Interesting report in the FT on the US Tomahawk strikes
The US military said in its initial assessment that “multiple” Isis members had been killed in the strikes on extremist “camps”.
"However, residents of Jabo professed surprise at the strikes, saying the bombs had landed in empty fields, causing no casualties, and that Jabo had been relatively shielded from violence. The last attack by militants had occurred two years ago, they said. Video footage on Nigerian television showed pieces of burnt metal in what looked like farmland.
One man told Arise News, a local television station: “Glory be to God, there was no loss of life.”"
The reality of the Ukraine War is that the front lines have not moved very much in the last 18 months, and both Ukraine and Russia have lost enormous quantities of men and materiel. Russia has captures a small amount of territory - like the front lines have moved 15 miles or so, in some parts of the line. But they've also endured 4 or 5x the casualties Ukraine has, because they're attacking.
Russia continues to hope that one last push will see the Ukrainian lines collapse.
Ukraine keeps hoping Putin gets bumped off, or that the Russian economy collapses and that they lack the ability to continue offensive operations.
Ukraine is essentially obligated to say they want a cease fire, because failure to toe the line on that point risks Starlink being turned off, which would be a disaster for the Ukrainian war effort.
Putin believes Russia is closer to breakthrough than they are, because no one is telling him the truth.
The war will continue - imho - until either Ukraine's backers decide that they cannot afford to support the war (something likely precipitated by their allies gaining power in European capitals); or until the stresses on the Russian economy become intolerable, and Putin decides that what he has is enough to sell as a victory. (With more than a million people dead or invalided out, that will require quite a sales job.)
Bear in mind, of course, that the invasion is usually the easy part. Russia will have a long and expensive issue ruling over a bunch of people who would rather be part of the country next door. And occupation is usually economically ruinous.
To some extent both sides are hoping for a political wildcard to intervene in their favour, and Putin is probably most likely to be disappointed in that regard because even if Le Pen/Farage/AfD were elected in Western Europe, I don't think it would change the facts on the ground very much.
The change since August has been the use of domestically manufactured Ukrainian long-range drones destroying the Russian hydrocarbons secotr and more recently electricity generation/domestic heating capacity. These don't require international consent. Pretty much all capacity west of the Urals is now in range.
The next step-change will be when Ukraine gets the guidance system on the Flamingo missiles implemented. That could be any time now. They are stockpiling them until the change is implemented. When they fly, Russia could lose another 30% of its hydrocarbons - and hence its ability to fund the war - overnight.
The bottleneck on Flamingos is surely engines. They can rustle up some AI25s by stripping their L-139 fleet (which has zero other utility in the SMO) but then what?
Aside from finding them round the world (quite a few exported), Ukraine was/is the builder of jet engines for “Russian” cruise missiles, pre-war…
Interesting report in the FT on the US Tomahawk strikes
The US military said in its initial assessment that “multiple” Isis members had been killed in the strikes on extremist “camps”.
"However, residents of Jabo professed surprise at the strikes, saying the bombs had landed in empty fields, causing no casualties, and that Jabo had been relatively shielded from violence. The last attack by militants had occurred two years ago, they said. Video footage on Nigerian television showed pieces of burnt metal in what looked like farmland.
One man told Arise News, a local television station: “Glory be to God, there was no loss of life.”"
I'm a little baffled about the decisions made by the people people who went for a dip. I'm very occasionally a sea swimmer, but never in anything like rough conditions.
The fatalities were at Budleigh Salterton, where conditions were - according to the BBC report - 10ft+ breaking waves, and the worst conditions for decades. The organiser of the local sea swimming group decided not to go in. And one account:
Mike Brown, 60, who has lived in Budleigh Salterton for nearly 30 years, said the sea conditions on Thursday were the "worst conditions" he had ever seen.
After entering the sea and being "unable to get out", Mr Brown said he only made it out with the help of "two very brave men" and sustained small injuries.
He said: "After successive waves crashing me into the stones, I managed to get into relatively shallow water, but I was spent.
"I had no energy left to stand and I'd taken a number of blows to the head.
People make poor choices. Perhaps the Christmas swim is one of their big things? Don’t want to miss it and it will be in and out in minutes. Like hillwalking/climbing you can escalate from poor choices to emergencies pretty quickly.
One ought, in my view, occasionally do things that can kill you if they go wrong.
Thousands of people will have swum in pretty atrocious conditions on Christmas Day. Most will not have had any idea how dangerous their choices were. All but two will have added to their Christmas cheer with a rather boorish tale to be shared in the ad break for the obligatory Christmas film later in the day.
A utilitarian would probably argue the two deaths were worth it, in the grand scheme of things.
I'd certainly argue the world would be a worse place if we didn't have people willing to dive into waves that could kill them.
And we don't see the same sort of pearl-clutching about the vast quantities of food and alcohol people have consumed over the last few days, despite the thousands of lives lost and billions in costs incurred from such behaviour.
On Christmas day, about 450 people died from heart disease, 200 from smoking, 60 from alcohol, 100 from diabetes (using annual figures/365). 100s more will have been prevented by people keeping fit and doing mad stuff like sea swimming and mountaineering.
The reality of the Ukraine War is that the front lines have not moved very much in the last 18 months, and both Ukraine and Russia have lost enormous quantities of men and materiel. Russia has captures a small amount of territory - like the front lines have moved 15 miles or so, in some parts of the line. But they've also endured 4 or 5x the casualties Ukraine has, because they're attacking.
Russia continues to hope that one last push will see the Ukrainian lines collapse.
Ukraine keeps hoping Putin gets bumped off, or that the Russian economy collapses and that they lack the ability to continue offensive operations.
Ukraine is essentially obligated to say they want a cease fire, because failure to toe the line on that point risks Starlink being turned off, which would be a disaster for the Ukrainian war effort.
Putin believes Russia is closer to breakthrough than they are, because no one is telling him the truth.
The war will continue - imho - until either Ukraine's backers decide that they cannot afford to support the war (something likely precipitated by their allies gaining power in European capitals); or until the stresses on the Russian economy become intolerable, and Putin decides that what he has is enough to sell as a victory. (With more than a million people dead or invalided out, that will require quite a sales job.)
Bear in mind, of course, that the invasion is usually the easy part. Russia will have a long and expensive issue ruling over a bunch of people who would rather be part of the country next door. And occupation is usually economically ruinous.
To some extent both sides are hoping for a political wildcard to intervene in their favour, and Putin is probably most likely to be disappointed in that regard because even if Le Pen/Farage/AfD were elected in Western Europe, I don't think it would change the facts on the ground very much.
The change since August has been the use of domestically manufactured Ukrainian long-range drones destroying the Russian hydrocarbons secotr and more recently electricity generation/domestic heating capacity. These don't require international consent. Pretty much all capacity west of the Urals is now in range.
The next step-change will be when Ukraine gets the guidance system on the Flamingo missiles implemented. That could be any time now. They are stockpiling them until the change is implemented. When they fly, Russia could lose another 30% of its hydrocarbons - and hence its ability to fund the war - overnight.
The bottleneck on Flamingos is surely engines. They can rustle up some AI25s by stripping their L-139 fleet (which has zero other utility in the SMO) but then what?
I've read that Ukraine has been sourcing the engines from far and wide. The problem is the guidance system. Too many holes left in fields from the early batch. So they know what needs changing - and it is being done.
Has Ukraine won yet as you were predicting as early as 2023?
Yep they’re winning.
50,000 dead Russians to not take Kupyansk, and 100,000 dead Russians to not take Pokrovsk.
Slava Ukraini 🇺🇦
The only nations "winning" the SMO are the USA and China. Ukraine is a bankrupt ruin in political crisis. Russia and the EU are diminished. The UK are irrelevant, just rowing in on whatever the EU position is without any voice in shaping it.
Barring Ukraine running out of other people's money or the Farage of Kiev being toppled, the SMO will probably continue on its current trajectory for a while yet. Incremental, bloody gains by Russia and occasional PIRA style spectaculars by Ukraine. It'll all be over by next Christmas.
I've long argued the current situation suits a lot of the players including Putin and Zelensky as it legitimises both of them in power.
The Russians, Ukrainians and others doing the fighting and dying are the losers but no one worries about them.
The entire defence industry, from analysts to manufacturers, has done very well out of this war. It has pushed itself up the political agenda and persuaded western Governments Russia is a military colossus equivalent to the Warsaw Pact (it can't even reach Kharkiv) and more public funds have to be thrown at defence meaning more weapons to be manufactured and sold and more defence analysts appearing on talk shows telling us what a threat Russia is and if you don't accept the argument they are a conventional military threat, the argument shifts to cyber warfare and how they could shut down the Internet.
The defence industry is also learning about how wars are fought in the first quarter of the 21st century, the power of drones to strike far beyond the frontlines, the vulnerability of armour etc, etc. That will shape defence strategies and scenarios for decades to come.
The arms manufacturers, whether State owned or private, have also done well with demand for their products, funding for R&D and Government approval - the last thing any of them want is peace.
I think this is very unfair on Zelensky and the many people in Europe and across the world who are thinking about the Ukrainians fighting to defend their freedom.
The threat to Europe is that if we let Russia win in Ukraine we'll have to fight the next war against Russia and Ukraine combined.
This is a war where the rights and wrongs are clear-cut.
Not only does Russia have no casus belli, the conduct of its soldiers is considerably worse than that of the Ukrainians.
Well quite.
War is always horrible, but this particular one as as clear-cut as they come between the good side and the bad side. Ukraine didn’t ask for war, and has conducted itself as well as can be expected under the circumstances. The Russians, to put it bluntly, have most definitely not.
Sadly I think there’s little prospect of it ending soon, despite the efforts of various negotiating teams, as Russia isn’t going to stop until their hand is forced by either an economic collapse or an inability to recruit more men for the meat grinder. I think it continues for most of next year, and the key country, as it always has been in this conflict, is China. Xi can pull support for Russia and the war ends pretty much overnight, but the Chinese think long term and likely have their eye on economically occupying huge swathes of Eastern Russia as the price for their support.
There are some awful economic numbers coming out of Russia at the moment, and curiously Russia seems to be cutting government spending in preference to increasing borrowing.
I think there's just a chance that Putin is preparing to call a truce, but that he's pushing things as far as he can to get as much as possible out of the agreement.
