university", stretching across an entire region, is to be created through the merger of the universities of Kent and Greenwich, the BBC has learned.
Under the proposed name of London and South East University Group, the single institution will have one vice-chancellor from the academic year starting in autumn 2026."
Edit: the 'super' seems to refer to the structure rather than area (done long ago by UHI in Scotland) or size etc.
Russia are testing NATO's response. If NATO does not push back firmly enough then Russia will take further steps, with the aim of destroying weapon supplies in Poland bound for Ukraine and creating fear in European civilians to erode support for Ukraine.
If this isn't a "Fuck Around and Find Out" moment for Russia then it will only get worse.
I guess he's making a classic luvvy point and falling rather wide of the mark.
And we see this time and time again: in the minds of some, the Russians are allowed to escalate, and we are not.
It's time we did so.
If your enemy attacks you with drones, it is proportionate to destroy his ability to attack you with drones.
I see the PB gung-ho faction is in full cry. A missile strike into Russia would indeed be a huge, material escalation.
I'm happy to concede Russia might not have the control over its drones we imagine and while Belarus might have no objections, Poland has quite rightly chosen to defend its airspace.
I doubt it's any kind of serious "test", more logistical bumbling and technological over-reach in Moscow. Had Polish planes shot down drones over Ukraine, that would be different - Ukrainian anti-drone technology is doing no more than the Poles have done.
This conflict has seen the unprecdented use of drones in warfare and as with all new battlefield technologies, they don't always work.
Once again, we can rely on the media (both old school and social) to create a mountain out of a molehill and a crisis out of a small drama.
1) Some studies have suggested that the east of Great Britain has been Germanic in language and genetics for rather longer than that even.
2) While pre-Viking Anglo-Saxons wouldn't have considered themselves as one nation - because the concept of a nation then was quite different, and depended much more on loyalty to a given lord rather than shared culture - they would certainly have recognised cultural (and, importantly, religious) affiliations with other Anglo-Saxons (which were not necessarily shared with the British - i.e. those who spoke Welsh and followed the Celtic church, nor with the Vikings, who spoke Scandinavian languages and were pagan).
3) The process of gradually removing the viking rulers from the east and north of modern-day England was a nation-building event: Englishness came to be defined by it. This is not unique to England: there are countless examples of nation-building in opposition to what a nation is not.
Essentially: Tony Robinson's point is trite - a barb in disguise as a serious point.
Putin is cranking up because he needs to broaden the war beyond Ukraine where - at best - he is trapped in a stalled grinding offensive over a country aided by but not explicitly supported by NATO. To change things up (including manufacturing a neck-saving off-ramp) he needs to say "We are now fighting NATO, not Ukraine."
Russia has been sending its drones over NATO airspace in a regular basis, though up until now, not deep into it. This time, is was several hundred kilometres. The likelihood of its being accidental on so many occasions is pretty small.
We've been turning a blind eye to this stuff, and if we continue to do so, it's likely to get worse.
I agree that direct attack on Russia in response would be risky, and unnecessary. Supplying Ukraine with greater capabilities to defeat the unprovoked Russian invasion would not be either of those things.
A man convicted of the attempted murder of a 14-year-old child is part of a far-right vigilante ‘save our children’ group patrolling Belfast’s streets.
Mark Payne was convicted along with two other men of stabbing the schoolboy, who almost died from his injuries.
He was further convicted of threatening two teenage girls with a knife after they witnessed the unprovoked attack.
Payne is now part of a group of vigilantes, calling themselves East Belfast First Division, who have been ‘patrolling’ the streets. They claim to be protecting women and children from migrants.
In recent days the group has been holding protests outside a fast food outlet in east Belfast, questioning delivery drivers.
I think they'd likely use a larger number of drones for an attack where they hoped to do some damage.
https://news.sky.com/story/uk-internet-user-helps-stop-teenager-launching-deadly-attack-on-ukrainian-school-13427703
Sounds like a flagrant breach of the Online Safety Act for a British teenager to see the early stages of a school attack. He must be suitably punished. The case calls for an exemplary sentence, albeit with six months off for averting a massacre.
The best part of the story is the Met taking all the credit – "The swift actions by our officers alerting Ukrainian counterparts have helped to avert what could have been a potentially devastating attack at a school in Ukraine," he said. – when all they did was pass on a tip-off (and even that only to Europol).
ETA actually the report does not specify the age of the original informant.
A calm and rational approach is needed, here.
It's no coincidence that these drones went into Poland, rather than Hungary or Slovakia, for example.
I any case, what is wrong with escalation exactly? "Escalation" s a Russian propaganda point. NATO's response to Russia has been pretty supine to this point and maybe we doo need to escalate our response
The EU should confiscate the remaining Russian funds held in EU banks and use that to buy a huge amount of weapons for Ukraine .
Russia does everything it does - not just last night, but all of the political interference in western democracies, the attacks on Ukraine, Georgia etc - and you accuse *us* of being bellicose.
I sometimes wonder what Russia would have to do before some idiots say: "Okay, Putin's gone a little too far..."
It's one of the things that makes the EU so fractious of course. All those nations whose identity is bound up in opposition to their neighbours. Although I suppose you also have it on terms of local and regional identities: Tyne/Wear, Yorks/Lancs, North and South of the river.
