Far too little attention is paid to the fact that without China, Russia would not be able to continue fighting the war as they are. On Trump's watch they have upped their level of support.
This is very true.
But China is intructive from another point of view. They stood up to Trump and as a consequence are now in an advantaged trading position with the US relative to Europe.
I've been busy all day but have I got it right that some Labour MPs want to replace Starmer with one of -
1.Someone who has not been in Parliament for nearly 9 years and got 19% of the vote when he stood for leader last time (Andy Burnham). 2. A nitwit who came third when she stood for Labour leader in 2020 with 16% of the vote (Lisa Nandy). 3. Another nitwit (Lucy Powell). 4. Someone convicted of fraud a decade ago (Louise Haigh) though, ironically, she appears to be more intelligent than the others and had a better record in her short Ministerial career.
Do they think emulating the Tory party's policy of ousting leaders every year or so is a good idea? Or are they all a bunch of panicking nitwits?
Unfortunately for Labour, they need a leader with competence and charisma, and they don’t have any.
Looks to me like they need to rethink the criteria for appointing PPCs.
You mean, Politics graduate, SPAD, constituency organiser isn’t the ideal career path? I’m shocked, I tell you!
As a matter of interest who on the Labour front bench came that route? No one springs to mind.
That is the route for PPCs. They don’t have the skills or ability to progress to the front bench, which is why there are so few contenders for front bench posts.
Far too little attention is paid to the fact that without China, Russia would not be able to continue fighting the war as they are. On Trump's watch they have upped their level of support.
China is officially neutral on the Russia-Ukraine war and officially wants a peace deal, unlike N Korea which has sent troops to help Russia. China just has not cut economic ties with Russia
Unofficially then, China is sending Russia a vast support network.
I've been busy all day but have I got it right that some Labour MPs want to replace Starmer with one of -
1.Someone who has not been in Parliament for nearly 9 years and got 19% of the vote when he stood for leader last time (Andy Burnham). 2. A nitwit who came third when she stood for Labour leader in 2020 with 16% of the vote (Lisa Nandy). 3. Another nitwit (Lucy Powell). 4. Someone convicted of fraud a decade ago (Louise Haigh) though, ironically, she appears to be more intelligent than the others and had a better record in her short Ministerial career.
Do they think emulating the Tory party's policy of ousting leaders every year or so is a good idea? Or are they all a bunch of panicking nitwits?
None of the above are contenders now though really and nor is Burnham unless he returns as an MP. The likeliest successors to Starmer are presently Streeting, Cooper or Ed Miliband
I've been busy all day but have I got it right that some Labour MPs want to replace Starmer with one of -
1.Someone who has not been in Parliament for nearly 9 years and got 19% of the vote when he stood for leader last time (Andy Burnham). 2. A nitwit who came third when she stood for Labour leader in 2020 with 16% of the vote (Lisa Nandy). 3. Another nitwit (Lucy Powell). 4. Someone convicted of fraud a decade ago (Louise Haigh) though, ironically, she appears to be more intelligent than the others and had a better record in her short Ministerial career.
Do they think emulating the Tory party's policy of ousting leaders every year or so is a good idea? Or are they all a bunch of panicking nitwits?
Unfortunately for Labour, they need a leader with competence and charisma, and they don’t have any.
Looks to me like they need to rethink the criteria for appointing PPCs.
You mean, Politics graduate, SPAD, constituency organiser isn’t the ideal career path? I’m shocked, I tell you!
As a matter of interest who on the Labour front bench came that route? No one springs to mind.
That is the route for PPCs. They don’t have the skills or ability to progress to the front bench, which is why there are so few contenders for front bench posts.
"LABOUR are planning to cut electricity prices for tech companies while energy bills continue to leave families struggling, The National can reveal.
The UK Government has set out plans to slash costs for artificial intelligence (AI) data centres –saving companies as much as £80 million per year.
Campaigners said the plans were a “gut punch” to people struggling with the cost of living."
interesting. Given Labour are already vulnerable in the north, west and south west on regional pricing ...
While I don’t agree with the policy the paper’s framing is the epitome of the zero sum thinking that infects our politics (“Resources allocated to group x is a kick in the teeth to group y”)
The issue is that it makes regional pricing even less likely, and the lack of r. p. in itself is a developing issue. Edit: so not zero sum thinking per se.
It's not as if the server farms will produce many permanent jobs [edit] locally.
Are you trying to say that becoming an 'AI Superpower' wont cure all our economic woes? You've reminded me of one of my favourite recent government headlines :
"Artificial intelligence will deliver a decade of national renewal, as part of a new plan announced today".
Nothing brings that "oh, that's doomed then" feeling more the a government PR piece with "as part of a new plan announced today". "Made up today". "Hurriedly sketched out on a napkin today". "Keir said what? Wtf? Ok - let's wing it, today"...
Not particvularly: just wondering on the effects on the *local* or in UKGspeak *regional* economic woes.
Though there's that too, now you mention it.
US companies get to offload a chunk of their power generation woes onto the UK. Luckily for them - our power companies and grid haven't spent the last 30 years creaming off profits from ageing infrastructure like they have in the USA.
Phew!
See also the water industry for the data-center cooling. Phew^2!
There are some press stories goiung around about Edinburgh suddenly needing 2-4 x the power, water etc. because data centre proposals [edit]. No idea myself how true that is. But it will not go down well with the natives. Or indeed if UKG plonk them down without asking the natives.
Similar in the US. Power companies have been sitting pretty for years and now there's new demand from huge customers, pass the cost on to the regular consumer and keep their own margins up. Years of under-investment passed onto the end consumer. It's not at all a familiar story.
I've been busy all day but have I got it right that some Labour MPs want to replace Starmer with one of -
1.Someone who has not been in Parliament for nearly 9 years and got 19% of the vote when he stood for leader last time (Andy Burnham). 2. A nitwit who came third when she stood for Labour leader in 2020 with 16% of the vote (Lisa Nandy). 3. Another nitwit (Lucy Powell). 4. Someone convicted of fraud a decade ago (Louise Haigh) though, ironically, she appears to be more intelligent than the others and had a better record in her short Ministerial career.
Do they think emulating the Tory party's policy of ousting leaders every year or so is a good idea? Or are they all a bunch of panicking nitwits?
Unfortunately for Labour, they need a leader with competence and charisma, and they don’t have any.
Looks to me like they need to rethink the criteria for appointing PPCs.
You mean, Politics graduate, SPAD, constituency organiser isn’t the ideal career path? I’m shocked, I tell you!
As a matter of interest who on the Labour front bench came that route? No one springs to mind.
That is the route for PPCs. They don’t have the skills or ability to progress to the front bench, which is why there are so few contenders for front bench posts.
I've been busy all day but have I got it right that some Labour MPs want to replace Starmer with one of -
1.Someone who has not been in Parliament for nearly 9 years and got 19% of the vote when he stood for leader last time (Andy Burnham). 2. A nitwit who came third when she stood for Labour leader in 2020 with 16% of the vote (Lisa Nandy). 3. Another nitwit (Lucy Powell). 4. Someone convicted of fraud a decade ago (Louise Haigh) though, ironically, she appears to be more intelligent than the others and had a better record in her short Ministerial career.
Do they think emulating the Tory party's policy of ousting leaders every year or so is a good idea? Or are they all a bunch of panicking nitwits?
Unfortunately for Labour, they need a leader with competence and charisma, and they don’t have any.
Looks to me like they need to rethink the criteria for appointing PPCs.
You mean, Politics graduate, SPAD, constituency organiser isn’t the ideal career path? I’m shocked, I tell you!
As a matter of interest who on the Labour front bench came that route? No one springs to mind.
That is the route for PPCs. They don’t have the skills or ability to progress to the front bench, which is why there are so few contenders for front bench posts.
'Lanyard class' like a lot of similar labels, is meaningless junk.
One of the stupidest such labels is 'the elite', which really means 'people I don't like'; it's used extensively by many who themselves qualify as 'elite' by any objective measure.
A professor at Fen Poly once told me he blamed something I forget on "The establishment". A catch-all!
Trump sends his demand to the UK and other members of NATO, as well as the EU. He tells them that unless they back it, the US will leave NATO (which Trump has always wanted to do).
The ball is then in Europe's court.
Europe can afford to tell the US to fuck off. They can also point out to the adminisrtation that it is US arms manufacturers who would pay the highest price for the disentegration of NATO.
I don't know what Europe will do. Hungary supports Russia, of course.
Poland and the Baltics are the most hawkish.
The rest of Europe ... well, we'll see. Europe has the ability to ensure Russia's defeat. But so long have they been prepared to hide behind the US's coattails, that they do not seem willing to confront the new reality.
They also know that Trump could well impose another round of tariffs on Europe if they fail to fall into lin.
I hope that the leaders of Europe - Mertz, Macron, Starmer and Meloni - have the balls to stand up and do what is not just right, but what is long term the one with the most positive outcome. The problem is that they want to be reelected. And their economies are already creaking.
We need someone in Europe with balls and vision and strength. Will that person arise, or will Europe fold?
One potential problem is that Europe is reliant on the US for a lot of critical defense technology. For example, the storm shadow/scalp-eg missiles contain US components, so we required US permission for Ukraine to use them to strike targets inside Russia. If there's an acrimonious parting of the ways with the US then Europe is seriously fucked in the short term. Now, maybe Trump would be happy to keep selling stuff to Europe, but this means that Europe finds itself in a weak strategic position with lots of bad choices.
We need to keep Trump onside as much as possible, for as long as possible, and then use that time to prepare to be able to survive a rupture. But not at the cost of abandoning Ukraine.
It's a truly awful position to be in. Things are going to get worse before they get better.
We shouldn't be targeting targets inside Russia anyway, arms should be provided to Zelensky to maintain current lines
If you force Ukraine to fight with one arm tied behind its back then they will lose. If you don't want Ukraine to lose then you have to help them hit Russia where it hurts, and where it's most effective.
Russia has more nukes than any nation on earth, you can fight to defend Ukraine by all means but taking an offensive war into Russia could lead to nuclear war
If you've been paying attention you'll know that the war has already been taken inside Russia. They've used shadow missiles to hit targets there.
Which has increased the risk of Putin using a tactical nuke if a major Russian factory or railway line or population centre or government office or barracks were hit
You've stopped using punctuation. I like it. Kinda hip.
I've been busy all day but have I got it right that some Labour MPs want to replace Starmer with one of -
1.Someone who has not been in Parliament for nearly 9 years and got 19% of the vote when he stood for leader last time (Andy Burnham). 2. A nitwit who came third when she stood for Labour leader in 2020 with 16% of the vote (Lisa Nandy). 3. Another nitwit (Lucy Powell). 4. Someone convicted of fraud a decade ago (Louise Haigh) though, ironically, she appears to be more intelligent than the others and had a better record in her short Ministerial career.
Do they think emulating the Tory party's policy of ousting leaders every year or so is a good idea? Or are they all a bunch of panicking nitwits?
Unfortunately for Labour, they need a leader with competence and charisma, and they don’t have any.
Looks to me like they need to rethink the criteria for appointing PPCs.
You mean, Politics graduate, SPAD, constituency organiser isn’t the ideal career path? I’m shocked, I tell you!
As a matter of interest who on the Labour front bench came that route? No one springs to mind.
That is the route for PPCs. They don’t have the skills or ability to progress to the front bench, which is why there are so few contenders for front bench posts.
I think journalists get lumped in as part of the lanyard 'class', even though they probably don't have them. It's a state of mind, or something.
I imagine BBC and Guardian journalists wear lanyards, and Telegraph and Mail journalists don’t.
Contrast between lanyard worn grumpily because security don't know who I am these days, and lanyard embraced as an emblem of power.
One thing I learnt at work* was (as well as treat HR with respect) be polite and friendly to the security staff. Quite apart from common humanity, they were apt to be *much* more helpful as a result.
And I heard about how shitty some employees could be to them. The Don't Know Who I am shits.
*Actually, at uni even before enteing the workforce ...
Far too little attention is paid to the fact that without China, Russia would not be able to continue fighting the war as they are. On Trump's watch they have upped their level of support.
This is very true.
But China is intructive from another point of view. They stood up to Trump and as a consequence are now in an advantaged trading position with the US relative to Europe.
Are they? China still has 30% tariffs on its exports to the US, the EU has 15% tariffs on its exports to the USA and the UK just 10% tariffs
Trump sends his demand to the UK and other members of NATO, as well as the EU. He tells them that unless they back it, the US will leave NATO (which Trump has always wanted to do).
The ball is then in Europe's court.