If you were wanting to deepen the divisions within the West I think a temporary truce could be advantageous. Trump will be keen to drop sanctions and to unfreeze Russian assets to skim off his percent. Meanwhile there will be divisions in Europe between those countries breathing a sigh of relief and wanting to forget about it all, and those still feeling some urgency to prepare for when Russia has another go.
And, ironically but tragically, Ukraine will be the moral victor but Russia will keep its captured territory and probably more, making it the actual victor, albeit at great cost.
Actual the moral victory is important.
And any broader strategic reckoning can’t just look at territory. The cost in blood, the economic dislocation, and the lapse into wholesale dependency on China must be accounted for.
I think one key diagnostic is that it is Russia that is in control of whether the fighting stops. Ukraine agreed to a ceasefire - with no conditions - back in March, and the fighting continues nine months later.
If Putin genuinely declared a ceasefire then the fighting stops tomorrow.
It's an uncomfortable lesson, but I think it demonstrates that Russia has the upper hand. And this is because Ukraine has not been provided with sufficient assistance to turn the tide.
It is dangerous to deceive ourselves that Russia has "really" lost.
I disagree - for a ceasefire both sides need to stop fighting. Just being the last to stop doesn’t make you the victor.
Otherwise the black knights who said Ni would be declared the winners…
I didn't say it meant they had won, merely that they hadn't lost.
If Ukraine had the upper hand it wouldn't be so desperate for a ceasefire.
Ukraine lost this war about 18 months ago..most of the Western media and the posters on here just didn't realise it..🧐😚
The people who are impressed by Russia’s military performance are those who believe that war is an affair of hard stares, and harder words; flexing muscles, hairy-chested manliness, and The Spartan Way; officers dishing out violence to soldiers, and soldiers to civilians, in turn.
I'm a little baffled about the decisions made by the people people who went for a dip. I'm very occasionally a sea swimmer, but never in anything like rough conditions.
The fatalities were at Budleigh Salterton, where conditions were - according to the BBC report - 10ft+ breaking waves, and the worst conditions for decades. The organiser of the local sea swimming group decided not to go in. And one account:
Mike Brown, 60, who has lived in Budleigh Salterton for nearly 30 years, said the sea conditions on Thursday were the "worst conditions" he had ever seen.
After entering the sea and being "unable to get out", Mr Brown said he only made it out with the help of "two very brave men" and sustained small injuries.
He said: "After successive waves crashing me into the stones, I managed to get into relatively shallow water, but I was spent.
"I had no energy left to stand and I'd taken a number of blows to the head.
People make poor choices. Perhaps the Christmas swim is one of their big things? Don’t want to miss it and it will be in and out in minutes. Like hillwalking/climbing you can escalate from poor choices to emergencies pretty quickly.
One ought, in my view, occasionally do things that can kill you if they go wrong.
Thousands of people will have swum in pretty atrocious conditions on Christmas Day. Most will not have had any idea how dangerous their choices were. All but two will have added to their Christmas cheer with a rather boorish tale to be shared in the ad break for the obligatory Christmas film later in the day.
A utilitarian would probably argue the two deaths were worth it, in the grand scheme of things.
I'd certainly argue the world would be a worse place if we didn't have people willing to dive into waves that could kill them.
And we don't see the same sort of pearl-clutching about the vast quantities of food and alcohol people have consumed over the last few days, despite the thousands of lives lost and billions in costs incurred from such behaviour.
On Christmas day, about 450 people died from heart disease, 200 from smoking, 60 from alcohol, 100 from diabetes (using annual figures/365). 100s more will have been prevented by people keeping fit and doing mad stuff like sea swimming and mountaineering.
35 people died on waiting lists in Scotland pretty much every day since September waiting for treatment. It is a shocking figure. Certainly, looking at retirement needs, money for private health care when required has moved from a nice to have to essential.
The reality of the Ukraine War is that the front lines have not moved very much in the last 18 months, and both Ukraine and Russia have lost enormous quantities of men and materiel. Russia has captures a small amount of territory - like the front lines have moved 15 miles or so, in some parts of the line. But they've also endured 4 or 5x the casualties Ukraine has, because they're attacking.
Russia continues to hope that one last push will see the Ukrainian lines collapse.
Ukraine keeps hoping Putin gets bumped off, or that the Russian economy collapses and that they lack the ability to continue offensive operations.
Ukraine is essentially obligated to say they want a cease fire, because failure to toe the line on that point risks Starlink being turned off, which would be a disaster for the Ukrainian war effort.
Putin believes Russia is closer to breakthrough than they are, because no one is telling him the truth.
The war will continue - imho - until either Ukraine's backers decide that they cannot afford to support the war (something likely precipitated by their allies gaining power in European capitals); or until the stresses on the Russian economy become intolerable, and Putin decides that what he has is enough to sell as a victory. (With more than a million people dead or invalided out, that will require quite a sales job.)
Bear in mind, of course, that the invasion is usually the easy part. Russia will have a long and expensive issue ruling over a bunch of people who would rather be part of the country next door. And occupation is usually economically ruinous.
To some extent both sides are hoping for a political wildcard to intervene in their favour, and Putin is probably most likely to be disappointed in that regard because even if Le Pen/Farage/AfD were elected in Western Europe, I don't think it would change the facts on the ground very much.
The change since August has been the use of domestically manufactured Ukrainian long-range drones destroying the Russian hydrocarbons secotr and more recently electricity generation/domestic heating capacity. These don't require international consent. Pretty much all capacity west of the Urals is now in range.
The next step-change will be when Ukraine gets the guidance system on the Flamingo missiles implemented. That could be any time now. They are stockpiling them until the change is implemented. When they fly, Russia could lose another 30% of its hydrocarbons - and hence its ability to fund the war - overnight.
The bottleneck on Flamingos is surely engines. They can rustle up some AI25s by stripping their L-139 fleet (which has zero other utility in the SMO) but then what?
I've read that Ukraine has been sourcing the engines from far and wide. The problem is the guidance system. Too many holes left in fields from the early batch. So they know what needs changing - and it is being done.
I would be surprised if the problem is the actual guidance system. INS updated by satellite navigation is a solved problem for advanced amateurs.
More likely to be the guidance-control loop - the missile knows where it is supposed to go, but can’t quite get the manoeuvres right.
I'm a little baffled about the decisions made by the people people who went for a dip. I'm very occasionally a sea swimmer, but never in anything like rough conditions.
The fatalities were at Budleigh Salterton, where conditions were - according to the BBC report - 10ft+ breaking waves, and the worst conditions for decades. The organiser of the local sea swimming group decided not to go in. And one account:
Mike Brown, 60, who has lived in Budleigh Salterton for nearly 30 years, said the sea conditions on Thursday were the "worst conditions" he had ever seen.
After entering the sea and being "unable to get out", Mr Brown said he only made it out with the help of "two very brave men" and sustained small injuries.
He said: "After successive waves crashing me into the stones, I managed to get into relatively shallow water, but I was spent.
"I had no energy left to stand and I'd taken a number of blows to the head.
People make poor choices. Perhaps the Christmas swim is one of their big things? Don’t want to miss it and it will be in and out in minutes. Like hillwalking/climbing you can escalate from poor choices to emergencies pretty quickly.
One ought, in my view, occasionally do things that can kill you if they go wrong.
Thousands of people will have swum in pretty atrocious conditions on Christmas Day. Most will not have had any idea how dangerous their choices were. All but two will have added to their Christmas cheer with a rather boorish tale to be shared in the ad break for the obligatory Christmas film later in the day.
A utilitarian would probably argue the two deaths were worth it, in the grand scheme of things.
I'd certainly argue the world would be a worse place if we didn't have people willing to dive into waves that could kill them.
And we don't see the same sort of pearl-clutching about the vast quantities of food and alcohol people have consumed over the last few days, despite the thousands of lives lost and billions in costs incurred from such behaviour.
On Christmas day, about 450 people died from heart disease, 200 from smoking, 60 from alcohol, 100 from diabetes (using annual figures/365). 100s more will have been prevented by people keeping fit and doing mad stuff like sea swimming and mountaineering.
35 people died on waiting lists in Scotland pretty much every day since September waiting for treatment. It is a shocking figure. Certainly, looking at retirement needs, money for private health care when required has moved from a nice to have to essential.
It wouldn't if we had a vaguely healthy population. Anyway, back to the port.
Changing the subject to tourism: The US Department of Homeland Security is now offering $3,000 and plane fare home to "illegals" who choose to "self deport". This new policy offers, possibly, some interesting possibilities for "adventure" tourists. (This replaces their similar, but smaller, offer of a thousand dollars and fare home.)
Let me make it clear that I am not recommending anyone take advantage of this offer. Especially coming from this administration.
But I did want to tell you about this policy, thinking it might have a flaw or two in it.
I'm a little baffled about the decisions made by the people people who went for a dip. I'm very occasionally a sea swimmer, but never in anything like rough conditions.
The fatalities were at Budleigh Salterton, where conditions were - according to the BBC report - 10ft+ breaking waves, and the worst conditions for decades. The organiser of the local sea swimming group decided not to go in. And one account:
Mike Brown, 60, who has lived in Budleigh Salterton for nearly 30 years, said the sea conditions on Thursday were the "worst conditions" he had ever seen.
After entering the sea and being "unable to get out", Mr Brown said he only made it out with the help of "two very brave men" and sustained small injuries.
He said: "After successive waves crashing me into the stones, I managed to get into relatively shallow water, but I was spent.
"I had no energy left to stand and I'd taken a number of blows to the head.
People make poor choices. Perhaps the Christmas swim is one of their big things? Don’t want to miss it and it will be in and out in minutes. Like hillwalking/climbing you can escalate from poor choices to emergencies pretty quickly.
One ought, in my view, occasionally do things that can kill you if they go wrong.
Thousands of people will have swum in pretty atrocious conditions on Christmas Day. Most will not have had any idea how dangerous their choices were. All but two will have added to their Christmas cheer with a rather boorish tale to be shared in the ad break for the obligatory Christmas film later in the day.
A utilitarian would probably argue the two deaths were worth it, in the grand scheme of things.
I'd certainly argue the world would be a worse place if we didn't have people willing to dive into waves that could kill them.