It's why the Russian war on Ukraine is a nation-building opportunity for the EU. One that has largely been missed so far. A sense of European national identity could be created on the bedrock of fighting Russian imperialism to defend European democracy.
Or, do some NATO silly buggers work with drones 'accidentally' buzzing some sites in Russia, but that's just performative. Taking out Russian drone capability would have real impact.
ETA: Or, basically, what NigelB said. Stop fucking around and give Ukraine whatever they need with no use restrictions. Every test of NATO to result in a significantly stronger Ukraine.
We all know where extending this conflict beyond its current parameters could take us - at the moment, it is contained. It may be Putin is seeking to widen the conflict - I'm much less convinced he's the Machiavellian genius some on here seem to think. However, we don't have to play his game. Defending our airspace and our borders is all we need to do until and unless Putin launches a direct assault on a NATO country - he hasn't done so yet, I don't believe that's his intention.
This is part of the old shadow boxing, dancing game which we've had for the last 80 years - no reason to think it's anything more.
And we didn't even manage to shoot them all down.
If another European country were facing the kind of mass attacks that Ukraine faces, that simply isn't sustainable for much more than a couple of weeks.
In a world without the US element of the NATO guarantee, what, in our current capacity, is to prevent Russia threatening or blackmailing some of the smaller European states ?
It's not as though international norms will do that.
On more domestic issues, more economic woes in Surrey:
https://www.getsurrey.co.uk/news/surrey-news/empty-offices-lease-non-renewals-32444189
To be honest, these are the same woes which have afflicted Spelthorne since a previous administration believed there was a pot of gold at the end of the investment property rainbow and borrowed accordingly from the Public Works Loan Board.
Presumably, this debt, and Woking's, for which neither a single councillor nor officer has to my knowledge been held to judicial account (electoral account has already been paid), will have to be written off when the new Surrey Unitaries come into being in 2027.
Yet there are people on here openly advocating some sort of retaliatory strike into Russia - seriously?
And you accuse ME of ridiculing the term "beliicose".
The Ukrainians haven't been shy about identifying which countries have supplied components used in drones and missiles against Ukraine, including many from the US and Europe, but I don't recall them identifying Israeli drones or components.
Note that the BBC is reporting that both Poland and EU officials are saying that the drone incursion was deliberate.
Frank Gardner adds that "every conversation I have had recently with Nato military officials or academic experts on what Russia’s next moves are likely to be all conclude that Moscow will want to test Nato’s resolve in some way".
This was the Russian response from their chargé d'affaires in Poland, which is transparently dishonest.
"There has been no evidence that these drones are of Russian provenance.."
As I have said otherwise we do not want to go to war and should not be looking to escalate matters with missile attacks. But neither can we fail to respond firmly.
I don’t think “do nothing” is an option. History shows that if Russia/Putin sees no response, they will go further next time
In fact what is NATO without America?
Essentially the US has chosen to make itself irrelevant in this conflict. Diplomatically Europe has to do all it can to keep the US as close as possible, but we're on our own now.
I doubt there is any real saving to be made by combining less popular subjects onto one campus, as presumably those departments are small anyway. Combining expensive laboratory-based subjects risks losing the London factor (see above).
And it is not even Britain's first ‘super-university’ – City recently combined with St George's Medical School, and it is not that long since universities moved in the other direction, with the ‘super-universities’ of London and of Wales breaking up into their constituent colleges which are now universities in their own right. London's medical schools did consolidate but that was more to do with size than money, as the small teaching hospitals (cynically likened to Noah's ark, where consultants came in two by two) did not have enough staff as specialisms splintered.
What would be enough to deter Russia from sending more drones next time?
Moreover from the Baltic Sea to the North Sea the Russians are up to all sorts with regard to our vital infrastructure.
This is a test of wills, surely? There has to be consequences for swarming drones into a NATO member.
And we certainly don't need to directly strike Russia, at all. Give the Ukrainians the weapons to hit harder and further. A balanced and measured response. No response is ultimately more dangerous than doing something.
Putin has just escalated tensions in Europe at a time when Trump is already distracted and trying to calm tensions in the Middle East among various US allies following events in Qatar in the hope that Trump will back down further and force Ukraine to concede defeat to Russia while piling pressure on European leaders at home to back off from their own firm stance to stand by Ukraine. Putin is now openly mocking the European NATO allies which is no surprise after the way Trump and Vance have been treating them since they were elected, he will also be hoping that public opinion in Europe has no stomach to see any response that risks a further escalation of the war in Ukraine into other neighbouring countries.
In some ways NATO is even more important without America.
And when that 100 divisions head towards Warsaw, you'd just be saying: "Well, that's Poland fucked. There's nothing we can do..."
Our attitude towards Putin over the last near-two decades - since Georgia in 2008 - is one of utter appeasement.
There has been some messaging from military bods etc in recent years but I still don’t think our politicians address this with the gravity that they should. We should be seeing much more bipartisan comms on this topic.
City St George's is not a "super-university". It's considerably smaller than UCL.
The super-universities of London and Wales did break up, but that was decades ago, a different time.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yg-UqIIvang
Alfred is Alfred in German.
Apart from that, good point.