Europe can afford to tell the US to fuck off. They can also point out to the adminisrtation that it is US arms manufacturers who would pay the highest price for the disentegration of NATO.
I don't know what Europe will do. Hungary supports Russia, of course.
Poland and the Baltics are the most hawkish.
The rest of Europe ... well, we'll see. Europe has the ability to ensure Russia's defeat. But so long have they been prepared to hide behind the US's coattails, that they do not seem willing to confront the new reality.
They also know that Trump could well impose another round of tariffs on Europe if they fail to fall into lin.
I hope that the leaders of Europe - Mertz, Macron, Starmer and Meloni - have the balls to stand up and do what is not just right, but what is long term the one with the most positive outcome. The problem is that they want to be reelected. And their economies are already creaking.
We need someone in Europe with balls and vision and strength. Will that person arise, or will Europe fold?
Europe and Canada would agree to a ceasefire on current lines as would Zelensky but not Trump's initial proposals
Yes:
Europe and Zelenskyy would take:
- current lines - no restrictions on armed forces - ability to enter into alliances
Russia wants
- more Ukrainan territory - Ukraine to be a puppet state
I hope Ukraine and Europe hold their nerves.
Actually, I hope Europe (and the UK) stops being reactive. It's time to announce something outrageous as the price for peace (Putin's resignation and prosecution for war crimes + all Ukrainian lands). And then it's time to take Russian assets that are frozen and use them to back up Ukraine to the hilt.
Just like the UK government and the economy you have to break the loop where all you are doing is reacting to the other party's moves and switch it round. So Ukraine needs to start affecting Russian energy exports and power generation, and Russia needs to be the one who is reacting.
Sadly, the West's politicians are either venal or weak.
Europe and Ukraine must hold their nerve.
Cede on this and it’s a total capitulation.
Writing has been on the wall ever since the GOP turned against Ukraine. No good options remain, so some variety of bad is all that is likely available.
I don't think most of the GOP in Congress is anti Ukraine? Obviously the noisiest ones are. The rest are cowards.
At some point in my lifetime, the GOP became despicable.
One might almost say deplorable.
(There were enough signs in 2016 that Trump was not a fit man to be President, for those with eyes to see. After 2021, the case was unambiguous. From that, everything else follows.)
I've been busy all day but have I got it right that some Labour MPs want to replace Starmer with one of -
1.Someone who has not been in Parliament for nearly 9 years and got 19% of the vote when he stood for leader last time (Andy Burnham). 2. A nitwit who came third when she stood for Labour leader in 2020 with 16% of the vote (Lisa Nandy). 3. Another nitwit (Lucy Powell). 4. Someone convicted of fraud a decade ago (Louise Haigh) though, ironically, she appears to be more intelligent than the others and had a better record in her short Ministerial career.
Do they think emulating the Tory party's policy of ousting leaders every year or so is a good idea? Or are they all a bunch of panicking nitwits?
None of the above are contenders now though really and nor is Burnham unless he returns as an MP. The likeliest successors to Starmer are presently Streeting, Cooper or Ed Miliband
Ed Milliband? Is that some kind of sick joke?
Very popular with the members, isn't he?
"Best Prime Minister we never had!"
Wouldn't have been worse than what transpired, no EU ref for a start, if they'd got a 2nd term, no rampant COVID corruption.
I've been busy all day but have I got it right that some Labour MPs want to replace Starmer with one of -
1.Someone who has not been in Parliament for nearly 9 years and got 19% of the vote when he stood for leader last time (Andy Burnham). 2. A nitwit who came third when she stood for Labour leader in 2020 with 16% of the vote (Lisa Nandy). 3. Another nitwit (Lucy Powell). 4. Someone convicted of fraud a decade ago (Louise Haigh) though, ironically, she appears to be more intelligent than the others and had a better record in her short Ministerial career.
Do they think emulating the Tory party's policy of ousting leaders every year or so is a good idea? Or are they all a bunch of panicking nitwits?
Unfortunately for Labour, they need a leader with competence and charisma, and they don’t have any.
Looks to me like they need to rethink the criteria for appointing PPCs.
You mean, Politics graduate, SPAD, constituency organiser isn’t the ideal career path? I’m shocked, I tell you!
As a matter of interest who on the Labour front bench came that route? No one springs to mind.
That is the route for PPCs. They don’t have the skills or ability to progress to the front bench, which is why there are so few contenders for front bench posts.
I've been busy all day but have I got it right that some Labour MPs want to replace Starmer with one of -
1.Someone who has not been in Parliament for nearly 9 years and got 19% of the vote when he stood for leader last time (Andy Burnham). 2. A nitwit who came third when she stood for Labour leader in 2020 with 16% of the vote (Lisa Nandy). 3. Another nitwit (Lucy Powell). 4. Someone convicted of fraud a decade ago (Louise Haigh) though, ironically, she appears to be more intelligent than the others and had a better record in her short Ministerial career.
Do they think emulating the Tory party's policy of ousting leaders every year or so is a good idea? Or are they all a bunch of panicking nitwits?
Unfortunately for Labour, they need a leader with competence and charisma, and they don’t have any.
Looks to me like they need to rethink the criteria for appointing PPCs.
You mean, Politics graduate, SPAD, constituency organiser isn’t the ideal career path? I’m shocked, I tell you!
As a matter of interest who on the Labour front bench came that route? No one springs to mind.
That is the route for PPCs. They don’t have the skills or ability to progress to the front bench, which is why there are so few contenders for front bench posts.
Far too little attention is paid to the fact that without China, Russia would not be able to continue fighting the war as they are. On Trump's watch they have upped their level of support.
China is officially neutral on the Russia-Ukraine war and officially wants a peace deal, unlike N Korea which has sent troops to help Russia. China just has not cut economic ties with Russia
China is increasingly supplying Russia with military equipment (much of it components, or dual use). Russia would Nig be able to compete in the drone war otherwise..
The idea that it's now in any way actually neutral, is ridiculous.
Trump sends his demand to the UK and other members of NATO, as well as the EU. He tells them that unless they back it, the US will leave NATO (which Trump has always wanted to do).
The ball is then in Europe's court.
Europe can afford to tell the US to fuck off. They can also point out to the adminisrtation that it is US arms manufacturers who would pay the highest price for the disentegration of NATO.
I don't know what Europe will do. Hungary supports Russia, of course.
Poland and the Baltics are the most hawkish.
The rest of Europe ... well, we'll see. Europe has the ability to ensure Russia's defeat. But so long have they been prepared to hide behind the US's coattails, that they do not seem willing to confront the new reality.
They also know that Trump could well impose another round of tariffs on Europe if they fail to fall into lin.
I hope that the leaders of Europe - Mertz, Macron, Starmer and Meloni - have the balls to stand up and do what is not just right, but what is long term the one with the most positive outcome. The problem is that they want to be reelected. And their economies are already creaking.
We need someone in Europe with balls and vision and strength. Will that person arise, or will Europe fold?
Europe and Canada would agree to a ceasefire on current lines as would Zelensky but not Trump's initial proposals
Yes:
Europe and Zelenskyy would take:
- current lines - no restrictions on armed forces - ability to enter into alliances
Russia wants
- more Ukrainan territory - Ukraine to be a puppet state
I hope Ukraine and Europe hold their nerves.
Actually, I hope Europe (and the UK) stops being reactive. It's time to announce something outrageous as the price for peace (Putin's resignation and prosecution for war crimes + all Ukrainian lands). And then it's time to take Russian assets that are frozen and use them to back up Ukraine to the hilt.
Just like the UK government and the economy you have to break the loop where all you are doing is reacting to the other party's moves and switch it round. So Ukraine needs to start affecting Russian energy exports and power generation, and Russia needs to be the one who is reacting.
Sadly, the West's politicians are either venal or weak.
Europe and Ukraine must hold their nerve.
Cede on this and it’s a total capitulation.
Writing has been on the wall ever since the GOP turned against Ukraine. No good options remain, so some variety of bad is all that is likely available.
Support among GOP voters for Ukraine has been rising in recent months. I don't know for sure why, but it's a marked change.
Some people have speculated that the craven attitude of Trump towards Putin at Alaska might have something to do with it. Also the Ukrainians have been working hard on right-wing US media to make their case.
Trump sends his demand to the UK and other members of NATO, as well as the EU. He tells them that unless they back it, the US will leave NATO (which Trump has always wanted to do).
The ball is then in Europe's court.
Europe can afford to tell the US to fuck off. They can also point out to the adminisrtation that it is US arms manufacturers who would pay the highest price for the disentegration of NATO.
I don't know what Europe will do. Hungary supports Russia, of course.
Poland and the Baltics are the most hawkish.
The rest of Europe ... well, we'll see. Europe has the ability to ensure Russia's defeat. But so long have they been prepared to hide behind the US's coattails, that they do not seem willing to confront the new reality.
They also know that Trump could well impose another round of tariffs on Europe if they fail to fall into lin.
I hope that the leaders of Europe - Mertz, Macron, Starmer and Meloni - have the balls to stand up and do what is not just right, but what is long term the one with the most positive outcome. The problem is that they want to be reelected. And their economies are already creaking.
We need someone in Europe with balls and vision and strength. Will that person arise, or will Europe fold?
I think we may well be close to the point where Europe will effectively sideline the USA from a funding point of view.
We are at that point. The US is now only supplying kit that is paid for.
I've been busy all day but have I got it right that some Labour MPs want to replace Starmer with one of -
1.Someone who has not been in Parliament for nearly 9 years and got 19% of the vote when he stood for leader last time (Andy Burnham). 2. A nitwit who came third when she stood for Labour leader in 2020 with 16% of the vote (Lisa Nandy). 3. Another nitwit (Lucy Powell). 4. Someone convicted of fraud a decade ago (Louise Haigh) though, ironically, she appears to be more intelligent than the others and had a better record in her short Ministerial career.
Do they think emulating the Tory party's policy of ousting leaders every year or so is a good idea? Or are they all a bunch of panicking nitwits?
Unfortunately for Labour, they need a leader with competence and charisma, and they don’t have any.
Looks to me like they need to rethink the criteria for appointing PPCs.
You mean, Politics graduate, SPAD, constituency organiser isn’t the ideal career path? I’m shocked, I tell you!
As a matter of interest who on the Labour front bench came that route? No one springs to mind.
That is the route for PPCs. They don’t have the skills or ability to progress to the front bench, which is why there are so few contenders for front bench posts.
I think journalists get lumped in as part of the lanyard 'class', even though they probably don't have them. It's a state of mind, or something.
I imagine BBC and Guardian journalists wear lanyards, and Telegraph and Mail journalists don’t.
I would expect Telegraph and Mail journalists to wear an ID badge (attached to lanyard) when they go to the office, otherwise they won't get into the building.
Doctors don't just wear lanyards, they are colour coded at least in Scotland. so you know what they have been trained to do. If someone's going to saw your leg off you should look out for a purple lanyard (consultant grade).
'Lanyard class' like a lot of similar labels, is meaningless junk.
One of the stupidest such labels is 'the elite', which really means 'people I don't like'; it's used extensively by many who themselves qualify as 'elite' by any objective measure.
A professor at Fen Poly once told me he blamed something I forget on "The establishment". A catch-all!
Whether it is true or false is another matter, but the idea of the 'establishment' is not about position as such, it's about connectedness. It's perfectly possible to be a Fen Poly prof, especially if your thing is Syriac philology or the life cycle of slime moulds and not be part of it.
Its nature is better thought of when you think of Nick Robinson or Andrew Marr (I admire both by the way) and quite few others interviewing people they know very well all day as if they are somehow strangers, think of how much gossip they pick up and don't tell their public, and reflect on who is married to and related to whom.
'Lanyard class' like a lot of similar labels, is meaningless junk.
One of the stupidest such labels is 'the elite', which really means 'people I don't like'; it's used extensively by many who themselves qualify as 'elite' by any objective measure.
The only interesting thing about lanyards is the fact that people submitted to wearing them in the first places instead of telling the organisers of the original wearing of lanywards to bugger off and think of a better way of organising things.
I've been busy all day but have I got it right that some Labour MPs want to replace Starmer with one of -
1.Someone who has not been in Parliament for nearly 9 years and got 19% of the vote when he stood for leader last time (Andy Burnham). 2. A nitwit who came third when she stood for Labour leader in 2020 with 16% of the vote (Lisa Nandy). 3. Another nitwit (Lucy Powell). 4. Someone convicted of fraud a decade ago (Louise Haigh) though, ironically, she appears to be more intelligent than the others and had a better record in her short Ministerial career.
Do they think emulating the Tory party's policy of ousting leaders every year or so is a good idea? Or are they all a bunch of panicking nitwits?