And we don't see the same sort of pearl-clutching about the vast quantities of food and alcohol people have consumed over the last few days, despite the thousands of lives lost and billions in costs incurred from such behaviour.
On Christmas day, about 450 people died from heart disease, 200 from smoking, 60 from alcohol, 100 from diabetes (using annual figures/365). 100s more will have been prevented by people keeping fit and doing mad stuff like sea swimming and mountaineering.
35 people died on waiting lists in Scotland pretty much every day since September waiting for treatment. It is a shocking figure. Certainly, looking at retirement needs, money for private health care when required has moved from a nice to have to essential.
It wouldn't if we had a vaguely healthy population. Anyway, back to the port.
And the cheese I trust.
But my wife and I are keen walkers and it is really noticeable how many people are now out walking or even running when we go out. Massively more than there was pre-Covid. I think the message that you really have to look after your own health has some traction, at least with certain proportions of the population.
I'm a little baffled about the decisions made by the people people who went for a dip. I'm very occasionally a sea swimmer, but never in anything like rough conditions.
The fatalities were at Budleigh Salterton, where conditions were - according to the BBC report - 10ft+ breaking waves, and the worst conditions for decades. The organiser of the local sea swimming group decided not to go in. And one account:
Mike Brown, 60, who has lived in Budleigh Salterton for nearly 30 years, said the sea conditions on Thursday were the "worst conditions" he had ever seen.
After entering the sea and being "unable to get out", Mr Brown said he only made it out with the help of "two very brave men" and sustained small injuries.
He said: "After successive waves crashing me into the stones, I managed to get into relatively shallow water, but I was spent.
"I had no energy left to stand and I'd taken a number of blows to the head.
People make poor choices. Perhaps the Christmas swim is one of their big things? Don’t want to miss it and it will be in and out in minutes. Like hillwalking/climbing you can escalate from poor choices to emergencies pretty quickly.
One ought, in my view, occasionally do things that can kill you if they go wrong.
Thousands of people will have swum in pretty atrocious conditions on Christmas Day. Most will not have had any idea how dangerous their choices were. All but two will have added to their Christmas cheer with a rather boorish tale to be shared in the ad break for the obligatory Christmas film later in the day.
A utilitarian would probably argue the two deaths were worth it, in the grand scheme of things.
I'd certainly argue the world would be a worse place if we didn't have people willing to dive into waves that could kill them.
And we don't see the same sort of pearl-clutching about the vast quantities of food and alcohol people have consumed over the last few days, despite the thousands of lives lost and billions in costs incurred from such behaviour.
On Christmas day, about 450 people died from heart disease, 200 from smoking, 60 from alcohol, 100 from diabetes (using annual figures/365). 100s more will have been prevented by people keeping fit and doing mad stuff like sea swimming and mountaineering.
35 people died on waiting lists in Scotland pretty much every day since September waiting for treatment. It is a shocking figure. Certainly, looking at retirement needs, money for private health care when required has moved from a nice to have to essential.
Is that dying of what they are on the waiting list for, or for example having a heart attack while waiting for a hip replacement?
Waiting lists are used as a way of rationing scarce resources, but rather like waiting lists for a trial date carries problems in its wake.
The reality of the Ukraine War is that the front lines have not moved very much in the last 18 months, and both Ukraine and Russia have lost enormous quantities of men and materiel. Russia has captures a small amount of territory - like the front lines have moved 15 miles or so, in some parts of the line. But they've also endured 4 or 5x the casualties Ukraine has, because they're attacking.
Russia continues to hope that one last push will see the Ukrainian lines collapse.
Ukraine keeps hoping Putin gets bumped off, or that the Russian economy collapses and that they lack the ability to continue offensive operations.
Ukraine is essentially obligated to say they want a cease fire, because failure to toe the line on that point risks Starlink being turned off, which would be a disaster for the Ukrainian war effort.
Putin believes Russia is closer to breakthrough than they are, because no one is telling him the truth.
The war will continue - imho - until either Ukraine's backers decide that they cannot afford to support the war (something likely precipitated by their allies gaining power in European capitals); or until the stresses on the Russian economy become intolerable, and Putin decides that what he has is enough to sell as a victory. (With more than a million people dead or invalided out, that will require quite a sales job.)
Bear in mind, of course, that the invasion is usually the easy part. Russia will have a long and expensive issue ruling over a bunch of people who would rather be part of the country next door. And occupation is usually economically ruinous.
To some extent both sides are hoping for a political wildcard to intervene in their favour, and Putin is probably most likely to be disappointed in that regard because even if Le Pen/Farage/AfD were elected in Western Europe, I don't think it would change the facts on the ground very much.
The change since August has been the use of domestically manufactured Ukrainian long-range drones destroying the Russian hydrocarbons secotr and more recently electricity generation/domestic heating capacity. These don't require international consent. Pretty much all capacity west of the Urals is now in range.
The next step-change will be when Ukraine gets the guidance system on the Flamingo missiles implemented. That could be any time now. They are stockpiling them until the change is implemented. When they fly, Russia could lose another 30% of its hydrocarbons - and hence its ability to fund the war - overnight.
The bottleneck on Flamingos is surely engines. They can rustle up some AI25s by stripping their L-139 fleet (which has zero other utility in the SMO) but then what?
I've read that Ukraine has been sourcing the engines from far and wide. The problem is the guidance system. Too many holes left in fields from the early batch. So they know what needs changing - and it is being done.
One other problem is that the much-ridiculed Russian air defence systems have been learning from experience in the war and are now much improved. Apparently about half of Storm Shadows used are now shot down.
This is knowledge the Chinese will be benefiting from as well.
I'm not sure that improvements to our best weapons are being made at the same pace.
The Mad King posted 200 times on Christmas day, incoherent rants.
Ukraine's best hope is that he is permanently incapacitated.
Is it ? Vance is even more anti-Ukraine than is Trump. Ukraine's best hope is the rest of Europe - it hasn't been the US which is funding Ukraine's defence for quite some time now.
I'm a little baffled about the decisions made by the people people who went for a dip. I'm very occasionally a sea swimmer, but never in anything like rough conditions.
The fatalities were at Budleigh Salterton, where conditions were - according to the BBC report - 10ft+ breaking waves, and the worst conditions for decades. The organiser of the local sea swimming group decided not to go in. And one account:
Mike Brown, 60, who has lived in Budleigh Salterton for nearly 30 years, said the sea conditions on Thursday were the "worst conditions" he had ever seen.
After entering the sea and being "unable to get out", Mr Brown said he only made it out with the help of "two very brave men" and sustained small injuries.
He said: "After successive waves crashing me into the stones, I managed to get into relatively shallow water, but I was spent.
"I had no energy left to stand and I'd taken a number of blows to the head.
People make poor choices. Perhaps the Christmas swim is one of their big things? Don’t want to miss it and it will be in and out in minutes. Like hillwalking/climbing you can escalate from poor choices to emergencies pretty quickly.
One ought, in my view, occasionally do things that can kill you if they go wrong.
Thousands of people will have swum in pretty atrocious conditions on Christmas Day. Most will not have had any idea how dangerous their choices were. All but two will have added to their Christmas cheer with a rather boorish tale to be shared in the ad break for the obligatory Christmas film later in the day.
A utilitarian would probably argue the two deaths were worth it, in the grand scheme of things.
I'd certainly argue the world would be a worse place if we didn't have people willing to dive into waves that could kill them.
And we don't see the same sort of pearl-clutching about the vast quantities of food and alcohol people have consumed over the last few days, despite the thousands of lives lost and billions in costs incurred from such behaviour.
On Christmas day, about 450 people died from heart disease, 200 from smoking, 60 from alcohol, 100 from diabetes (using annual figures/365). 100s more will have been prevented by people keeping fit and doing mad stuff like sea swimming and mountaineering.
35 people died on waiting lists in Scotland pretty much every day since September waiting for treatment. It is a shocking figure. Certainly, looking at retirement needs, money for private health care when required has moved from a nice to have to essential.
It wouldn't if we had a vaguely healthy population. Anyway, back to the port.
And the cheese I trust.
But my wife and I are keen walkers and it is really noticeable how many people are now out walking or even running when we go out. Massively more than there was pre-Covid. I think the message that you really have to look after your own health has some traction, at least with certain proportions of the population.
Oddly enough, I think this is going to be a big problem for the NHS going forward. Poor health is a strong inverse correlation with paying taxes, so the people paying the tax to support the NHS are the least likely to use it. That's fine as long as maternity services and emergency care is prompt and of a high quality, but... they aren't.
The reality of the Ukraine War is that the front lines have not moved very much in the last 18 months, and both Ukraine and Russia have lost enormous quantities of men and materiel. Russia has captures a small amount of territory - like the front lines have moved 15 miles or so, in some parts of the line. But they've also endured 4 or 5x the casualties Ukraine has, because they're attacking.
Russia continues to hope that one last push will see the Ukrainian lines collapse.
Ukraine keeps hoping Putin gets bumped off, or that the Russian economy collapses and that they lack the ability to continue offensive operations.
Ukraine is essentially obligated to say they want a cease fire, because failure to toe the line on that point risks Starlink being turned off, which would be a disaster for the Ukrainian war effort.
Putin believes Russia is closer to breakthrough than they are, because no one is telling him the truth.
The war will continue - imho - until either Ukraine's backers decide that they cannot afford to support the war (something likely precipitated by their allies gaining power in European capitals); or until the stresses on the Russian economy become intolerable, and Putin decides that what he has is enough to sell as a victory. (With more than a million people dead or invalided out, that will require quite a sales job.)
Bear in mind, of course, that the invasion is usually the easy part. Russia will have a long and expensive issue ruling over a bunch of people who would rather be part of the country next door. And occupation is usually economically ruinous.
To some extent both sides are hoping for a political wildcard to intervene in their favour, and Putin is probably most likely to be disappointed in that regard because even if Le Pen/Farage/AfD were elected in Western Europe, I don't think it would change the facts on the ground very much.
The change since August has been the use of domestically manufactured Ukrainian long-range drones destroying the Russian hydrocarbons secotr and more recently electricity generation/domestic heating capacity. These don't require international consent. Pretty much all capacity west of the Urals is now in range.
The next step-change will be when Ukraine gets the guidance system on the Flamingo missiles implemented. That could be any time now. They are stockpiling them until the change is implemented. When they fly, Russia could lose another 30% of its hydrocarbons - and hence its ability to fund the war - overnight.