Unfortunately for Labour, they need a leader with competence and charisma, and they don’t have any.
Looks to me like they need to rethink the criteria for appointing PPCs.
You mean, Politics graduate, SPAD, constituency organiser isn’t the ideal career path? I’m shocked, I tell you!
As a matter of interest who on the Labour front bench came that route? No one springs to mind.
That is the route for PPCs. They don’t have the skills or ability to progress to the front bench, which is why there are so few contenders for front bench posts.
'Lanyard class' like a lot of similar labels, is meaningless junk.
One of the stupidest such labels is 'the elite', which really means 'people I don't like'; it's used extensively by many who themselves qualify as 'elite' by any objective measure.
The only interesting thing about lanyards is the fact that people submitted to wearing them in the first places instead of telling the organisers of the original wearing of lanywards to bugger off and think of a better way of organising things.
I've been busy all day but have I got it right that some Labour MPs want to replace Starmer with one of -
1.Someone who has not been in Parliament for nearly 9 years and got 19% of the vote when he stood for leader last time (Andy Burnham). 2. A nitwit who came third when she stood for Labour leader in 2020 with 16% of the vote (Lisa Nandy). 3. Another nitwit (Lucy Powell). 4. Someone convicted of fraud a decade ago (Louise Haigh) though, ironically, she appears to be more intelligent than the others and had a better record in her short Ministerial career.
Do they think emulating the Tory party's policy of ousting leaders every year or so is a good idea? Or are they all a bunch of panicking nitwits?
Unfortunately for Labour, they need a leader with competence and charisma, and they don’t have any.
Looks to me like they need to rethink the criteria for appointing PPCs.
You mean, Politics graduate, SPAD, constituency organiser isn’t the ideal career path? I’m shocked, I tell you!
As a matter of interest who on the Labour front bench came that route? No one springs to mind.
That is the route for PPCs. They don’t have the skills or ability to progress to the front bench, which is why there are so few contenders for front bench posts.
I think journalists get lumped in as part of the lanyard 'class', even though they probably don't have them. It's a state of mind, or something.
I imagine BBC and Guardian journalists wear lanyards, and Telegraph and Mail journalists don’t.
I would expect Telegraph and Mail journalists to wear an ID badge (attached to lanyard) when they go to the office, otherwise they won't get into the building.
Doctors don't just wear lanyards, they are colour coded at least in Scotland. so you know what they have been trained to do. If someone's going to saw your leg off you should look out for a purple lanyard (consultant grade).
I have it on good authority that lanyards are prohibited on infection control grounds. It's a clipped onto the scrubs.
'Lanyard class' like a lot of similar labels, is meaningless junk.
One of the stupidest such labels is 'the elite', which really means 'people I don't like'; it's used extensively by many who themselves qualify as 'elite' by any objective measure.
A professor at Fen Poly once told me he blamed something I forget on "The establishment". A catch-all!
Whether it is true or false is another matter, but the idea of the 'establishment' is not about position as such, it's about connectedness. It's perfectly possible to be a Fen Poly prof, especially if your thing is Syriac philology or the life cycle of slime moulds and not be part of it.
Its nature is better thought of when you think of Nick Robinson or Andrew Marr (I admire both by the way) and quite few others interviewing people they know very well all day as if they are somehow strangers, think of how much gossip they pick up and don't tell their public, and reflect on who is married to and related to whom.
At lesser institutions this is already well-established as 'interdisciplinary studies'.
'Lanyard class' like a lot of similar labels, is meaningless junk.
One of the stupidest such labels is 'the elite', which really means 'people I don't like'; it's used extensively by many who themselves qualify as 'elite' by any objective measure.
The only interesting thing about lanyards is the fact that people submitted to wearing them in the first places instead of telling the organisers of the original wearing of lanywards to bugger off and think of a better way of organising things.
It used to be that anyone could walk into a ward, even paediatric in my Trust, or an office. Number coded access isnt good enough as numbers get shared. A swipe card with photo ID and position is now used instead, which gives a record of who has access, and to where. This doubles as ID when seeing patients or other staff, important in a workplace of several thousand staff. Keeping it on a Lanyard allows swiping in and out securely without unclipping it from clothing. It is an important part of data security and Safeguarding.
Everyone wears them from CEO to domestics. There are Trust ones, but many wear more personal ones (mine from the Royal Society of Medicine conference that I went to a few years back) and it is normal to customise these with badges, some Trust awarded indicating years of service, or awards, others more personal. Poppies are common, but I have a LCFC season ticket holder one, one in support of prostate cancer, one as an advocate for Learning disabilities etc. Pretty much anything apart from political causes seems permitted.
Keith Kellogg, the most pro-Ukraine member of the Trump administration, is leaving his post in January. That's not a great sign and reflects the extent to which he's been sidelined in favour of pro-Russian Witkoff.
I've been busy all day but have I got it right that some Labour MPs want to replace Starmer with one of -
1.Someone who has not been in Parliament for nearly 9 years and got 19% of the vote when he stood for leader last time (Andy Burnham). 2. A nitwit who came third when she stood for Labour leader in 2020 with 16% of the vote (Lisa Nandy). 3. Another nitwit (Lucy Powell). 4. Someone convicted of fraud a decade ago (Louise Haigh) though, ironically, she appears to be more intelligent than the others and had a better record in her short Ministerial career.
Do they think emulating the Tory party's policy of ousting leaders every year or so is a good idea? Or are they all a bunch of panicking nitwits?
Unfortunately for Labour, they need a leader with competence and charisma, and they don’t have any.
Looks to me like they need to rethink the criteria for appointing PPCs.
You mean, Politics graduate, SPAD, constituency organiser isn’t the ideal career path? I’m shocked, I tell you!
As a matter of interest who on the Labour front bench came that route? No one springs to mind.
That is the route for PPCs. They don’t have the skills or ability to progress to the front bench, which is why there are so few contenders for front bench posts.
I think journalists get lumped in as part of the lanyard 'class', even though they probably don't have them. It's a state of mind, or something.
I imagine BBC and Guardian journalists wear lanyards, and Telegraph and Mail journalists don’t.
I would expect Telegraph and Mail journalists to wear an ID badge (attached to lanyard) when they go to the office, otherwise they won't get into the building.
Doctors don't just wear lanyards, they are colour coded at least in Scotland. so you know what they have been trained to do. If someone's going to saw your leg off you should look out for a purple lanyard (consultant grade).
I have it on good authority that lanyards are prohibited on infection control grounds. It's a clipped onto the scrubs.
Simply not true. We just tuck the lanyard into a pocket or inside the scrubs when working.
'Lanyard class' like a lot of similar labels, is meaningless junk.
One of the stupidest such labels is 'the elite', which really means 'people I don't like'; it's used extensively by many who themselves qualify as 'elite' by any objective measure.
The only interesting thing about lanyards is the fact that people submitted to wearing them in the first places instead of telling the organisers of the original wearing of lanywards to bugger off and think of a better way of organising things.
Ever actually worked anywhere? You know, a real job in the modern era? Where security is actually important? EVERYTHING from a primary school to a data centre to a bank to a baked bean factory?
And ever had a clip on a security badge rip a hole in your pullover?
I've been busy all day but have I got it right that some Labour MPs want to replace Starmer with one of -
1.Someone who has not been in Parliament for nearly 9 years and got 19% of the vote when he stood for leader last time (Andy Burnham). 2. A nitwit who came third when she stood for Labour leader in 2020 with 16% of the vote (Lisa Nandy). 3. Another nitwit (Lucy Powell). 4. Someone convicted of fraud a decade ago (Louise Haigh) though, ironically, she appears to be more intelligent than the others and had a better record in her short Ministerial career.
Do they think emulating the Tory party's policy of ousting leaders every year or so is a good idea? Or are they all a bunch of panicking nitwits?
Unfortunately for Labour, they need a leader with competence and charisma, and they don’t have any.
Looks to me like they need to rethink the criteria for appointing PPCs.
You mean, Politics graduate, SPAD, constituency organiser isn’t the ideal career path? I’m shocked, I tell you!
As a matter of interest who on the Labour front bench came that route? No one springs to mind.
That is the route for PPCs. They don’t have the skills or ability to progress to the front bench, which is why there are so few contenders for front bench posts.
Keith Kellogg, the most pro-Ukraine member of the Trump administration, is leaving his post in January. That's not a great sign and reflects the extent to which he's been sidelined in favour of pro-Russian Witkoff.
The US has stopped funding Ukraine. It's already made clear that European NATO is likely on its own in the face of a Russian attack. The Trump administration is now massively unpopular with its own electorate.
Why now should we be paying quite so much attention to what they want in Ukraine ?
Keith Kellogg, the most pro-Ukraine member of the Trump administration, is leaving his post in January. That's not a great sign and reflects the extent to which he's been sidelined in favour of pro-Russian Witkoff.
The US has stopped funding Ukraine. It's already made clear that European NATO is likely on its own in the face of a Russian attack. The Trump administration is now massively unpopular with its own electorate.
Why now should we be paying quite so much attention to what they want in Ukraine ?
And meanwhile, we're arguing about f****ing lanyards
'Lanyard class' like a lot of similar labels, is meaningless junk.
One of the stupidest such labels is 'the elite', which really means 'people I don't like'; it's used extensively by many who themselves qualify as 'elite' by any objective measure.
The only interesting thing about lanyards is the fact that people submitted to wearing them in the first places instead of telling the organisers of the original wearing of lanywards to bugger off and think of a better way of organising things.
It used to be that anyone could walk into a ward, even paediatric in my Trust, or an office. Number coded access isnt good enough as numbers get shared. A swipe card with photo ID and position is now used instead, which gives a record of who has access, and to where. This doubles as ID when seeing patients or other staff, important in a workplace of several thousand staff. Keeping it on a Lanyard allows swiping in and out securely without unclipping it from clothing. It is an important part of data security and Safeguarding.
Everyone wears them from CEO to domestics. There are Trust ones, but many wear more personal ones (mine from the Royal Society of Medicine conference that I went to a few years back) and it is normal to customise these with badges, some Trust awarded indicating years of service, or awards, others more personal. Poppies are common, but I have a LCFC season ticket holder one, one in support of prostate cancer, one as an advocate for Learning disabilities etc. Pretty much anything apart from political causes seems permitted.
Mutatis mutandis, exactly the same in my organization (with whom I still do some unpaid consultancy work/collaboration). Door control varies for different staff, mediated by the card on the lanyard. My own lanyard ended up being from the equivalent of the 50th anniversary Pinniped Conference.
And - yet again for those who don't know what lanyards are for - ever tried swiping a badge clipped to one's lapel?
Keith Kellogg, the most pro-Ukraine member of the Trump administration, is leaving his post in January. That's not a great sign and reflects the extent to which he's been sidelined in favour of pro-Russian Witkoff.
The US has stopped funding Ukraine. It's already made clear that European NATO is likely on its own in the face of a Russian attack. The Trump administration is now massively unpopular with its own electorate.
Why now should we be paying quite so much attention to what they want in Ukraine ?
Because essentially we're still reliant on them for key capabilities - satellite and other reconnaissance, Patriot interceptor missiles and other key military capabilities, support on maintaining sanctions against Russia.
The current situation is bad, but it is far from being the worst-case scenario.
'Lanyard class' like a lot of similar labels, is meaningless junk.
One of the stupidest such labels is 'the elite', which really means 'people I don't like'; it's used extensively by many who themselves qualify as 'elite' by any objective measure.
The only interesting thing about lanyards is the fact that people submitted to wearing them in the first places instead of telling the organisers of the original wearing of lanywards to bugger off and think of a better way of organising things.
It used to be that anyone could walk into a ward, even paediatric in my Trust, or an office. Number coded access isnt good enough as numbers get shared. A swipe card with photo ID and position is now used instead, which gives a record of who has access, and to where. This doubles as ID when seeing patients or other staff, important in a workplace of several thousand staff. Keeping it on a Lanyard allows swiping in and out securely without unclipping it from clothing. It is an important part of data security and Safeguarding.
Everyone wears them from CEO to domestics. There are Trust ones, but many wear more personal ones (mine from the Royal Society of Medicine conference that I went to a few years back) and it is normal to customise these with badges, some Trust awarded indicating years of service, or awards, others more personal. Poppies are common, but I have a LCFC season ticket holder one, one in support of prostate cancer, one as an advocate for Learning disabilities etc. Pretty much anything apart from political causes seems permitted.
There are two conflicting methodologies here. @Foxy's hospital allows people to chose a colour to match their interests while at @ydoethur's old school the colour denoted levels of child protection. @FF43 says in Scottish hospitals lanyard colour can be a license to amputate. All the controversy over lanyards has been about their colour, confusing issues of ideological subservience on the one hand with professional qualification on the other.
Keith Kellogg, the most pro-Ukraine member of the Trump administration, is leaving his post in January. That's not a great sign and reflects the extent to which he's been sidelined in favour of pro-Russian Witkoff.
The US has stopped funding Ukraine. It's already made clear that European NATO is likely on its own in the face of a Russian attack. The Trump administration is now massively unpopular with its own electorate.
Why now should we be paying quite so much attention to what they want in Ukraine ?
Trump sees the whole of human interaction as making deals, deals in which there is a winner and a loser.
His fundamental error is that it is impossible to make a deal to end a war without involving both parties. He sees it as a deal between him and Putin. We can see what Putin gets from such a deal, but whats in it for Ukraine, or indeed Trump?
Keith Kellogg, the most pro-Ukraine member of the Trump administration, is leaving his post in January. That's not a great sign and reflects the extent to which he's been sidelined in favour of pro-Russian Witkoff.
The US has stopped funding Ukraine. It's already made clear that European NATO is likely on its own in the face of a Russian attack. The Trump administration is now massively unpopular with its own electorate.
Why now should we be paying quite so much attention to what they want in Ukraine ?
And meanwhile, we're arguing about f****ing lanyards
Why not? I learnt in research that it's precisely the most anomalous and unexpected data that need to be probed. Something that niggled in my mind as a student is currently the subject of a research paper now I've had time to dig into it. With excellent results.
MIcroschoenophobia* is exactly the same. An [edit] totally unexpected anomaly but a gift horse when its mouth is examined, giving an insight into the psychopathology of modern politics, right up there with Krafft-Ebing.
Keith Kellogg, the most pro-Ukraine member of the Trump administration, is leaving his post in January. That's not a great sign and reflects the extent to which he's been sidelined in favour of pro-Russian Witkoff.
The US has stopped funding Ukraine. It's already made clear that European NATO is likely on its own in the face of a Russian attack. The Trump administration is now massively unpopular with its own electorate.
Why now should we be paying quite so much attention to what they want in Ukraine ?
The same Russia that cannot beat Ukraine? I don’t want to seem caomplacent but I’m fairly sure NATO-USA would be ok vs the paper tiger.
Keith Kellogg, the most pro-Ukraine member of the Trump administration, is leaving his post in January. That's not a great sign and reflects the extent to which he's been sidelined in favour of pro-Russian Witkoff.
The US has stopped funding Ukraine. It's already made clear that European NATO is likely on its own in the face of a Russian attack. The Trump administration is now massively unpopular with its own electorate.
Why now should we be paying quite so much attention to what they want in Ukraine ?
The same Russia that cannot beat Ukraine? I don’t want to seem caomplacent but I’m fairly sure NATO-USA would be ok vs the paper tiger.
Frankly, I think the Poles alone could whip the Russians.
I somewhat hope they won't as the reporting so far seems to indicate the whole thing has been a farce.
There has been an awful lot of revenge seeking from covid justice groups, and an awful lot of people trying to make out that they made no mistakes while everyone else did. I really wish the covid justice crowd had been kept away and we had had a far less adversarial approach. Sadly we seem incapable of that.
Keith Kellogg, the most pro-Ukraine member of the Trump administration, is leaving his post in January. That's not a great sign and reflects the extent to which he's been sidelined in favour of pro-Russian Witkoff.
The US has stopped funding Ukraine. It's already made clear that European NATO is likely on its own in the face of a Russian attack. The Trump administration is now massively unpopular with its own electorate.
Why now should we be paying quite so much attention to what they want in Ukraine ?
The same Russia that cannot beat Ukraine? I don’t want to seem caomplacent but I’m fairly sure NATO-USA would be ok vs the paper tiger.
What do you think would happen if Russia launched 4 dozen cruise missiles at Britain?
Keith Kellogg, the most pro-Ukraine member of the Trump administration, is leaving his post in January. That's not a great sign and reflects the extent to which he's been sidelined in favour of pro-Russian Witkoff.
The US has stopped funding Ukraine. It's already made clear that European NATO is likely on its own in the face of a Russian attack. The Trump administration is now massively unpopular with its own electorate.
Why now should we be paying quite so much attention to what they want in Ukraine ?
The same Russia that cannot beat Ukraine? I don’t want to seem caomplacent but I’m fairly sure NATO-USA would be ok vs the paper tiger.
What do you think would happen if Russia launched 4 dozen cruise missiles at Britain?
'Lanyard class' like a lot of similar labels, is meaningless junk.
One of the stupidest such labels is 'the elite', which really means 'people I don't like'; it's used extensively by many who themselves qualify as 'elite' by any objective measure.
The only interesting thing about lanyards is the fact that people submitted to wearing them in the first places instead of telling the organisers of the original wearing of lanywards to bugger off and think of a better way of organising things.
It used to be that anyone could walk into a ward, even paediatric in my Trust, or an office. Number coded access isnt good enough as numbers get shared. A swipe card with photo ID and position is now used instead, which gives a record of who has access, and to where. This doubles as ID when seeing patients or other staff, important in a workplace of several thousand staff. Keeping it on a Lanyard allows swiping in and out securely without unclipping it from clothing. It is an important part of data security and Safeguarding.
Everyone wears them from CEO to domestics. There are Trust ones, but many wear more personal ones (mine from the Royal Society of Medicine conference that I went to a few years back) and it is normal to customise these with badges, some Trust awarded indicating years of service, or awards, others more personal. Poppies are common, but I have a LCFC season ticket holder one, one in support of prostate cancer, one as an advocate for Learning disabilities etc. Pretty much anything apart from political causes seems permitted.
There are two conflicting methodologies here. @Foxy's hospital allows people to chose a colour to match their interests while at @ydoethur's old school the colour denoted levels of child protection. @FF43 says in Scottish hospitals lanyard colour can be a license to amputate. All the controversy over lanyards has been about their colour, confusing issues of ideological subservience on the one hand with professional qualification on the other.
Beg to differ. Thea controversy has been in part about wearing them at all. The Fenland prof who started it all referred specifically to the 'lanyard wearing classes' tout court and I'm not going to insult him by assuiming he couldn't write good English.
Keith Kellogg, the most pro-Ukraine member of the Trump administration, is leaving his post in January. That's not a great sign and reflects the extent to which he's been sidelined in favour of pro-Russian Witkoff.
The US has stopped funding Ukraine. It's already made clear that European NATO is likely on its own in the face of a Russian attack. The Trump administration is now massively unpopular with its own electorate.
Why now should we be paying quite so much attention to what they want in Ukraine ?
The same Russia that cannot beat Ukraine? I don’t want to seem caomplacent but I’m fairly sure NATO-USA would be ok vs the paper tiger.
What do you think would happen if Russia launched 4 dozen cruise missiles at Britain?
Keith Kellogg, the most pro-Ukraine member of the Trump administration, is leaving his post in January. That's not a great sign and reflects the extent to which he's been sidelined in favour of pro-Russian Witkoff.
The US has stopped funding Ukraine. It's already made clear that European NATO is likely on its own in the face of a Russian attack. The Trump administration is now massively unpopular with its own electorate.
Why now should we be paying quite so much attention to what they want in Ukraine ?
The same Russia that cannot beat Ukraine? I don’t want to seem caomplacent but I’m fairly sure NATO-USA would be ok vs the paper tiger.
What do you think would happen if Russia launched 4 dozen cruise missiles at Britain?
Keith Kellogg, the most pro-Ukraine member of the Trump administration, is leaving his post in January. That's not a great sign and reflects the extent to which he's been sidelined in favour of pro-Russian Witkoff.
The US has stopped funding Ukraine. It's already made clear that European NATO is likely on its own in the face of a Russian attack. The Trump administration is now massively unpopular with its own electorate.
Why now should we be paying quite so much attention to what they want in Ukraine ?
The same Russia that cannot beat Ukraine? I don’t want to seem caomplacent but I’m fairly sure NATO-USA would be ok vs the paper tiger.
Frankly, I think the Poles alone could whip the Russians.
They might be able to now.
But the Poles are stupid enough to wait as long as is needed for Russia to become stronger than they are.
Keith Kellogg, the most pro-Ukraine member of the Trump administration, is leaving his post in January. That's not a great sign and reflects the extent to which he's been sidelined in favour of pro-Russian Witkoff.
The US has stopped funding Ukraine. It's already made clear that European NATO is likely on its own in the face of a Russian attack. The Trump administration is now massively unpopular with its own electorate.
Why now should we be paying quite so much attention to what they want in Ukraine ?
The same Russia that cannot beat Ukraine? I don’t want to seem caomplacent but I’m fairly sure NATO-USA would be ok vs the paper tiger.
What do you think would happen if Russia launched 4 dozen cruise missiles at Britain?
"Hey Ripley, don't worry. Me and my squad of ultimate badasses will protect you! Check it out! Independently targeting particle beam phalanx. Vwap! Fry half a city with this puppy. We got tactical smart missiles, phased plasma pulse rifles, RPGs, we got sonic electronic ball breakers! We got nukes, we got knives, sharp sticks..."
'Lanyard class' like a lot of similar labels, is meaningless junk.
One of the stupidest such labels is 'the elite', which really means 'people I don't like'; it's used extensively by many who themselves qualify as 'elite' by any objective measure.
The only interesting thing about lanyards is the fact that people submitted to wearing them in the first places instead of telling the organisers of the original wearing of lanywards to bugger off and think of a better way of organising things.
It used to be that anyone could walk into a ward, even paediatric in my Trust, or an office. Number coded access isnt good enough as numbers get shared. A swipe card with photo ID and position is now used instead, which gives a record of who has access, and to where. This doubles as ID when seeing patients or other staff, important in a workplace of several thousand staff. Keeping it on a Lanyard allows swiping in and out securely without unclipping it from clothing. It is an important part of data security and Safeguarding.
Everyone wears them from CEO to domestics. There are Trust ones, but many wear more personal ones (mine from the Royal Society of Medicine conference that I went to a few years back) and it is normal to customise these with badges, some Trust awarded indicating years of service, or awards, others more personal. Poppies are common, but I have a LCFC season ticket holder one, one in support of prostate cancer, one as an advocate for Learning disabilities etc. Pretty much anything apart from political causes seems permitted.
There are two conflicting methodologies here. @Foxy's hospital allows people to chose a colour to match their interests while at @ydoethur's old school the colour denoted levels of child protection. @FF43 says in Scottish hospitals lanyard colour can be a license to amputate. All the controversy over lanyards has been about their colour, confusing issues of ideological subservience on the one hand with professional qualification on the other.
Beg to differ. Thea controversy has been in part about wearing them at all. The Fenland prof who started it all referred specifically to the 'lanyard wearing classes' tout court and I'm not going to insult him by assuiming he couldn't write good English.
As I pointed out, everyone in my Trust wears one, fron CEO to domestics and porters. If it is a class indicator then it is a very poor one! And lanyard badge couture seems equally participated in at all levels. The Trust gives out coloured balloon badges for recognition of expressing Trust values in the workplace. These are colour coded for each value ("We are one team" etc). Its a cheap and easy way for the Trust to recognise exceptional effort, and greatly appreciated by staff. Staff are enthusiastic about these and wear them proudly.
'Lanyard class' like a lot of similar labels, is meaningless junk.
One of the stupidest such labels is 'the elite', which really means 'people I don't like'; it's used extensively by many who themselves qualify as 'elite' by any objective measure.
The only interesting thing about lanyards is the fact that people submitted to wearing them in the first places instead of telling the organisers of the original wearing of lanywards to bugger off and think of a better way of organising things.
It used to be that anyone could walk into a ward, even paediatric in my Trust, or an office. Number coded access isnt good enough as numbers get shared. A swipe card with photo ID and position is now used instead, which gives a record of who has access, and to where. This doubles as ID when seeing patients or other staff, important in a workplace of several thousand staff. Keeping it on a Lanyard allows swiping in and out securely without unclipping it from clothing. It is an important part of data security and Safeguarding.
Everyone wears them from CEO to domestics. There are Trust ones, but many wear more personal ones (mine from the Royal Society of Medicine conference that I went to a few years back) and it is normal to customise these with badges, some Trust awarded indicating years of service, or awards, others more personal. Poppies are common, but I have a LCFC season ticket holder one, one in support of prostate cancer, one as an advocate for Learning disabilities etc. Pretty much anything apart from political causes seems permitted.