The bottleneck on Flamingos is surely engines. They can rustle up some AI25s by stripping their L-139 fleet (which has zero other utility in the SMO) but then what?
Long ago, at the dawn of CCTV, a policeman’s lawyers (in Oxford) tried to argue that using CCTV from a bank violated his rights. Since it showed said policeman committing crimes…
Edit: see the comic War On Photographers that the Met tried.
I have a bad feeling that all those warnings about not giving governments excessive powers in the name of fighting terrorism, for fear of how those powers would be used by a government of bad guys, are all about to be proven true.
I have a bad feeling that all those warnings about not giving governments excessive powers in the name of fighting terrorism, for fear of how those powers would be used by a government of bad guys, are all about to be proven true.
Called it, long ago.
Anyone for a national id card database, which obviously needs to list everyone’s religion, sexuality and medical history? I’m quite sure that a Reform run council (let alone national Government) wouldn’t do anything bad with that….
I'm a little baffled about the decisions made by the people people who went for a dip. I'm very occasionally a sea swimmer, but never in anything like rough conditions.
The fatalities were at Budleigh Salterton, where conditions were - according to the BBC report - 10ft+ breaking waves, and the worst conditions for decades. The organiser of the local sea swimming group decided not to go in. And one account:
Mike Brown, 60, who has lived in Budleigh Salterton for nearly 30 years, said the sea conditions on Thursday were the "worst conditions" he had ever seen.
After entering the sea and being "unable to get out", Mr Brown said he only made it out with the help of "two very brave men" and sustained small injuries.
He said: "After successive waves crashing me into the stones, I managed to get into relatively shallow water, but I was spent.
"I had no energy left to stand and I'd taken a number of blows to the head.
People make poor choices. Perhaps the Christmas swim is one of their big things? Don’t want to miss it and it will be in and out in minutes. Like hillwalking/climbing you can escalate from poor choices to emergencies pretty quickly.
One ought, in my view, occasionally do things that can kill you if they go wrong.
Thousands of people will have swum in pretty atrocious conditions on Christmas Day. Most will not have had any idea how dangerous their choices were. All but two will have added to their Christmas cheer with a rather boorish tale to be shared in the ad break for the obligatory Christmas film later in the day.
A utilitarian would probably argue the two deaths were worth it, in the grand scheme of things.
I'd certainly argue the world would be a worse place if we didn't have people willing to dive into waves that could kill them.
And we don't see the same sort of pearl-clutching about the vast quantities of food and alcohol people have consumed over the last few days, despite the thousands of lives lost and billions in costs incurred from such behaviour.
On Christmas day, about 450 people died from heart disease, 200 from smoking, 60 from alcohol, 100 from diabetes (using annual figures/365). 100s more will have been prevented by people keeping fit and doing mad stuff like sea swimming and mountaineering.
35 people died on waiting lists in Scotland pretty much every day since September waiting for treatment. It is a shocking figure. Certainly, looking at retirement needs, money for private health care when required has moved from a nice to have to essential.
It wouldn't if we had a vaguely healthy population. Anyway, back to the port.
And the cheese I trust.
But my wife and I are keen walkers and it is really noticeable how many people are now out walking or even running when we go out. Massively more than there was pre-Covid. I think the message that you really have to look after your own health has some traction, at least with certain proportions of the population.
Oddly enough, I think this is going to be a big problem for the NHS going forward. Poor health is a strong inverse correlation with paying taxes, so the people paying the tax to support the NHS are the least likely to use it. That's fine as long as maternity services and emergency care is prompt and of a high quality, but... they aren't.
Yes any universal healthcare system is redistributive, whether NHS or some sort of compulsory insurance such as Obamacare or the German system.
Private heathcare in Britain is very distorted by the NHS. Private maternity care for example doesnt really exist apart from the Edward VII in London, and that is only viable because it is the private wing of an NHS Hospital. Ditto Emergency Departments.
It isn't really possible to opt out of NHS care because the private system is very dependent on it. Any plan to privatise the NHS falls at the infrastructure step, in that private hospitals are very limited in what they can cope with, though they often do that fairly well.
I'm a little baffled about the decisions made by the people people who went for a dip. I'm very occasionally a sea swimmer, but never in anything like rough conditions.
The fatalities were at Budleigh Salterton, where conditions were - according to the BBC report - 10ft+ breaking waves, and the worst conditions for decades. The organiser of the local sea swimming group decided not to go in. And one account:
Mike Brown, 60, who has lived in Budleigh Salterton for nearly 30 years, said the sea conditions on Thursday were the "worst conditions" he had ever seen.
After entering the sea and being "unable to get out", Mr Brown said he only made it out with the help of "two very brave men" and sustained small injuries.
He said: "After successive waves crashing me into the stones, I managed to get into relatively shallow water, but I was spent.
"I had no energy left to stand and I'd taken a number of blows to the head.
People make poor choices. Perhaps the Christmas swim is one of their big things? Don’t want to miss it and it will be in and out in minutes. Like hillwalking/climbing you can escalate from poor choices to emergencies pretty quickly.
One ought, in my view, occasionally do things that can kill you if they go wrong.
Thousands of people will have swum in pretty atrocious conditions on Christmas Day. Most will not have had any idea how dangerous their choices were. All but two will have added to their Christmas cheer with a rather boorish tale to be shared in the ad break for the obligatory Christmas film later in the day.
A utilitarian would probably argue the two deaths were worth it, in the grand scheme of things.
I'd certainly argue the world would be a worse place if we didn't have people willing to dive into waves that could kill them.
And we don't see the same sort of pearl-clutching about the vast quantities of food and alcohol people have consumed over the last few days, despite the thousands of lives lost and billions in costs incurred from such behaviour.
On Christmas day, about 450 people died from heart disease, 200 from smoking, 60 from alcohol, 100 from diabetes (using annual figures/365). 100s more will have been prevented by people keeping fit and doing mad stuff like sea swimming and mountaineering.
35 people died on waiting lists in Scotland pretty much every day since September waiting for treatment. It is a shocking figure. Certainly, looking at retirement needs, money for private health care when required has moved from a nice to have to essential.
It wouldn't if we had a vaguely healthy population. Anyway, back to the port.
And the cheese I trust.
But my wife and I are keen walkers and it is really noticeable how many people are now out walking or even running when we go out. Massively more than there was pre-Covid. I think the message that you really have to look after your own health has some traction, at least with certain proportions of the population.
Oddly enough, I think this is going to be a big problem for the NHS going forward. Poor health is a strong inverse correlation with paying taxes, so the people paying the tax to support the NHS are the least likely to use it. That's fine as long as maternity services and emergency care is prompt and of a high quality, but... they aren't.
Yes any universal healthcare system is redistributive, whether NHS or some sort of compulsory insurance such as Obamacare or the German system.
Private heathcare in Britain is very distorted by the NHS. Private maternity care for example doesnt really exist apart from the Edward VII in London, and that is only viable because it is the private wing of an NHS Hospital. Ditto Emergency Departments.
It isn't really possible to opt out of NHS care because the private system is very dependent on it. Any plan to privatise the NHS falls at the infrastructure step, in that private hospitals are very limited in what they can cope with, though they often do that fairly well.
Personally, I think the prospectus is polishing a turd in terms of investment. I won't be touching it.
I agree with all that - but I can see increasing pressure to take elements of the private system like lower premiums for people in decent shape (tax break?), an excess (£5 to visit GP) and so on. Even fast lanes for people in work might become a political and economic necessity as the dependency ratio changes.
I have a bad feeling that all those warnings about not giving governments excessive powers in the name of fighting terrorism, for fear of how those powers would be used by a government of bad guys, are all about to be proven true.
2,500 terrorism arrests and not a single conviction for PA protestors yet. At least we have juries to hold the line against this kind of stuff - and there are no plans from the government to get rid of them, right? Right?
Changing the subject to tourism: The US Department of Homeland Security is now offering $3,000 and plane fare home to "illegals" who choose to "self deport". This new policy offers, possibly, some interesting possibilities for "adventure" tourists. (This replaces their similar, but smaller, offer of a thousand dollars and fare home.)
Let me make it clear that I am not recommending anyone take advantage of this offer. Especially coming from this administration.
But I did want to tell you about this policy, thinking it might have a flaw or two in it.
I think we have something similar, and also a facility for firms to voluntarily repay Covid fraud.
I'm a little baffled about the decisions made by the people people who went for a dip. I'm very occasionally a sea swimmer, but never in anything like rough conditions.
The fatalities were at Budleigh Salterton, where conditions were - according to the BBC report - 10ft+ breaking waves, and the worst conditions for decades. The organiser of the local sea swimming group decided not to go in. And one account:
Mike Brown, 60, who has lived in Budleigh Salterton for nearly 30 years, said the sea conditions on Thursday were the "worst conditions" he had ever seen.
After entering the sea and being "unable to get out", Mr Brown said he only made it out with the help of "two very brave men" and sustained small injuries.
He said: "After successive waves crashing me into the stones, I managed to get into relatively shallow water, but I was spent.
"I had no energy left to stand and I'd taken a number of blows to the head.
People make poor choices. Perhaps the Christmas swim is one of their big things? Don’t want to miss it and it will be in and out in minutes. Like hillwalking/climbing you can escalate from poor choices to emergencies pretty quickly.
One ought, in my view, occasionally do things that can kill you if they go wrong.
Thousands of people will have swum in pretty atrocious conditions on Christmas Day. Most will not have had any idea how dangerous their choices were. All but two will have added to their Christmas cheer with a rather boorish tale to be shared in the ad break for the obligatory Christmas film later in the day.
A utilitarian would probably argue the two deaths were worth it, in the grand scheme of things.
I'd certainly argue the world would be a worse place if we didn't have people willing to dive into waves that could kill them.
And we don't see the same sort of pearl-clutching about the vast quantities of food and alcohol people have consumed over the last few days, despite the thousands of lives lost and billions in costs incurred from such behaviour.
On Christmas day, about 450 people died from heart disease, 200 from smoking, 60 from alcohol, 100 from diabetes (using annual figures/365). 100s more will have been prevented by people keeping fit and doing mad stuff like sea swimming and mountaineering.