There are two conflicting methodologies here. @Foxy's hospital allows people to chose a colour to match their interests while at @ydoethur's old school the colour denoted levels of child protection. @FF43 says in Scottish hospitals lanyard colour can be a license to amputate. All the controversy over lanyards has been about their colour, confusing issues of ideological subservience on the one hand with professional qualification on the other.
Beg to differ. Thea controversy has been in part about wearing them at all. The Fenland prof who started it all referred specifically to the 'lanyard wearing classes' tout court and I'm not going to insult him by assuiming he couldn't write good English.
Perhaps we should just kick the whole thing over to @dieworkwear for a ruling, so that we can get on with our lives.
Keith Kellogg, the most pro-Ukraine member of the Trump administration, is leaving his post in January. That's not a great sign and reflects the extent to which he's been sidelined in favour of pro-Russian Witkoff.
The US has stopped funding Ukraine. It's already made clear that European NATO is likely on its own in the face of a Russian attack. The Trump administration is now massively unpopular with its own electorate.
Why now should we be paying quite so much attention to what they want in Ukraine ?
The same Russia that cannot beat Ukraine? I don’t want to seem caomplacent but I’m fairly sure NATO-USA would be ok vs the paper tiger.
What do you think would happen if Russia launched 4 dozen cruise missiles at Britain?
Russia would find itself with significantly more problems than it had before it fired the missiles.
'Lanyard class' like a lot of similar labels, is meaningless junk.
One of the stupidest such labels is 'the elite', which really means 'people I don't like'; it's used extensively by many who themselves qualify as 'elite' by any objective measure.
The only interesting thing about lanyards is the fact that people submitted to wearing them in the first places instead of telling the organisers of the original wearing of lanywards to bugger off and think of a better way of organising things.
To my recollection, lanyards started because people objected to the pins of badges damaging their clothes.
Keith Kellogg, the most pro-Ukraine member of the Trump administration, is leaving his post in January. That's not a great sign and reflects the extent to which he's been sidelined in favour of pro-Russian Witkoff.
The US has stopped funding Ukraine. It's already made clear that European NATO is likely on its own in the face of a Russian attack. The Trump administration is now massively unpopular with its own electorate.
Why now should we be paying quite so much attention to what they want in Ukraine ?
The same Russia that cannot beat Ukraine? I don’t want to seem caomplacent but I’m fairly sure NATO-USA would be ok vs the paper tiger.
Frankly, I think the Poles alone could whip the Russians.
They might be able to now.
But the Poles are stupid enough to wait as long as is needed for Russia to become stronger than they are.
'Lanyard class' like a lot of similar labels, is meaningless junk.
One of the stupidest such labels is 'the elite', which really means 'people I don't like'; it's used extensively by many who themselves qualify as 'elite' by any objective measure.
The only interesting thing about lanyards is the fact that people submitted to wearing them in the first places instead of telling the organisers of the original wearing of lanywards to bugger off and think of a better way of organising things.
To my recollection, lanyards started because people objected to the pins of badges damaging their clothes.
Pinned/clipped badges also get knocked off too easily, and cannot be used for swipe access.
Lanyards are simply a practical way to provide security and access.
'Lanyard class' like a lot of similar labels, is meaningless junk.
One of the stupidest such labels is 'the elite', which really means 'people I don't like'; it's used extensively by many who themselves qualify as 'elite' by any objective measure.
The only interesting thing about lanyards is the fact that people submitted to wearing them in the first places instead of telling the organisers of the original wearing of lanywards to bugger off and think of a better way of organising things.
It used to be that anyone could walk into a ward, even paediatric in my Trust, or an office. Number coded access isnt good enough as numbers get shared. A swipe card with photo ID and position is now used instead, which gives a record of who has access, and to where. This doubles as ID when seeing patients or other staff, important in a workplace of several thousand staff. Keeping it on a Lanyard allows swiping in and out securely without unclipping it from clothing. It is an important part of data security and Safeguarding.
Everyone wears them from CEO to domestics. There are Trust ones, but many wear more personal ones (mine from the Royal Society of Medicine conference that I went to a few years back) and it is normal to customise these with badges, some Trust awarded indicating years of service, or awards, others more personal. Poppies are common, but I have a LCFC season ticket holder one, one in support of prostate cancer, one as an advocate for Learning disabilities etc. Pretty much anything apart from political causes seems permitted.
Mutatis mutandis, exactly the same in my organization (with whom I still do some unpaid consultancy work/collaboration). Door control varies for different staff, mediated by the card on the lanyard. My own lanyard ended up being from the equivalent of the 50th anniversary Pinniped Conference.
And - yet again for those who don't know what lanyards are for - ever tried swiping a badge clipped to one's lapel?
Goldman Sachs - even way back in the late 1990s - had almost every door with access controls, so that they could (a) restrict access, and (b) know where you'd been.
Some people wore their security badge on a lanyard. I never bothered.
Keith Kellogg, the most pro-Ukraine member of the Trump administration, is leaving his post in January. That's not a great sign and reflects the extent to which he's been sidelined in favour of pro-Russian Witkoff.
The US has stopped funding Ukraine. It's already made clear that European NATO is likely on its own in the face of a Russian attack. The Trump administration is now massively unpopular with its own electorate.
Why now should we be paying quite so much attention to what they want in Ukraine ?
The same Russia that cannot beat Ukraine? I don’t want to seem caomplacent but I’m fairly sure NATO-USA would be ok vs the paper tiger.
What do you think would happen if Russia launched 4 dozen cruise missiles at Britain?
Russia would find itself with significantly more problems than it had before it fired the missiles.
Keith Kellogg, the most pro-Ukraine member of the Trump administration, is leaving his post in January. That's not a great sign and reflects the extent to which he's been sidelined in favour of pro-Russian Witkoff.
The US has stopped funding Ukraine. It's already made clear that European NATO is likely on its own in the face of a Russian attack. The Trump administration is now massively unpopular with its own electorate.
Why now should we be paying quite so much attention to what they want in Ukraine ?
The same Russia that cannot beat Ukraine? I don’t want to seem caomplacent but I’m fairly sure NATO-USA would be ok vs the paper tiger.
Frankly, I think the Poles alone could whip the Russians.
They might be able to now.
But the Poles are stupid enough to wait as long as is needed for Russia to become stronger than they are.
Keith Kellogg, the most pro-Ukraine member of the Trump administration, is leaving his post in January. That's not a great sign and reflects the extent to which he's been sidelined in favour of pro-Russian Witkoff.
The US has stopped funding Ukraine. It's already made clear that European NATO is likely on its own in the face of a Russian attack. The Trump administration is now massively unpopular with its own electorate.
Why now should we be paying quite so much attention to what they want in Ukraine ?
Trump sees the whole of human interaction as making deals, deals in which there is a winner and a loser.
His fundamental error is that it is impossible to make a deal to end a war without involving both parties. He sees it as a deal between him and Putin. We can see what Putin gets from such a deal, but whats in it for Ukraine, or indeed Trump?
If any deal is done for Trump that is proof he is a great peacemaker, the precise terms surely don't matter to him all that much.
Keith Kellogg, the most pro-Ukraine member of the Trump administration, is leaving his post in January. That's not a great sign and reflects the extent to which he's been sidelined in favour of pro-Russian Witkoff.
The US has stopped funding Ukraine. It's already made clear that European NATO is likely on its own in the face of a Russian attack. The Trump administration is now massively unpopular with its own electorate.
Why now should we be paying quite so much attention to what they want in Ukraine ?
The same Russia that cannot beat Ukraine? I don’t want to seem caomplacent but I’m fairly sure NATO-USA would be ok vs the paper tiger.
What do you think would happen if Russia launched 4 dozen cruise missiles at Britain?
They won’t because we have nukes.
Russia has nukes and they haven't used them in response to Ukraine firing cruise missiles at them.
And it was you who posited a direct conflict between Russia and NATO. What did you think that would entail?
Keith Kellogg, the most pro-Ukraine member of the Trump administration, is leaving his post in January. That's not a great sign and reflects the extent to which he's been sidelined in favour of pro-Russian Witkoff.
The US has stopped funding Ukraine. It's already made clear that European NATO is likely on its own in the face of a Russian attack. The Trump administration is now massively unpopular with its own electorate.
Why now should we be paying quite so much attention to what they want in Ukraine ?
The same Russia that cannot beat Ukraine? I don’t want to seem caomplacent but I’m fairly sure NATO-USA would be ok vs the paper tiger.
What do you think would happen if Russia launched 4 dozen cruise missiles at Britain?
They won’t because we have nukes.
Russia has nukes and they haven't used them in response to Ukraine firing cruiser missiles at them.
And it was you who posited a direct conflict between Russia and NATO. What did you think that would entail?
Oh ffs. I was suggesting that such a war would not taste place because of the weakness of the Russian forces. Under what circs do you imagine Russsia doing as you suggest? Russia wouldn’t have attacked Ukraine if Ukraine had nukes.
I haven't been following but it seems Zelenski has feet of clay.
Surely not?
If anyone seemed straight it was him. How depressing
The corruption scandal doesn't (yet?) seemed to involve him personally, but rather a number of close associates.
I interpret the actions of the Ukranian Parliament to show a robust vitality. We wouldn't see such a display of dirty linen inthe Russian Duma, or in Washington DC for that matter.
Keith Kellogg, the most pro-Ukraine member of the Trump administration, is leaving his post in January. That's not a great sign and reflects the extent to which he's been sidelined in favour of pro-Russian Witkoff.
The US has stopped funding Ukraine. It's already made clear that European NATO is likely on its own in the face of a Russian attack. The Trump administration is now massively unpopular with its own electorate.
Why now should we be paying quite so much attention to what they want in Ukraine ?
The same Russia that cannot beat Ukraine? I don’t want to seem caomplacent but I’m fairly sure NATO-USA would be ok vs the paper tiger.
What do you think would happen if Russia launched 4 dozen cruise missiles at Britain?
Russia would find itself with significantly more problems than it had before it fired the missiles.
I reckon Britain would lose at least a couple of significant infrastructure targets to such a Russian attack. Yes the RAF, with support from other European NATO air forces, would rapidly make a mess of the Russian armed forces, but the damage Britain would likely suffer would be shocking to a British population not prepared to suffer any degree of hardship and complacent about the threat that exists.
https://pure.eur.nl/en/publications/sars-cov-2-infection-causes-dopaminergic-neuron-senescence/ COVID-19 patients commonly present with signs of central nervous system and/or peripheral nervous system dysfunction. Here, we show that midbrain dopamine (DA) neurons derived from human pluripotent stem cells (hPSCs) are selectively susceptible and permissive to severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection. SARS-CoV-2 infection of DA neurons triggers an inflammatory and cellular senescence response. High-throughput screening in hPSC-derived DA neurons identified several FDA-approved drugs that can rescue the cellular senescence phenotype by preventing SARS-CoV-2 infection. We also identified the inflammatory and cellular senescence signature and low levels of SARS-CoV-2 transcripts in human substantia nigra tissue of COVID-19 patients. Furthermore, we observed reduced numbers of neuromelanin+ and tyrosine-hydroxylase (TH)+ DA neurons and fibers in a cohort of severe COVID-19 patients. Our findings demonstrate that hPSC-derived DA neurons are susceptible to SARS-CoV-2, identify candidate neuroprotective drugs for COVID-19 patients, and suggest the need for careful, long-term monitoring of neurological problems in COVID-19 patients...
Keith Kellogg, the most pro-Ukraine member of the Trump administration, is leaving his post in January. That's not a great sign and reflects the extent to which he's been sidelined in favour of pro-Russian Witkoff.
The US has stopped funding Ukraine. It's already made clear that European NATO is likely on its own in the face of a Russian attack. The Trump administration is now massively unpopular with its own electorate.
Why now should we be paying quite so much attention to what they want in Ukraine ?
The same Russia that cannot beat Ukraine? I don’t want to seem caomplacent but I’m fairly sure NATO-USA would be ok vs the paper tiger.
What do you think would happen if Russia launched 4 dozen cruise missiles at Britain?
They won’t because we have nukes.
Russia has nukes and they haven't used them in response to Ukraine firing cruise missiles at them.
And it was you who posited a direct conflict between Russia and NATO. What did you think that would entail?
Russia hasn't fired nukes because there is a serious risk the nukes don't work....
Keith Kellogg, the most pro-Ukraine member of the Trump administration, is leaving his post in January. That's not a great sign and reflects the extent to which he's been sidelined in favour of pro-Russian Witkoff.
The US has stopped funding Ukraine. It's already made clear that European NATO is likely on its own in the face of a Russian attack. The Trump administration is now massively unpopular with its own electorate.
Why now should we be paying quite so much attention to what they want in Ukraine ?
The same Russia that cannot beat Ukraine? I don’t want to seem caomplacent but I’m fairly sure NATO-USA would be ok vs the paper tiger.
What do you think would happen if Russia launched 4 dozen cruise missiles at Britain?
They won’t because we have nukes.
Russia has nukes and they haven't used them in response to Ukraine firing cruiser missiles at them.
And it was you who posited a direct conflict between Russia and NATO. What did you think that would entail?
Oh ffs. I was suggesting that such a war would not taste place because of the weakness of the Russian forces. Under what circs do you imagine Russsia doing as you suggest? Russia wouldn’t have attacked Ukraine if Ukraine had nukes.
Britain can't use its nukes because Russia also has nukes. My point is that Britain cannot attend defend itself against Russia and Russia may believe that Britain can be intimidated into not defending non-nuclear allies that border Russia, because it could impose costs on Britain that Britain isn't willing to bear.
Look at the way Europe is collectively intimidated by Russia, desperate to avoid escalation as Russia continually escalates regardless. If Russia is such a paper tiger why are we not providing Ukraine with enough support to win the war?
Keith Kellogg, the most pro-Ukraine member of the Trump administration, is leaving his post in January. That's not a great sign and reflects the extent to which he's been sidelined in favour of pro-Russian Witkoff.
The US has stopped funding Ukraine. It's already made clear that European NATO is likely on its own in the face of a Russian attack. The Trump administration is now massively unpopular with its own electorate.
Why now should we be paying quite so much attention to what they want in Ukraine ?
The same Russia that cannot beat Ukraine? I don’t want to seem caomplacent but I’m fairly sure NATO-USA would be ok vs the paper tiger.
What do you think would happen if Russia launched 4 dozen cruise missiles at Britain?
They won’t because we have nukes.
Russia has nukes and they haven't used them in response to Ukraine firing cruise missiles at them.
And it was you who posited a direct conflict between Russia and NATO. What did you think that would entail?
Russia hasn't fired nukes because there is a serious risk the nukes don't work....
Indeed.
If Russia's nukes were shown not to work there would be nothing to stop China taking everything east of the Urals.
I've been busy all day but have I got it right that some Labour MPs want to replace Starmer with one of -
1.Someone who has not been in Parliament for nearly 9 years and got 19% of the vote when he stood for leader last time (Andy Burnham). 2. A nitwit who came third when she stood for Labour leader in 2020 with 16% of the vote (Lisa Nandy). 3. Another nitwit (Lucy Powell). 4. Someone convicted of fraud a decade ago (Louise Haigh) though, ironically, she appears to be more intelligent than the others and had a better record in her short Ministerial career.
Do they think emulating the Tory party's policy of ousting leaders every year or so is a good idea? Or are they all a bunch of panicking nitwits?
Unfortunately for Labour, they need a leader with competence and charisma, and they don’t have any.
Looks to me like they need to rethink the criteria for appointing PPCs.
You mean, Politics graduate, SPAD, constituency organiser isn’t the ideal career path? I’m shocked, I tell you!
As a matter of interest who on the Labour front bench came that route? No one springs to mind.
That is the route for PPCs. They don’t have the skills or ability to progress to the front bench, which is why there are so few contenders for front bench posts.
I think journalists get lumped in as part of the lanyard 'class', even though they probably don't have them. It's a state of mind, or something.
I imagine BBC and Guardian journalists wear lanyards, and Telegraph and Mail journalists don’t.
I would expect Telegraph and Mail journalists to wear an ID badge (attached to lanyard) when they go to the office, otherwise they won't get into the building.
Doctors don't just wear lanyards, they are colour coded at least in Scotland. so you know what they have been trained to do. If someone's going to saw your leg off you should look out for a purple lanyard (consultant grade).
I have it on good authority that lanyards are prohibited on infection control grounds. It's a clipped onto the scrubs.
Simply not true. We just tuck the lanyard into a pocket or inside the scrubs when working.
Might be just NHS Fife/Lothian but pretty sure Scotland wide. Sometimes ignored though.
Cutting power bills for datacenters and loading increased prices on consumers is monumentally stupid.
About twenty years ago, South Africa said "what do we have loads of?" and thought "coal"!
They decided they would promise cheap power to people who build aluminium smelters and the like, so that they could bring industry to South Africa.
It worked, and it didn't work.
They brought some industry to South Africa, but at the expense of rolling blackouts for the population because these facilities got contracts that gave them first dibs at power.
It totally fucked up the South African economy.
At least, though, they got a few jobs out of it.
How many people do you think work in an AI datacenter? You build one where power is cheap and cooling easy, and you sign up customers from all over the world. Norway and Iceland are the obvious places. Or somewhere both sunny and with lots of gas for backup (like Texas, Arizona or Nevada).
There is literally no competitive advantage to us. There are no jobs. And it would fuck over British consumers.
It is hard to think of a stupider economic policy. Except possibly $2,000 'tariff checks' when you're running a 6% budget deficit.
Isn't Trump's $2k bribe promise something he knows he wont have to pay out as he is expecting SCOTUS to overturn his tariffs ?
Rather its something he's going to claim he would have given but for liberal lawyers stopping him.
Keith Kellogg, the most pro-Ukraine member of the Trump administration, is leaving his post in January. That's not a great sign and reflects the extent to which he's been sidelined in favour of pro-Russian Witkoff.
The US has stopped funding Ukraine. It's already made clear that European NATO is likely on its own in the face of a Russian attack. The Trump administration is now massively unpopular with its own electorate.
Why now should we be paying quite so much attention to what they want in Ukraine ?
The same Russia that cannot beat Ukraine? I don’t want to seem caomplacent but I’m fairly sure NATO-USA would be ok vs the paper tiger.
What do you think would happen if Russia launched 4 dozen cruise missiles at Britain?
They won’t because we have nukes.
Russia has nukes and they haven't used them in response to Ukraine firing cruiser missiles at them.
And it was you who posited a direct conflict between Russia and NATO. What did you think that would entail?
Oh ffs. I was suggesting that such a war would not taste place because of the weakness of the Russian forces. Under what circs do you imagine Russsia doing as you suggest? Russia wouldn’t have attacked Ukraine if Ukraine had nukes.
Britain can't use its nukes because Russia also has nukes. My point is that Britain cannot attend defend itself against Russia and Russia may believe that Britain can be intimidated into not defending non-nuclear allies that border Russia, because it could impose costs on Britain that Britain isn't willing to bear.
Look at the way Europe is collectively intimidated by Russia, desperate to avoid escalation as Russia continually escalates regardless. If Russia is such a paper tiger why are we not providing Ukraine with enough support to win the war?
Avoiding escalation is a good thing. We don’t want war. I don’t think Europe is intimidated by Russia, it’s just that it’s leader is a mad man with an army. We don’t want our troops to have to fight and possibly die. As to why we haven’t provided Ukraine with enough to win the war. I don’t know, other than money, kit, training etc. Without boots on the ground there’s not a huge amount more we can do.
Keith Kellogg, the most pro-Ukraine member of the Trump administration, is leaving his post in January. That's not a great sign and reflects the extent to which he's been sidelined in favour of pro-Russian Witkoff.
The US has stopped funding Ukraine. It's already made clear that European NATO is likely on its own in the face of a Russian attack. The Trump administration is now massively unpopular with its own electorate.
Why now should we be paying quite so much attention to what they want in Ukraine ?
The same Russia that cannot beat Ukraine? I don’t want to seem caomplacent but I’m fairly sure NATO-USA would be ok vs the paper tiger.
What do you think would happen if Russia launched 4 dozen cruise missiles at Britain?
They won’t because we have nukes.
Russia has nukes and they haven't used them in response to Ukraine firing cruise missiles at them.
And it was you who posited a direct conflict between Russia and NATO. What did you think that would entail?
Russia hasn't fired nukes because there is a serious risk the nukes don't work....
Is that a realistic assessment, or is that more along the lines of, "hur hur, those dumb Russians."
The Russians have definitely had issues with rocket development in recent years, but during the last few years we've seen them make traps developments with drones, they've modified their ballistic missiles to evade Patriots, etc, I don't see any evidence to suggest that they're incapable of maintaining their existing nuclear weapons or delivery systems.
I haven't been following but it seems Zelenski has feet of clay.
Surely not?
If anyone seemed straight it was him. How depressing
The corruption scandal doesn't (yet?) seemed to involve him personally, but rather a number of close associates.
I interpret the actions of the Ukranian Parliament to show a robust vitality. We wouldn't see such a display of dirty linen inthe Russian Duma, or in Washington DC for that matter.
Keith Kellogg, the most pro-Ukraine member of the Trump administration, is leaving his post in January. That's not a great sign and reflects the extent to which he's been sidelined in favour of pro-Russian Witkoff.
The US has stopped funding Ukraine. It's already made clear that European NATO is likely on its own in the face of a Russian attack. The Trump administration is now massively unpopular with its own electorate.
Why now should we be paying quite so much attention to what they want in Ukraine ?
The same Russia that cannot beat Ukraine? I don’t want to seem caomplacent but I’m fairly sure NATO-USA would be ok vs the paper tiger.
What do you think would happen if Russia launched 4 dozen cruise missiles at Britain?
Russia would find itself with significantly more problems than it had before it fired the missiles.
I reckon Britain would lose at least a couple of significant infrastructure targets to such a Russian attack. Yes the RAF, with support from other European NATO air forces, would rapidly make a mess of the Russian armed forces, but the damage Britain would likely suffer would be shocking to a British population not prepared to suffer any degree of hardship and complacent about the threat that exists.
What damage? You are making an awfully big assumption that Russia would be able to successfully launch a nuclear weapon.
Because that's the Kremlin's dilemma. If they had nukes that they knew worked, well... (Albeit I think nukes are a clear red line for China. The last thing they want is proliferation, and the moment that Russia lobs a nuke, then South Korea, Japan and Taiwain essentially have to get them.)
Let's leave that aside.
Even Putin probably realized by now that his nukes might not work. And that is absolutely the worst possible scenario for him. Nukes fired. But don't work.
Keith Kellogg, the most pro-Ukraine member of the Trump administration, is leaving his post in January. That's not a great sign and reflects the extent to which he's been sidelined in favour of pro-Russian Witkoff.
The US has stopped funding Ukraine. It's already made clear that European NATO is likely on its own in the face of a Russian attack. The Trump administration is now massively unpopular with its own electorate.
Why now should we be paying quite so much attention to what they want in Ukraine ?
The same Russia that cannot beat Ukraine? I don’t want to seem caomplacent but I’m fairly sure NATO-USA would be ok vs the paper tiger.
What do you think would happen if Russia launched 4 dozen cruise missiles at Britain?
They won’t because we have nukes.
Russia has nukes and they haven't used them in response to Ukraine firing cruise missiles at them.
And it was you who posited a direct conflict between Russia and NATO. What did you think that would entail?
Russia hasn't fired nukes because there is a serious risk the nukes don't work....
Is that a realistic assessment, or is that more along the lines of, "hur hur, those dumb Russians."
The Russians have definitely had issues with rocket development in recent years, but during the last few years we've seen them make traps developments with drones, they've modified their ballistic missiles to evade Patriots, etc, I don't see any evidence to suggest that they're incapable of maintaining their existing nuclear weapons or delivery systems.
It is a realistic question to ask because an essential ingredient of those nuclear weapons is tritium, which is used as part of the ignition process. Tritium is extremely valuable, and lots of it has turned up on the black market.
There's a high likelihood that it's come from Russian nuclear weapons.
Keith Kellogg, the most pro-Ukraine member of the Trump administration, is leaving his post in January. That's not a great sign and reflects the extent to which he's been sidelined in favour of pro-Russian Witkoff.
The US has stopped funding Ukraine. It's already made clear that European NATO is likely on its own in the face of a Russian attack. The Trump administration is now massively unpopular with its own electorate.
Why now should we be paying quite so much attention to what they want in Ukraine ?
The same Russia that cannot beat Ukraine? I don’t want to seem caomplacent but I’m fairly sure NATO-USA would be ok vs the paper tiger.
What do you think would happen if Russia launched 4 dozen cruise missiles at Britain?
They won’t because we have nukes.
Russia has nukes and they haven't used them in response to Ukraine firing cruiser missiles at them.
And it was you who posited a direct conflict between Russia and NATO. What did you think that would entail?
Oh ffs. I was suggesting that such a war would not taste place because of the weakness of the Russian forces. Under what circs do you imagine Russsia doing as you suggest? Russia wouldn’t have attacked Ukraine if Ukraine had nukes.