35 people died on waiting lists in Scotland pretty much every day since September waiting for treatment. It is a shocking figure. Certainly, looking at retirement needs, money for private health care when required has moved from a nice to have to essential.
It wouldn't if we had a vaguely healthy population. Anyway, back to the port.
And the cheese I trust.
But my wife and I are keen walkers and it is really noticeable how many people are now out walking or even running when we go out. Massively more than there was pre-Covid. I think the message that you really have to look after your own health has some traction, at least with certain proportions of the population.
Oddly enough, I think this is going to be a big problem for the NHS going forward. Poor health is a strong inverse correlation with paying taxes, so the people paying the tax to support the NHS are the least likely to use it. That's fine as long as maternity services and emergency care is prompt and of a high quality, but... they aren't.
Yes any universal healthcare system is redistributive, whether NHS or some sort of compulsory insurance such as Obamacare or the German system.
Private heathcare in Britain is very distorted by the NHS. Private maternity care for example doesnt really exist apart from the Edward VII in London, and that is only viable because it is the private wing of an NHS Hospital. Ditto Emergency Departments.
It isn't really possible to opt out of NHS care because the private system is very dependent on it. Any plan to privatise the NHS falls at the infrastructure step, in that private hospitals are very limited in what they can cope with, though they often do that fairly well.
Personally, I think the prospectus is polishing a turd in terms of investment. I won't be touching it.
I agree with all that - but I can see increasing pressure to take elements of the private system like lower premiums for people in decent shape (tax break?), an excess (£5 to visit GP) and so on. Even fast lanes for people in work might become a political and economic necessity as the dependency ratio changes.
Yes, I proposed a "Speedy Boarding" type supplement in my PB header on the NHS some years ago, as a way to raise revenue and increase the private healthcare market.
Such a system is used in a number of countries, usually expressed as level of cover.
@stodge How did you do in the end stodge, I managed to get a trixie and a double so came out ahead . Would have been better if I had done your Idaho sun as well and got another decent trixie
@fitalass, you have voiced strong opinions on the matter of trans, in this case from the gender-critical direction. I have written an article on the impacts of the SC ruling in April and asked four people backstage to act as discussants: two from the pro-trans direction (NigelB and kyf_100) and two from the gender-critical direction (Cyclefree and DavidL). Unfortunately DavidL is unavailable due to other committments so I need a substitute. May I ask you to join in his place please?
The role of a discussant is to read the latest draft (draft 8 as of this moment), point out mistakes, and write a response both about the article and your views on the subject, even if you think I am stupid and the article is bad. Please note that you are being invited in as a discussant not a pre-reader: I might not change the article in response to your remarks, but I will write up your responses and put them in the appendices. You can change your response as much as you like before the final publication, but please note that any interactions with/comments about the other discussants must be limited because that limits their right to change theirs.
This is economic cataclysm: double-digit drops in Russian production of the vast majority of industrial goods from 2024 to 2025. (The tables below show this isn’t a November problem, but across the whole year)
You can keep up that kind of thing for quite a long time: let's not forget that Germany was at peak war production really remarkably late in the war - late 1944, six months after D-Day.
The issue is more that Putin has tried very hard to shield his population from the effects of the war. But he's currently facing a pretty nasty dilemma: is oil output exported abroad to pay the Chinese for the materiel he needs to persecute the war, but leave the domestic economy short? Or does he do the reverse?
There's apparently a seasonal cycle to Russian domestic fuel demand - it's lower in winter than in summer. Consequently the fuel station queues and shortages we saw a while ago have abated. Russian production can now cover Russian demand.
However, exports of refined fuel products are still banned, showing that refinery capacity has not recovered, so we can expect domestic shortages to reappear in the spring (unless the economic downturn reduces domestic demand).
This suggests that Putin will prioritise satisfying domestic demand over exporting for cash. He knows it is political important to do so, and the Russian budget still has some headroom to increase borrowing to pay for expenditure in place of oil export earnings. Which is just as well as the Ukrainians are going to make that choice for him and reduce the capacity for the Russians to export oil.
What's curious is that the Russian government increased borrowing this year, but they're currently cutting spending, and have a lot of cash on hand that they've raised from bond sales.
That makes me wonder about a change in policy. Although I suppose it could be stockpiling cash to be able to deal with the collapse in oil revenue expected with the predicted oil glut early next year.
The really important statistic out of Russia is the decline in food consumption. This speaks of a big decline in real spending power of the Russian population as a result of the economic difficulties. Lots of four-day working, coal miners facing wage arrears, etc.
On oil, Putin has to prioritise local consumption because American sanctions and Ukrainian drones have frightened off foreign buyers. If you run a foreign refinery or chain of petrol stations, you need a continuous supply of oil (of one grade or another) but Russia can no longer guarantee supply dates because Ukrainian drones keep blowing up pipelines, ports and refineries, so you need to buy from a country that can deliver what you need when you need it. This also mitigates against America wrecking your country's economy or seizing your tankers.
On Russia's economic slump over the past year, so what? First, the people who matter have barely noticed because their supermarkets are full of knock-offs of the Western brands they used to sell. It's like switching from Tesco to Lidl, from Heinz beans to Schmeinz beans, they're still beans and some even prefer the latter.
More importantly, Russia really was in the toilet when Putin came to power. That's why Russians keep voting for him (well, that and his opponents disappear). The break-up of the Soviet Union had queues and shortages everywhere. Further back, yet still within living memory, Moscow housewives queued for rotten meat. That is the standard against which short-lived petrol shortages are judged.
This is economic cataclysm: double-digit drops in Russian production of the vast majority of industrial goods from 2024 to 2025. (The tables below show this isn’t a November problem, but across the whole year)
You can keep up that kind of thing for quite a long time: let's not forget that Germany was at peak war production really remarkably late in the war - late 1944, six months after D-Day.
The issue is more that Putin has tried very hard to shield his population from the effects of the war. But he's currently facing a pretty nasty dilemma: is oil output exported abroad to pay the Chinese for the materiel he needs to persecute the war, but leave the domestic economy short? Or does he do the reverse?
There's apparently a seasonal cycle to Russian domestic fuel demand - it's lower in winter than in summer. Consequently the fuel station queues and shortages we saw a while ago have abated. Russian production can now cover Russian demand.
However, exports of refined fuel products are still banned, showing that refinery capacity has not recovered, so we can expect domestic shortages to reappear in the spring (unless the economic downturn reduces domestic demand).
This suggests that Putin will prioritise satisfying domestic demand over exporting for cash. He knows it is political important to do so, and the Russian budget still has some headroom to increase borrowing to pay for expenditure in place of oil export earnings. Which is just as well as the Ukrainians are going to make that choice for him and reduce the capacity for the Russians to export oil.
What's curious is that the Russian government increased borrowing this year, but they're currently cutting spending, and have a lot of cash on hand that they've raised from bond sales.
That makes me wonder about a change in policy. Although I suppose it could be stockpiling cash to be able to deal with the collapse in oil revenue expected with the predicted oil glut early next year.
The really important statistic out of Russia is the decline in food consumption. This speaks of a big decline in real spending power of the Russian population as a result of the economic difficulties. Lots of four-day working, coal miners facing wage arrears, etc.
On oil, Putin has to prioritise local consumption because American sanctions and Ukrainian drones have frightened off foreign buyers. If you run a foreign refinery or chain of petrol stations, you need a continuous supply of oil (of one grade or another) but Russia can no longer guarantee supply dates because Ukrainian drones keep blowing up pipelines, ports and refineries, so you need to buy from a country that can deliver what you need when you need it. This also mitigates against America wrecking your country's economy or seizing your tankers.
On Russia's economic slump over the past year, so what? First, the people who matter have barely noticed because their supermarkets are full of knock-offs of the Western brands they used to sell. It's like switching from Tesco to Lidl, from Heinz beans to Schmeinz beans, they're still beans and some even prefer the latter.
More importantly, Russia really was in the toilet when Putin came to power. That's why Russians keep voting for him (well, that and his opponents disappear). The break-up of the Soviet Union had queues and shortages everywhere. Further back, yet still within living memory, Moscow housewives queued for rotten meat. That is the standard against which short-lived petrol shortages are judged.
I'm not suggesting that the Russian economy is so bad that a revolt against the regime is imminent, but the economic indicators have started to move consistently in a negative direction for Russia, and this is a step on the way to reaching such a breaking point.
The deal with the Russian people was that the war wouldn't negatively impact them, only volunteers would fight, and those who die would have their families looked after. It's not certain how bad things would have to get before the war became very unpopular.
I don't think foreign buyers have been as frightened off Russian oil as you say. It's true that the discount Russia has had to offer has increased, and the amount of Russian oil at sea has increased, but plenty of Russian oil is still being bought and delivered. There's a way for Ukraine to go on that.
"This vintage railway film, produced by British Transport Films in 1957, shows the last steam hauled train leaving Liverpool Street before the commencement of electric train services. It also shows how the electrification was done and the men who did it."
I'm a little baffled about the decisions made by the people people who went for a dip. I'm very occasionally a sea swimmer, but never in anything like rough conditions.
The fatalities were at Budleigh Salterton, where conditions were - according to the BBC report - 10ft+ breaking waves, and the worst conditions for decades. The organiser of the local sea swimming group decided not to go in. And one account:
Mike Brown, 60, who has lived in Budleigh Salterton for nearly 30 years, said the sea conditions on Thursday were the "worst conditions" he had ever seen.
After entering the sea and being "unable to get out", Mr Brown said he only made it out with the help of "two very brave men" and sustained small injuries.
He said: "After successive waves crashing me into the stones, I managed to get into relatively shallow water, but I was spent.
"I had no energy left to stand and I'd taken a number of blows to the head.
People make poor choices. Perhaps the Christmas swim is one of their big things? Don’t want to miss it and it will be in and out in minutes. Like hillwalking/climbing you can escalate from poor choices to emergencies pretty quickly.
One ought, in my view, occasionally do things that can kill you if they go wrong.
Thousands of people will have swum in pretty atrocious conditions on Christmas Day. Most will not have had any idea how dangerous their choices were. All but two will have added to their Christmas cheer with a rather boorish tale to be shared in the ad break for the obligatory Christmas film later in the day.
A utilitarian would probably argue the two deaths were worth it, in the grand scheme of things.
I'd certainly argue the world would be a worse place if we didn't have people willing to dive into waves that could kill them.