Britain can't use its nukes because Russia also has nukes. My point is that Britain cannot attend defend itself against Russia and Russia may believe that Britain can be intimidated into not defending non-nuclear allies that border Russia, because it could impose costs on Britain that Britain isn't willing to bear.
Look at the way Europe is collectively intimidated by Russia, desperate to avoid escalation as Russia continually escalates regardless. If Russia is such a paper tiger why are we not providing Ukraine with enough support to win the war?
Avoiding escalation is a good thing. We don’t want war. I don’t think Europe is intimidated by Russia, it’s just that it’s leader is a mad man with an army. We don’t want our troops to have to fight and possibly die. As to why we haven’t provided Ukraine with enough to win the war. I don’t know, other than money, kit, training etc. Without boots on the ground there’s not a huge amount more we can do.
Every step of the way we've been reluctant to provide Ukrainians with a capability because we've been scared of the Russian response. The Germans still won't provide Ukraine with Taurus missiles. Ukraine has spare drone production capacity that it doesn't have the money to use, absolutely Europe is holding back on providing support to Ukraine that it could provide.
Europe is desperate for Russia to agree to a ceasefire on current lines, but it's current post-ceasefire plan doesn't even dare to put troops east of the Dnipro. There's so much evidence of Europe being intimidated by Russia, and Russia can see this and is emboldened, and that's why they are keeping on fighting because they see us as weak and think we will fold.
And we haven't avoided escalation. We've enabled escalation because our weakness has encouraged Russia to escalate. It's been the most self-defeating policy failure.
Keith Kellogg, the most pro-Ukraine member of the Trump administration, is leaving his post in January. That's not a great sign and reflects the extent to which he's been sidelined in favour of pro-Russian Witkoff.
The US has stopped funding Ukraine. It's already made clear that European NATO is likely on its own in the face of a Russian attack. The Trump administration is now massively unpopular with its own electorate.
Why now should we be paying quite so much attention to what they want in Ukraine ?
The same Russia that cannot beat Ukraine? I don’t want to seem caomplacent but I’m fairly sure NATO-USA would be ok vs the paper tiger.
What do you think would happen if Russia launched 4 dozen cruise missiles at Britain?
Russia would find itself with significantly more problems than it had before it fired the missiles.
I reckon Britain would lose at least a couple of significant infrastructure targets to such a Russian attack. Yes the RAF, with support from other European NATO air forces, would rapidly make a mess of the Russian armed forces, but the damage Britain would likely suffer would be shocking to a British population not prepared to suffer any degree of hardship and complacent about the threat that exists.
What damage? You are making an awfully big assumption that Russia would be able to successfully launch a nuclear weapon.
Because that's the Kremlin's dilemma. If they had nukes that they knew worked, well... (Albeit I think nukes are a clear red line for China. The last thing they want is proliferation, and the moment that Russia lobs a nuke, then South Korea, Japan and Taiwain essentially have to get them.)
Let's leave that aside.
Even Putin probably realized by now that his nukes might not work. And that is absolutely the worst possible scenario for him. Nukes fired. But don't work.
I didn't say anything about nukes. I was talking about cruise missiles, like the kh-101s and similar that have wrecked Ukrainian power plants and other infrastructure.
Keith Kellogg, the most pro-Ukraine member of the Trump administration, is leaving his post in January. That's not a great sign and reflects the extent to which he's been sidelined in favour of pro-Russian Witkoff.
The US has stopped funding Ukraine. It's already made clear that European NATO is likely on its own in the face of a Russian attack. The Trump administration is now massively unpopular with its own electorate.
Why now should we be paying quite so much attention to what they want in Ukraine ?
The same Russia that cannot beat Ukraine? I don’t want to seem caomplacent but I’m fairly sure NATO-USA would be ok vs the paper tiger.
What do you think would happen if Russia launched 4 dozen cruise missiles at Britain?
Russia would find itself with significantly more problems than it had before it fired the missiles.
I reckon Britain would lose at least a couple of significant infrastructure targets to such a Russian attack. Yes the RAF, with support from other European NATO air forces, would rapidly make a mess of the Russian armed forces, but the damage Britain would likely suffer would be shocking to a British population not prepared to suffer any degree of hardship and complacent about the threat that exists.
What damage? You are making an awfully big assumption that Russia would be able to successfully launch a nuclear weapon.
Because that's the Kremlin's dilemma. If they had nukes that they knew worked, well... (Albeit I think nukes are a clear red line for China. The last thing they want is proliferation, and the moment that Russia lobs a nuke, then South Korea, Japan and Taiwain essentially have to get them.)
Let's leave that aside.
Even Putin probably realized by now that his nukes might not work. And that is absolutely the worst possible scenario for him. Nukes fired. But don't work.
I didn't say anything about nukes. I was talking about cruise missiles, like the kh-101s and similar that have wrecked Ukrainian power plants and other infrastructure.
They have. But then again they have been able to lob cruise missiles at Ukraine from just over the border.
How easy do you think it would be for Russia to load cruise missiles onto their Bears and get them close enough to Britain to lob cruise missiles?
Please, please can Starmer show some leadership and be the first to stand up publicly against Trump's proposals.
Sometimes in leadership you need to take risks. Standing up to Trump on a point of incredibly important principle is a risk of sorts, but one that exposes opponents to the stance more than it would him politically.
We cannot let Ukraine capitulate to Russian or Trumpian demands.
Keith Kellogg, the most pro-Ukraine member of the Trump administration, is leaving his post in January. That's not a great sign and reflects the extent to which he's been sidelined in favour of pro-Russian Witkoff.
The US has stopped funding Ukraine. It's already made clear that European NATO is likely on its own in the face of a Russian attack. The Trump administration is now massively unpopular with its own electorate.
Why now should we be paying quite so much attention to what they want in Ukraine ?
Trump sees the whole of human interaction as making deals, deals in which there is a winner and a loser.
His fundamental error is that it is impossible to make a deal to end a war without involving both parties. He sees it as a deal between him and Putin. We can see what Putin gets from such a deal, but whats in it for Ukraine, or indeed Trump?
Trump's problem is he can't see he's the loer. Hence he manages to bankrupt his own casino.
Keith Kellogg, the most pro-Ukraine member of the Trump administration, is leaving his post in January. That's not a great sign and reflects the extent to which he's been sidelined in favour of pro-Russian Witkoff.
The US has stopped funding Ukraine. It's already made clear that European NATO is likely on its own in the face of a Russian attack. The Trump administration is now massively unpopular with its own electorate.
Why now should we be paying quite so much attention to what they want in Ukraine ?
The same Russia that cannot beat Ukraine? I don’t want to seem caomplacent but I’m fairly sure NATO-USA would be ok vs the paper tiger.
What do you think would happen if Russia launched 4 dozen cruise missiles at Britain?
Russia would find itself with significantly more problems than it had before it fired the missiles.
I reckon Britain would lose at least a couple of significant infrastructure targets to such a Russian attack. Yes the RAF, with support from other European NATO air forces, would rapidly make a mess of the Russian armed forces, but the damage Britain would likely suffer would be shocking to a British population not prepared to suffer any degree of hardship and complacent about the threat that exists.
As long as I can post my pictures of my decaying limbs to insta - then it's fine. Follow me at @insta-limbless #wonky #cataract #burns
Re Zelenski. It's his business partner who seems to be behind it and he has now escaped to Israel. A multi million dollar fraud......
They are now demanding elections. It sounds like Zelenski is in trouble. The Americans are now proposing an unfavourable peace deal and with this going on and Zelenski weakened it strikes me they will not be in a strong positiion to resist.
Re Zelenski. It's his business partner who seems to be behind it and he has now escaped to Israel. A multi million dollar fraud......
They are now demanding elections. It sounds like Zelenski is in trouble. The Americans are now proposing an unfavourable peace deal and with this going on and Zelenski weakened it strikes me they will not be in a strong positiion to resist.
Re Zelenski. It's his business partner who seems to be behind it and he has now escaped to Israel. A multi million dollar fraud......
They are now demanding elections. It sounds like Zelenski is in trouble. The Americans are now proposing an unfavourable peace deal and with this going on and Zelenski weakened it strikes me they will not be in a strong positiion to resist.
Yes. Ukraine must admit defeat to Russia because someone defected to the side of the Jews and Donald Trump's head remains up Putin's arse.
Really now. Are someone pro-Europe I thought you'd support us having the autonomy to support Ukraine regardless of some nutjob in Florida.
Re Zelenski. It's his business partner who seems to be behind it and he has now escaped to Israel. A multi million dollar fraud......
They are now demanding elections. It sounds like Zelenski is in trouble. The Americans are now proposing an unfavourable peace deal and with this going on and Zelenski weakened it strikes me they will not be in a strong positiion to resist.
Re Zelenski. It's his business partner who seems to be behind it and he has now escaped to Israel. A multi million dollar fraud......
They are now demanding elections. It sounds like Zelenski is in trouble. The Americans are now proposing an unfavourable peace deal and with this going on and Zelenski weakened it strikes me they will not be in a strong positiion to resist.
Re Zelenski. It's his business partner who seems to be behind it and he has now escaped to Israel. A multi million dollar fraud......
They are now demanding elections. It sounds like Zelenski is in trouble. The Americans are now proposing an unfavourable peace deal and with this going on and Zelenski weakened it strikes me they will not be in a strong positiion to resist.
Zelensky won't agree to a peace deal other than on current lines of occupation and nor would the rest of NATO excluding the USA.
The nearest poll rival to Zelensky anyway in Ukranian polls is the even more hawklike and anti Putin Ukraine ambassador to the UK and former commander of the Ukranian armed forces Zaluzhnyi
Keith Kellogg, the most pro-Ukraine member of the Trump administration, is leaving his post in January. That's not a great sign and reflects the extent to which he's been sidelined in favour of pro-Russian Witkoff.
The US has stopped funding Ukraine. It's already made clear that European NATO is likely on its own in the face of a Russian attack. The Trump administration is now massively unpopular with its own electorate.
Why now should we be paying quite so much attention to what they want in Ukraine ?
The same Russia that cannot beat Ukraine? I don’t want to seem caomplacent but I’m fairly sure NATO-USA would be ok vs the paper tiger.
What do you think would happen if Russia launched 4 dozen cruise missiles at Britain?
Russia would find itself with significantly more problems than it had before it fired the missiles.
I reckon Britain would lose at least a couple of significant infrastructure targets to such a Russian attack. Yes the RAF, with support from other European NATO air forces, would rapidly make a mess of the Russian armed forces, but the damage Britain would likely suffer would be shocking to a British population not prepared to suffer any degree of hardship and complacent about the threat that exists.
What damage? You are making an awfully big assumption that Russia would be able to successfully launch a nuclear weapon.
Because that's the Kremlin's dilemma. If they had nukes that they knew worked, well... (Albeit I think nukes are a clear red line for China. The last thing they want is proliferation, and the moment that Russia lobs a nuke, then South Korea, Japan and Taiwain essentially have to get them.)
Let's leave that aside.
Even Putin probably realized by now that his nukes might not work. And that is absolutely the worst possible scenario for him. Nukes fired. But don't work.
I didn't say anything about nukes. I was talking about cruise missiles, like the kh-101s and similar that have wrecked Ukrainian power plants and other infrastructure.
They have. But then again they have been able to lob cruise missiles at Ukraine from just over the border.
How easy do you think it would be for Russia to load cruise missiles onto their Bears and get them close enough to Britain to lob cruise missiles?
The Bears are insanely slow. And completely out of position. Because the Russian military never got the hang of inflight refuelling, they have to be moved to airfields which can actually reach the UK. First.
And this is why we send a friend or two hanging off their wingtips, when they do send the occasional Bear on patrol outside the UK territorial limits. If they are carrying white ones, one of the escorts flies astern of them, and can fire in seconds. It's been a long time since they dared to parade around with missiles on the wings, IIRC.
A more possible attack would be an Oscar sub launching Shipwrecks. But that has an accuracy against surface targets measured in... lots.
And they'd have to get bloody close to the UK to try that. While wondering if a UK SSN is in their baffles.
Re Zelenski. It's his business partner who seems to be behind it and he has now escaped to Israel. A multi million dollar fraud......
They are now demanding elections. It sounds like Zelenski is in trouble. The Americans are now proposing an unfavourable peace deal and with this going on and Zelenski weakened it strikes me they will not be in a strong positiion to resist.
It's like our Saturday morning visitors did a podcast spinoff series.
Even GB News would be embarrassed by such garbage.