And we don't see the same sort of pearl-clutching about the vast quantities of food and alcohol people have consumed over the last few days, despite the thousands of lives lost and billions in costs incurred from such behaviour.
On Christmas day, about 450 people died from heart disease, 200 from smoking, 60 from alcohol, 100 from diabetes (using annual figures/365). 100s more will have been prevented by people keeping fit and doing mad stuff like sea swimming and mountaineering.
35 people died on waiting lists in Scotland pretty much every day since September waiting for treatment. It is a shocking figure. Certainly, looking at retirement needs, money for private health care when required has moved from a nice to have to essential.
It wouldn't if we had a vaguely healthy population. Anyway, back to the port.
And the cheese I trust.
But my wife and I are keen walkers and it is really noticeable how many people are now out walking or even running when we go out. Massively more than there was pre-Covid. I think the message that you really have to look after your own health has some traction, at least with certain proportions of the population.
That reminds me - I have my post new-year tradition to look forward to. Wandering to the park, finding a bench that is out of the wind/rain and side-eyeing the diminishing number of "New Year - New Me!" lycra-clad joggers out of a morning.
Bear in mind, of course, that the invasion is usually the easy part. Russia will have a long and expensive issue ruling over a bunch of people who would rather be part of the country next door. And occupation is usually economically ruinous.
There are brave prime continuing to resist Russia's occupation in Eastern and Southern Ukraine, but the evidence that emerged from Kherson after its liberation was that the Russians were prepared to do what was necessary to occupy a hostile country, and they're much better at that bloody business than the war-fighting end of things.
I think that the collective Western strategy means that continuing the war is a free hit for Putin. He does not have to fear overextending and pushing Russia past the point of endurance, because he knows Ukraine will be forced to accept a ceasefire whenever he feels the need to offer one.
Our actions and choices are therefore prolonging the war because we are minimising the risk of Russian defeat. Somehow we have to change the calculus. We need a change of strategy.
I don't disagree that a change of strategy is needed - frankly European leaders need to grow a pair - but I disagree re Putin.
He can't accept the current cease fire lines, because 1.1 million dead or invalided out for about 15% of the Ukraine, with the rest of Ukraine now clearly in the Western orbit, and essentially zero chance of a friendly Ukrainian government in the future means the end of Putin.
Putin needs a decisive victory. And he's been told that one is imminent.
This is economic cataclysm: double-digit drops in Russian production of the vast majority of industrial goods from 2024 to 2025. (The tables below show this isn’t a November problem, but across the whole year)
You can keep up that kind of thing for quite a long time: let's not forget that Germany was at peak war production really remarkably late in the war - late 1944, six months after D-Day.
The issue is more that Putin has tried very hard to shield his population from the effects of the war. But he's currently facing a pretty nasty dilemma: is oil output exported abroad to pay the Chinese for the materiel he needs to persecute the war, but leave the domestic economy short? Or does he do the reverse?
There's apparently a seasonal cycle to Russian domestic fuel demand - it's lower in winter than in summer. Consequently the fuel station queues and shortages we saw a while ago have abated. Russian production can now cover Russian demand.
However, exports of refined fuel products are still banned, showing that refinery capacity has not recovered, so we can expect domestic shortages to reappear in the spring (unless the economic downturn reduces domestic demand).
This suggests that Putin will prioritise satisfying domestic demand over exporting for cash. He knows it is political important to do so, and the Russian budget still has some headroom to increase borrowing to pay for expenditure in place of oil export earnings. Which is just as well as the Ukrainians are going to make that choice for him and reduce the capacity for the Russians to export oil.
What's curious is that the Russian government increased borrowing this year, but they're currently cutting spending, and have a lot of cash on hand that they've raised from bond sales.
That makes me wonder about a change in policy. Although I suppose it could be stockpiling cash to be able to deal with the collapse in oil revenue expected with the predicted oil glut early next year.
The really important statistic out of Russia is the decline in food consumption. This speaks of a big decline in real spending power of the Russian population as a result of the economic difficulties. Lots of four-day working, coal miners facing wage arrears, etc.
On oil, Putin has to prioritise local consumption because American sanctions and Ukrainian drones have frightened off foreign buyers. If you run a foreign refinery or chain of petrol stations, you need a continuous supply of oil (of one grade or another) but Russia can no longer guarantee supply dates because Ukrainian drones keep blowing up pipelines, ports and refineries, so you need to buy from a country that can deliver what you need when you need it. This also mitigates against America wrecking your country's economy or seizing your tankers.
On Russia's economic slump over the past year, so what? First, the people who matter have barely noticed because their supermarkets are full of knock-offs of the Western brands they used to sell. It's like switching from Tesco to Lidl, from Heinz beans to Schmeinz beans, they're still beans and some even prefer the latter.
More importantly, Russia really was in the toilet when Putin came to power. That's why Russians keep voting for him (well, that and his opponents disappear). The break-up of the Soviet Union had queues and shortages everywhere. Further back, yet still within living memory, Moscow housewives queued for rotten meat. That is the standard against which short-lived petrol shortages are judged.
I'm not suggesting that the Russian economy is so bad that a revolt against the regime is imminent, but the economic indicators have started to move consistently in a negative direction for Russia, and this is a step on the way to reaching such a breaking point.
The deal with the Russian people was that the war wouldn't negatively impact them, only volunteers would fight, and those who die would have their families looked after. It's not certain how bad things would have to get before the war became very unpopular.
I don't think foreign buyers have been as frightened off Russian oil as you say. It's true that the discount Russia has had to offer has increased, and the amount of Russian oil at sea has increased, but plenty of Russian oil is still being bought and delivered. There's a way for Ukraine to go on that.
From what I understand, that's not necessarily a good thing though. Russia is often selling oil at a loss because its oil is expensive to produce, but it has to keep producing it, otherwise the wells and pipelines are damaged and then wrecked, irretrievably without costly Western equipment, and there's nowhere for it to store the oil it has to keep pumping. So the fact that it is still selling oil at such low prices is a sign of weakness rather than strength.
Which, together with the effect on the global oil price, could be why we're not doing more to choke off the market than we are.
Just what I've heard from usually reliable sources combined with my own speculation.
Bear in mind, of course, that the invasion is usually the easy part. Russia will have a long and expensive issue ruling over a bunch of people who would rather be part of the country next door. And occupation is usually economically ruinous.
There are brave prime continuing to resist Russia's occupation in Eastern and Southern Ukraine, but the evidence that emerged from Kherson after its liberation was that the Russians were prepared to do what was necessary to occupy a hostile country, and they're much better at that bloody business than the war-fighting end of things.
I think that the collective Western strategy means that continuing the war is a free hit for Putin. He does not have to fear overextending and pushing Russia past the point of endurance, because he knows Ukraine will be forced to accept a ceasefire whenever he feels the need to offer one.
Our actions and choices are therefore prolonging the war because we are minimising the risk of Russian defeat. Somehow we have to change the calculus. We need a change of strategy.
I don't disagree that a change of strategy is needed - frankly European leaders need to grow a pair - but I disagree re Putin.
He can't accept the current cease fire lines, because 1.1 million dead or invalided out for about 15% of the Ukraine, with the rest of Ukraine now clearly in the Western orbit, and essentially zero chance of a friendly Ukrainian government in the future means the end of Putin.
Putin needs a decisive victory. And he's been told that one is imminent.
Bear in mind, of course, that the invasion is usually the easy part. Russia will have a long and expensive issue ruling over a bunch of people who would rather be part of the country next door. And occupation is usually economically ruinous.
There are brave prime continuing to resist Russia's occupation in Eastern and Southern Ukraine, but the evidence that emerged from Kherson after its liberation was that the Russians were prepared to do what was necessary to occupy a hostile country, and they're much better at that bloody business than the war-fighting end of things.
I think that the collective Western strategy means that continuing the war is a free hit for Putin. He does not have to fear overextending and pushing Russia past the point of endurance, because he knows Ukraine will be forced to accept a ceasefire whenever he feels the need to offer one.
Our actions and choices are therefore prolonging the war because we are minimising the risk of Russian defeat. Somehow we have to change the calculus. We need a change of strategy.
I don't disagree that a change of strategy is needed - frankly European leaders need to grow a pair - but I disagree re Putin.
He can't accept the current cease fire lines, because 1.1 million dead or invalided out for about 15% of the Ukraine, with the rest of Ukraine now clearly in the Western orbit, and essentially zero chance of a friendly Ukrainian government in the future means the end of Putin.
Putin needs a decisive victory. And he's been told that one is imminent.
I disagree. Saddam survived his disastrous escapade in Kuwait, and that was more clearly an embarrassing defeat than the status quo would represent for Putin. And if Russians were going to care about the 1.1 million casualties then Putin would already be toppled - but they don't because they've accepted that as being well-recompensed volunteers.
Remember it was only around 10,000 dead in the Afghanistan war that caused much more trouble for the USSR, but that had more impact because they were conscripts.
This is economic cataclysm: double-digit drops in Russian production of the vast majority of industrial goods from 2024 to 2025. (The tables below show this isn’t a November problem, but across the whole year)
You can keep up that kind of thing for quite a long time: let's not forget that Germany was at peak war production really remarkably late in the war - late 1944, six months after D-Day.
The issue is more that Putin has tried very hard to shield his population from the effects of the war. But he's currently facing a pretty nasty dilemma: is oil output exported abroad to pay the Chinese for the materiel he needs to persecute the war, but leave the domestic economy short? Or does he do the reverse?
There's apparently a seasonal cycle to Russian domestic fuel demand - it's lower in winter than in summer. Consequently the fuel station queues and shortages we saw a while ago have abated. Russian production can now cover Russian demand.
However, exports of refined fuel products are still banned, showing that refinery capacity has not recovered, so we can expect domestic shortages to reappear in the spring (unless the economic downturn reduces domestic demand).
This suggests that Putin will prioritise satisfying domestic demand over exporting for cash. He knows it is political important to do so, and the Russian budget still has some headroom to increase borrowing to pay for expenditure in place of oil export earnings. Which is just as well as the Ukrainians are going to make that choice for him and reduce the capacity for the Russians to export oil.
What's curious is that the Russian government increased borrowing this year, but they're currently cutting spending, and have a lot of cash on hand that they've raised from bond sales.
That makes me wonder about a change in policy. Although I suppose it could be stockpiling cash to be able to deal with the collapse in oil revenue expected with the predicted oil glut early next year.
The really important statistic out of Russia is the decline in food consumption. This speaks of a big decline in real spending power of the Russian population as a result of the economic difficulties. Lots of four-day working, coal miners facing wage arrears, etc.
On oil, Putin has to prioritise local consumption because American sanctions and Ukrainian drones have frightened off foreign buyers. If you run a foreign refinery or chain of petrol stations, you need a continuous supply of oil (of one grade or another) but Russia can no longer guarantee supply dates because Ukrainian drones keep blowing up pipelines, ports and refineries, so you need to buy from a country that can deliver what you need when you need it. This also mitigates against America wrecking your country's economy or seizing your tankers.
On Russia's economic slump over the past year, so what? First, the people who matter have barely noticed because their supermarkets are full of knock-offs of the Western brands they used to sell. It's like switching from Tesco to Lidl, from Heinz beans to Schmeinz beans, they're still beans and some even prefer the latter.
More importantly, Russia really was in the toilet when Putin came to power. That's why Russians keep voting for him (well, that and his opponents disappear). The break-up of the Soviet Union had queues and shortages everywhere. Further back, yet still within living memory, Moscow housewives queued for rotten meat. That is the standard against which short-lived petrol shortages are judged.
I'm not suggesting that the Russian economy is so bad that a revolt against the regime is imminent, but the economic indicators have started to move consistently in a negative direction for Russia, and this is a step on the way to reaching such a breaking point.
The deal with the Russian people was that the war wouldn't negatively impact them, only volunteers would fight, and those who die would have their families looked after. It's not certain how bad things would have to get before the war became very unpopular.
I don't think foreign buyers have been as frightened off Russian oil as you say. It's true that the discount Russia has had to offer has increased, and the amount of Russian oil at sea has increased, but plenty of Russian oil is still being bought and delivered. There's a way for Ukraine to go on that.
From what I understand, that's not necessarily a good thing though. Russia is often selling oil at a loss because its oil is expensive to produce, but it has to keep producing it, otherwise the wells and pipelines are damaged and then wrecked, irretrievably without costly Western equipment, and there's nowhere for it to store the oil it has to keep pumping. So the fact that it is still selling oil at such low prices is a sign of weakness rather than strength.
Which, together with the effect on the global oil price, could be why we're not doing more to choke off the market than we are.
Just what I've heard from usually reliable sources combined with my own speculation.
Oil income's contribution to the Federal budget has declined, but it's not nothing yet. I think Russia is losing money on the oil from some of its wells, but not all of them, and not overall.
Just watched the ChatGPT Presidential Election results for 2028 on YouTube. Vance/Rubio defeats Newsom/Shapiro reaching 286 EC votes.
I highly doubt Newsom would even be Dem nominee. New Hampshire and South Carolina would more likely vote for Buttigieg or Whitmer than him in their primaries
This is economic cataclysm: double-digit drops in Russian production of the vast majority of industrial goods from 2024 to 2025. (The tables below show this isn’t a November problem, but across the whole year)
You can keep up that kind of thing for quite a long time: let's not forget that Germany was at peak war production really remarkably late in the war - late 1944, six months after D-Day.
The issue is more that Putin has tried very hard to shield his population from the effects of the war. But he's currently facing a pretty nasty dilemma: is oil output exported abroad to pay the Chinese for the materiel he needs to persecute the war, but leave the domestic economy short? Or does he do the reverse?
There's apparently a seasonal cycle to Russian domestic fuel demand - it's lower in winter than in summer. Consequently the fuel station queues and shortages we saw a while ago have abated. Russian production can now cover Russian demand.
However, exports of refined fuel products are still banned, showing that refinery capacity has not recovered, so we can expect domestic shortages to reappear in the spring (unless the economic downturn reduces domestic demand).
This suggests that Putin will prioritise satisfying domestic demand over exporting for cash. He knows it is political important to do so, and the Russian budget still has some headroom to increase borrowing to pay for expenditure in place of oil export earnings. Which is just as well as the Ukrainians are going to make that choice for him and reduce the capacity for the Russians to export oil.
What's curious is that the Russian government increased borrowing this year, but they're currently cutting spending, and have a lot of cash on hand that they've raised from bond sales.
That makes me wonder about a change in policy. Although I suppose it could be stockpiling cash to be able to deal with the collapse in oil revenue expected with the predicted oil glut early next year.
The really important statistic out of Russia is the decline in food consumption. This speaks of a big decline in real spending power of the Russian population as a result of the economic difficulties. Lots of four-day working, coal miners facing wage arrears, etc.
On oil, Putin has to prioritise local consumption because American sanctions and Ukrainian drones have frightened off foreign buyers. If you run a foreign refinery or chain of petrol stations, you need a continuous supply of oil (of one grade or another) but Russia can no longer guarantee supply dates because Ukrainian drones keep blowing up pipelines, ports and refineries, so you need to buy from a country that can deliver what you need when you need it. This also mitigates against America wrecking your country's economy or seizing your tankers.
On Russia's economic slump over the past year, so what? First, the people who matter have barely noticed because their supermarkets are full of knock-offs of the Western brands they used to sell. It's like switching from Tesco to Lidl, from Heinz beans to Schmeinz beans, they're still beans and some even prefer the latter.
More importantly, Russia really was in the toilet when Putin came to power. That's why Russians keep voting for him (well, that and his opponents disappear). The break-up of the Soviet Union had queues and shortages everywhere. Further back, yet still within living memory, Moscow housewives queued for rotten meat. That is the standard against which short-lived petrol shortages are judged.
I'm not suggesting that the Russian economy is so bad that a revolt against the regime is imminent, but the economic indicators have started to move consistently in a negative direction for Russia, and this is a step on the way to reaching such a breaking point.
The deal with the Russian people was that the war wouldn't negatively impact them, only volunteers would fight, and those who die would have their families looked after. It's not certain how bad things would have to get before the war became very unpopular.
I don't think foreign buyers have been as frightened off Russian oil as you say. It's true that the discount Russia has had to offer has increased, and the amount of Russian oil at sea has increased, but plenty of Russian oil is still being bought and delivered. There's a way for Ukraine to go on that.
From what I understand, that's not necessarily a good thing though. Russia is often selling oil at a loss because its oil is expensive to produce, but it has to keep producing it, otherwise the wells and pipelines are damaged and then wrecked, irretrievably without costly Western equipment, and there's nowhere for it to store the oil it has to keep pumping. So the fact that it is still selling oil at such low prices is a sign of weakness rather than strength.
Which, together with the effect on the global oil price, could be why we're not doing more to choke off the market than we are.
Just what I've heard from usually reliable sources combined with my own speculation.
Oil income's contribution to the Federal budget has declined, but it's not nothing yet. I think Russia is losing money on the oil from some of its wells, but not all of them, and not overall.
There's a massive difference between current cash contribution from a well, and the long-term cost of production. The long-term cost includes maintenance and remedial work, replacement of equipment, etc.
The cash contribution is how much can I sell this barrel for, and what are my immediate costs?
I have little doubt that -at current prices and shorn of Western equipment- Russia is selling oil (on average) at well below its long-term cost of production. But that doesn't mean they're not generating billions of dollars of revenue per month from it right now.
At some point, though, the piper will need to be paid: seals fail, pumps sieze up, you don't have the pumps to do EOR and/or redrill a well. And -of course- as @Richard_Tyndall can tell you, if you don't treat an oilfield right, your ultimate recoverable number will fall.
But as far as the Russian government is concerned, these are all problems for another day.
This is economic cataclysm: double-digit drops in Russian production of the vast majority of industrial goods from 2024 to 2025. (The tables below show this isn’t a November problem, but across the whole year)
You can keep up that kind of thing for quite a long time: let's not forget that Germany was at peak war production really remarkably late in the war - late 1944, six months after D-Day.
The issue is more that Putin has tried very hard to shield his population from the effects of the war. But he's currently facing a pretty nasty dilemma: is oil output exported abroad to pay the Chinese for the materiel he needs to persecute the war, but leave the domestic economy short? Or does he do the reverse?
There's apparently a seasonal cycle to Russian domestic fuel demand - it's lower in winter than in summer. Consequently the fuel station queues and shortages we saw a while ago have abated. Russian production can now cover Russian demand.
However, exports of refined fuel products are still banned, showing that refinery capacity has not recovered, so we can expect domestic shortages to reappear in the spring (unless the economic downturn reduces domestic demand).
This suggests that Putin will prioritise satisfying domestic demand over exporting for cash. He knows it is political important to do so, and the Russian budget still has some headroom to increase borrowing to pay for expenditure in place of oil export earnings. Which is just as well as the Ukrainians are going to make that choice for him and reduce the capacity for the Russians to export oil.
What's curious is that the Russian government increased borrowing this year, but they're currently cutting spending, and have a lot of cash on hand that they've raised from bond sales.
That makes me wonder about a change in policy. Although I suppose it could be stockpiling cash to be able to deal with the collapse in oil revenue expected with the predicted oil glut early next year.
The really important statistic out of Russia is the decline in food consumption. This speaks of a big decline in real spending power of the Russian population as a result of the economic difficulties. Lots of four-day working, coal miners facing wage arrears, etc.
On oil, Putin has to prioritise local consumption because American sanctions and Ukrainian drones have frightened off foreign buyers. If you run a foreign refinery or chain of petrol stations, you need a continuous supply of oil (of one grade or another) but Russia can no longer guarantee supply dates because Ukrainian drones keep blowing up pipelines, ports and refineries, so you need to buy from a country that can deliver what you need when you need it. This also mitigates against America wrecking your country's economy or seizing your tankers.
On Russia's economic slump over the past year, so what? First, the people who matter have barely noticed because their supermarkets are full of knock-offs of the Western brands they used to sell. It's like switching from Tesco to Lidl, from Heinz beans to Schmeinz beans, they're still beans and some even prefer the latter.
More importantly, Russia really was in the toilet when Putin came to power. That's why Russians keep voting for him (well, that and his opponents disappear). The break-up of the Soviet Union had queues and shortages everywhere. Further back, yet still within living memory, Moscow housewives queued for rotten meat. That is the standard against which short-lived petrol shortages are judged.