I've just been reading what I can find. The facts are
1. The US is proposing a peace deal which is completely unacceptable to Ukraine 2. Zelenski's popularity because of the corruption scandal is down to 20% (ref Newsnight) 3. The pressure for him to accept a deal brokered by Trump will be extreme because of 1+2
I'm not sure what Tucker Carlson or Netanyahu has to do with anything?
Keith Kellogg, the most pro-Ukraine member of the Trump administration, is leaving his post in January. That's not a great sign and reflects the extent to which he's been sidelined in favour of pro-Russian Witkoff.
The US has stopped funding Ukraine. It's already made clear that European NATO is likely on its own in the face of a Russian attack. The Trump administration is now massively unpopular with its own electorate.
Why now should we be paying quite so much attention to what they want in Ukraine ?
The same Russia that cannot beat Ukraine? I don’t want to seem caomplacent but I’m fairly sure NATO-USA would be ok vs the paper tiger.
Frankly, I think the Poles alone could whip the Russians.
They might be able to now.
But the Poles are stupid enough to wait as long as is needed for Russia to become stronger than they are.
Re Zelenski. It's his business partner who seems to be behind it and he has now escaped to Israel. A multi million dollar fraud......
They are now demanding elections. It sounds like Zelenski is in trouble. The Americans are now proposing an unfavourable peace deal and with this going on and Zelenski weakened it strikes me they will not be in a strong positiion to resist.
Re Zelenski. It's his business partner who seems to be behind it and he has now escaped to Israel. A multi million dollar fraud......
They are now demanding elections. It sounds like Zelenski is in trouble. The Americans are now proposing an unfavourable peace deal and with this going on and Zelenski weakened it strikes me they will not be in a strong positiion to resist.
It's like our Saturday morning visitors did a podcast spinoff series.
Even GB News would be embarrassed by such garbage.
I've just been reading what I can find. The facts are
1. The US is proposing a peace deal which is completely unacceptable to Ukraine 2. Zelenski's popularity because of the corruption scandal is down to 20% (ref Newsnight) 3. The pressure for him to accept a deal brokered by Trump will be extreme because of 1+2
I'm not sure what Tucker Carlson or Netanyahu has to do with anything?
I was commenting on how appalling biased the people on that video were. Things stated as facts sounded like they came out of a Moscow propaganda lab.
And even your points above are just appalling logic. Any corruption scandal will not force Zelensky to accept a deal. He can be replaced by an equally anti-Russian / puppet state leader if needed.
In any case, I'm fairly confident the US 'deal' will be canned within a week, just like the last ones.
Keith Kellogg, the most pro-Ukraine member of the Trump administration, is leaving his post in January. That's not a great sign and reflects the extent to which he's been sidelined in favour of pro-Russian Witkoff.
The US has stopped funding Ukraine. It's already made clear that European NATO is likely on its own in the face of a Russian attack. The Trump administration is now massively unpopular with its own electorate.
Why now should we be paying quite so much attention to what they want in Ukraine ?
The same Russia that cannot beat Ukraine? I don’t want to seem caomplacent but I’m fairly sure NATO-USA would be ok vs the paper tiger.
Frankly, I think the Poles alone could whip the Russians.
They might be able to now.
But the Poles are stupid enough to wait as long as is needed for Russia to become stronger than they are.
Comments
But China is intructive from another point of view. They stood up to Trump and as a consequence are now in an advantaged trading position with the US relative to Europe.
#impressed
Until we get biometric security like JP Morgan, my office will use lanyards, as Liz Truss noted banking is a bastion of leftie wokeism.
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2025/oct/10/jp-morgan-staff-told-they-must-share-biometric-data-to-access-headquarters
And I heard about how shitty some employees could be to them. The Don't Know Who I am shits.
*Actually, at uni even before enteing the workforce ...
(There were enough signs in 2016 that Trump was not a fit man to be President, for those with eyes to see. After 2021, the case was unambiguous. From that, everything else follows.)
Dr Rachel Clarke
@doctor_oxford
·
7h
Tomorrow is a hugely important day.
At 4pm, the UK Covid-19 Inquiry will publish its report into the UK’s pandemic decision-making & political governance.
I dearly hope our political leaders & decision-makers will listen, learn &, above all, act on the findings.
https://x.com/doctor_oxford
“You make it sound,like a man called Extreme is measuring Trevor Eve”
The idea that it's now in any way actually neutral, is ridiculous.
Some people have speculated that the craven attitude of Trump towards Putin at Alaska might have something to do with it. Also the Ukrainians have been working hard on right-wing US media to make their case.
The US is now only supplying kit that is paid for.
Doctors don't just wear lanyards, they are colour coded at least in Scotland. so you know what they have been trained to do. If someone's going to saw your leg off you should look out for a purple lanyard (consultant grade).
Its nature is better thought of when you think of Nick Robinson or Andrew Marr (I admire both by the way) and quite few others interviewing people they know very well all day as if they are somehow strangers, think of how much gossip they pick up and don't tell their public, and reflect on who is married to and related to whom.
Trump is conspiring with Putin to sell out Ukraine – and the security of the whole of Europe along with it.
The Prime Minister must convene the Coalition of the Willing to stop this betrayal in its tracks.
https://x.com/EdwardJDavey/status/1991216236894498915
Everyone wears them from CEO to domestics. There are Trust ones, but many wear more personal ones (mine from the Royal Society of Medicine conference that I went to a few years back) and it is normal to customise these with badges, some Trust awarded indicating years of service, or awards, others more personal. Poppies are common, but I have a LCFC season ticket holder one, one in support of prostate cancer, one as an advocate for Learning disabilities etc. Pretty much anything apart from political causes seems permitted.
And ever had a clip on a security badge rip a hole in your pullover?
You'd be bloody grateful for lanyards.
It's already made clear that European NATO is likely on its own in the face of a Russian attack.
The Trump administration is now massively unpopular with its own electorate.
Why now should we be paying quite so much attention to what they want in Ukraine ?
And - yet again for those who don't know what lanyards are for - ever tried swiping a badge clipped to one's lapel?
The current situation is bad, but it is far from being the worst-case scenario.
His fundamental error is that it is impossible to make a deal to end a war without involving both parties. He sees it as a deal between him and Putin. We can see what Putin gets from such a deal, but whats in it for Ukraine, or indeed Trump?
MIcroschoenophobia* is exactly the same. An [edit] totally unexpected anomaly but a gift horse when its mouth is examined, giving an insight into the psychopathology of modern politics, right up there with Krafft-Ebing.
*My coinage. As of now.
But the Poles are stupid enough to wait as long as is needed for Russia to become stronger than they are.
In some ways its like working in McDonalds.
https://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/articles/2025/6/3/just-in-poland-expanding-military-across-air-land-sea-report-finds
While the Russian become less modern each week. The troops attacking Pokrovsk the other week looked less well equiped than an average Saheli warlord.
Lanyards are simply a practical way to provide security and access.
Some people wore their security badge on a lanyard. I never bothered.
Surely not?
If anyone seemed straight it was him. How depressing
But what will happen over 10 or 20 or 30 years ?
Poland would be better off fighting Russia outside Kharkiv now than outside Warsaw in 2050.
And it was you who posited a direct conflict between Russia and NATO. What did you think that would entail?
I interpret the actions of the Ukranian Parliament to show a robust vitality. We wouldn't see such a display of dirty linen inthe Russian Duma, or in Washington DC for that matter.
https://www.reuters.com/world/ukrainian-parliament-sacks-justice-minister-galushchenko-2025-11-19/?link_source=ta_bluesky_link&taid=691dfd700aed890001bfc771&utm_campaign=trueanthem&utm_medium=social&utm_source=bluesky
https://pure.eur.nl/en/publications/sars-cov-2-infection-causes-dopaminergic-neuron-senescence/
COVID-19 patients commonly present with signs of central nervous system and/or peripheral nervous system dysfunction. Here, we show that midbrain dopamine (DA) neurons derived from human pluripotent stem cells (hPSCs) are selectively susceptible and permissive to severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection. SARS-CoV-2 infection of DA neurons triggers an inflammatory and cellular senescence response. High-throughput screening in hPSC-derived DA neurons identified several FDA-approved drugs that can rescue the cellular senescence phenotype by preventing SARS-CoV-2 infection. We also identified the inflammatory and cellular senescence signature and low levels of SARS-CoV-2 transcripts in human substantia nigra tissue of COVID-19 patients. Furthermore, we observed reduced numbers of neuromelanin+ and tyrosine-hydroxylase (TH)+ DA neurons and fibers in a cohort of severe COVID-19 patients. Our findings demonstrate that hPSC-derived DA neurons are susceptible to SARS-CoV-2, identify candidate neuroprotective drugs for COVID-19 patients, and suggest the need for careful, long-term monitoring of neurological problems in COVID-19 patients...
ie Parkinson's
Look at the way Europe is collectively intimidated by Russia, desperate to avoid escalation as Russia continually escalates regardless. If Russia is such a paper tiger why are we not providing Ukraine with enough support to win the war?
If Russia's nukes were shown not to work there would be nothing to stop China taking everything east of the Urals.
Rather its something he's going to claim he would have given but for liberal lawyers stopping him.
As to why we haven’t provided Ukraine with enough to win the war. I don’t know, other than money, kit, training etc. Without boots on the ground there’s not a huge amount more we can do.
The Russians have definitely had issues with rocket development in recent years, but during the last few years we've seen them make traps developments with drones, they've modified their ballistic missiles to evade Patriots, etc, I don't see any evidence to suggest that they're incapable of maintaining their existing nuclear weapons or delivery systems.
Some idiots in the West: Russia has 4 aces.
Russia: has a pair of twos
But thanks for that. I get reading....
Because that's the Kremlin's dilemma. If they had nukes that they knew worked, well... (Albeit I think nukes are a clear red line for China. The last thing they want is proliferation, and the moment that Russia lobs a nuke, then South Korea, Japan and Taiwain essentially have to get them.)
Let's leave that aside.
Even Putin probably realized by now that his nukes might not work. And that is absolutely the worst possible scenario for him. Nukes fired. But don't work.
There's a high likelihood that it's come from Russian nuclear weapons.
Europe is desperate for Russia to agree to a ceasefire on current lines, but it's current post-ceasefire plan doesn't even dare to put troops east of the Dnipro. There's so much evidence of Europe being intimidated by Russia, and Russia can see this and is emboldened, and that's why they are keeping on fighting because they see us as weak and think we will fold.
How easy do you think it would be for Russia to load cruise missiles onto their Bears and get them close enough to Britain to lob cruise missiles?
Sometimes in leadership you need to take risks. Standing up to Trump on a point of incredibly important principle is a risk of sorts, but one that exposes opponents to the stance more than it would him politically.
We cannot let Ukraine capitulate to Russian or Trumpian demands.
They are now demanding elections. It sounds like Zelenski is in trouble. The Americans are now proposing an unfavourable peace deal and with this going on and Zelenski weakened it strikes me they will not be in a strong positiion to resist.
Really now. Are someone pro-Europe I thought you'd support us having the autonomy to support Ukraine regardless of some nutjob in Florida.
Even GB News would be embarrassed by such garbage.
So he's ben watching videos on The Fucker's feed....
We are watching the Social Media Spiral in real time here.
The nearest poll rival to Zelensky anyway in Ukranian polls is the even more hawklike and anti Putin Ukraine ambassador to the UK and former commander of the Ukranian armed forces Zaluzhnyi
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_next_Ukrainian_presidential_election
https://english.nv.ua/russian-war/zaluzhnyi-warns-west-that-peace-with-russia-would-mean-capitulation-50559335.html
And this is why we send a friend or two hanging off their wingtips, when they do send the occasional Bear on patrol outside the UK territorial limits. If they are carrying white ones, one of the escorts flies astern of them, and can fire in seconds. It's been a long time since they dared to parade around with missiles on the wings, IIRC.
A more possible attack would be an Oscar sub launching Shipwrecks. But that has an accuracy against surface targets measured in... lots.
And they'd have to get bloody close to the UK to try that. While wondering if a UK SSN is in their baffles.
1. The US is proposing a peace deal which is completely unacceptable to Ukraine
2. Zelenski's popularity because of the corruption scandal is down to 20% (ref Newsnight)
3. The pressure for him to accept a deal brokered by Trump will be extreme because of 1+2
I'm not sure what Tucker Carlson or Netanyahu has to do with anything?
And neither of them stand for the British people's values on standing up against expansionist, authoritarian dictators in Europe.
And even your points above are just appalling logic. Any corruption scandal will not force Zelensky to accept a deal. He can be replaced by an equally anti-Russian / puppet state leader if needed.
In any case, I'm fairly confident the US 'deal' will be canned within a week, just like the last ones.