I'm not suggesting that the Russian economy is so bad that a revolt against the regime is imminent, but the economic indicators have started to move consistently in a negative direction for Russia, and this is a step on the way to reaching such a breaking point.
The deal with the Russian people was that the war wouldn't negatively impact them, only volunteers would fight, and those who die would have their families looked after. It's not certain how bad things would have to get before the war became very unpopular.
I don't think foreign buyers have been as frightened off Russian oil as you say. It's true that the discount Russia has had to offer has increased, and the amount of Russian oil at sea has increased, but plenty of Russian oil is still being bought and delivered. There's a way for Ukraine to go on that.
From what I understand, that's not necessarily a good thing though. Russia is often selling oil at a loss because its oil is expensive to produce, but it has to keep producing it, otherwise the wells and pipelines are damaged and then wrecked, irretrievably without costly Western equipment, and there's nowhere for it to store the oil it has to keep pumping. So the fact that it is still selling oil at such low prices is a sign of weakness rather than strength.
Which, together with the effect on the global oil price, could be why we're not doing more to choke off the market than we are.
Just what I've heard from usually reliable sources combined with my own speculation.
Oil income's contribution to the Federal budget has declined, but it's not nothing yet. I think Russia is losing money on the oil from some of its wells, but not all of them, and not overall.
There's a massive difference between current cash contribution from a well, and the long-term cost of production. The long-term cost includes maintenance and remedial work, replacement of equipment, etc.
The cash contribution is how much can I sell this barrel for, and what are my immediate costs?
I have little doubt that -at current prices and shorn of Western equipment- Russia is selling oil (on average) at well below its long-term cost of production. But that doesn't mean they're not generating billions of dollars of revenue per month from it right now.
At some point, though, the piper will need to be paid: seals fail, pumps sieze up, you don't have the pumps to do EOR and/or redrill a well. And -of course- as @Richard_Tyndall can tell you, if you don't treat an oilfield right, your ultimate recoverable number will fall.
But as far as the Russian government is concerned, these are all problems for another day.
Oil revenue will never fall to zero because they use the stuff inside Russia itself.
Bear in mind, of course, that the invasion is usually the easy part. Russia will have a long and expensive issue ruling over a bunch of people who would rather be part of the country next door. And occupation is usually economically ruinous.
There are brave prime continuing to resist Russia's occupation in Eastern and Southern Ukraine, but the evidence that emerged from Kherson after its liberation was that the Russians were prepared to do what was necessary to occupy a hostile country, and they're much better at that bloody business than the war-fighting end of things.
I think that the collective Western strategy means that continuing the war is a free hit for Putin. He does not have to fear overextending and pushing Russia past the point of endurance, because he knows Ukraine will be forced to accept a ceasefire whenever he feels the need to offer one.
Our actions and choices are therefore prolonging the war because we are minimising the risk of Russian defeat. Somehow we have to change the calculus. We need a change of strategy.
I don't disagree that a change of strategy is needed - frankly European leaders need to grow a pair - but I disagree re Putin.
He can't accept the current cease fire lines, because 1.1 million dead or invalided out for about 15% of the Ukraine, with the rest of Ukraine now clearly in the Western orbit, and essentially zero chance of a friendly Ukrainian government in the future means the end of Putin.
Putin needs a decisive victory. And he's been told that one is imminent.
I disagree. Saddam survived his disastrous escapade in Kuwait, and that was more clearly an embarrassing defeat than the status quo would represent for Putin. And if Russians were going to care about the 1.1 million casualties then Putin would already be toppled - but they don't because they've accepted that as being well-recompensed volunteers.
Remember it was only around 10,000 dead in the Afghanistan war that caused much more trouble for the USSR, but that had more impact because they were conscripts.
And you think conscripts aren’t being sent?
It’s just conscripts from Moscow and St Pete’s that are protected
This is economic cataclysm: double-digit drops in Russian production of the vast majority of industrial goods from 2024 to 2025. (The tables below show this isn’t a November problem, but across the whole year)
You can keep up that kind of thing for quite a long time: let's not forget that Germany was at peak war production really remarkably late in the war - late 1944, six months after D-Day.
The issue is more that Putin has tried very hard to shield his population from the effects of the war. But he's currently facing a pretty nasty dilemma: is oil output exported abroad to pay the Chinese for the materiel he needs to persecute the war, but leave the domestic economy short? Or does he do the reverse?
There's apparently a seasonal cycle to Russian domestic fuel demand - it's lower in winter than in summer. Consequently the fuel station queues and shortages we saw a while ago have abated. Russian production can now cover Russian demand.
However, exports of refined fuel products are still banned, showing that refinery capacity has not recovered, so we can expect domestic shortages to reappear in the spring (unless the economic downturn reduces domestic demand).
This suggests that Putin will prioritise satisfying domestic demand over exporting for cash. He knows it is political important to do so, and the Russian budget still has some headroom to increase borrowing to pay for expenditure in place of oil export earnings. Which is just as well as the Ukrainians are going to make that choice for him and reduce the capacity for the Russians to export oil.
What's curious is that the Russian government increased borrowing this year, but they're currently cutting spending, and have a lot of cash on hand that they've raised from bond sales.
That makes me wonder about a change in policy. Although I suppose it could be stockpiling cash to be able to deal with the collapse in oil revenue expected with the predicted oil glut early next year.
The really important statistic out of Russia is the decline in food consumption. This speaks of a big decline in real spending power of the Russian population as a result of the economic difficulties. Lots of four-day working, coal miners facing wage arrears, etc.
On oil, Putin has to prioritise local consumption because American sanctions and Ukrainian drones have frightened off foreign buyers. If you run a foreign refinery or chain of petrol stations, you need a continuous supply of oil (of one grade or another) but Russia can no longer guarantee supply dates because Ukrainian drones keep blowing up pipelines, ports and refineries, so you need to buy from a country that can deliver what you need when you need it. This also mitigates against America wrecking your country's economy or seizing your tankers.
On Russia's economic slump over the past year, so what? First, the people who matter have barely noticed because their supermarkets are full of knock-offs of the Western brands they used to sell. It's like switching from Tesco to Lidl, from Heinz beans to Schmeinz beans, they're still beans and some even prefer the latter.
More importantly, Russia really was in the toilet when Putin came to power. That's why Russians keep voting for him (well, that and his opponents disappear). The break-up of the Soviet Union had queues and shortages everywhere. Further back, yet still within living memory, Moscow housewives queued for rotten meat. That is the standard against which short-lived petrol shortages are judged.
I'm not suggesting that the Russian economy is so bad that a revolt against the regime is imminent, but the economic indicators have started to move consistently in a negative direction for Russia, and this is a step on the way to reaching such a breaking point.
The deal with the Russian people was that the war wouldn't negatively impact them, only volunteers would fight, and those who die would have their families looked after. It's not certain how bad things would have to get before the war became very unpopular.
I don't think foreign buyers have been as frightened off Russian oil as you say. It's true that the discount Russia has had to offer has increased, and the amount of Russian oil at sea has increased, but plenty of Russian oil is still being bought and delivered. There's a way for Ukraine to go on that.
From what I understand, that's not necessarily a good thing though. Russia is often selling oil at a loss because its oil is expensive to produce, but it has to keep producing it, otherwise the wells and pipelines are damaged and then wrecked, irretrievably without costly Western equipment, and there's nowhere for it to store the oil it has to keep pumping. So the fact that it is still selling oil at such low prices is a sign of weakness rather than strength.
Which, together with the effect on the global oil price, could be why we're not doing more to choke off the market than we are.
Just what I've heard from usually reliable sources combined with my own speculation.
Oil income's contribution to the Federal budget has declined, but it's not nothing yet. I think Russia is losing money on the oil from some of its wells, but not all of them, and not overall.
There's a massive difference between current cash contribution from a well, and the long-term cost of production. The long-term cost includes maintenance and remedial work, replacement of equipment, etc.
The cash contribution is how much can I sell this barrel for, and what are my immediate costs?
I have little doubt that -at current prices and shorn of Western equipment- Russia is selling oil (on average) at well below its long-term cost of production. But that doesn't mean they're not generating billions of dollars of revenue per month from it right now.
At some point, though, the piper will need to be paid: seals fail, pumps sieze up, you don't have the pumps to do EOR and/or redrill a well. And -of course- as @Richard_Tyndall can tell you, if you don't treat an oilfield right, your ultimate recoverable number will fall.
But as far as the Russian government is concerned, these are all problems for another day.
Oil revenue will never fall to zero because they use the stuff inside Russia itself.
There's a cash cost to all extraction: so it's not impossible -albeit pretty unlikely- that net revenues could fall to close to zero.
Bear in mind, of course, that the invasion is usually the easy part. Russia will have a long and expensive issue ruling over a bunch of people who would rather be part of the country next door. And occupation is usually economically ruinous.
There are brave prime continuing to resist Russia's occupation in Eastern and Southern Ukraine, but the evidence that emerged from Kherson after its liberation was that the Russians were prepared to do what was necessary to occupy a hostile country, and they're much better at that bloody business than the war-fighting end of things.
I think that the collective Western strategy means that continuing the war is a free hit for Putin. He does not have to fear overextending and pushing Russia past the point of endurance, because he knows Ukraine will be forced to accept a ceasefire whenever he feels the need to offer one.
Our actions and choices are therefore prolonging the war because we are minimising the risk of Russian defeat. Somehow we have to change the calculus. We need a change of strategy.
I don't disagree that a change of strategy is needed - frankly European leaders need to grow a pair - but I disagree re Putin.
He can't accept the current cease fire lines, because 1.1 million dead or invalided out for about 15% of the Ukraine, with the rest of Ukraine now clearly in the Western orbit, and essentially zero chance of a friendly Ukrainian government in the future means the end of Putin.
Putin needs a decisive victory. And he's been told that one is imminent.
I disagree. Saddam survived his disastrous escapade in Kuwait, and that was more clearly an embarrassing defeat than the status quo would represent for Putin. And if Russians were going to care about the 1.1 million casualties then Putin would already be toppled - but they don't because they've accepted that as being well-recompensed volunteers.
Remember it was only around 10,000 dead in the Afghanistan war that caused much more trouble for the USSR, but that had more impact because they were conscripts.
It's hard to tell how much this kind of stuff means. Another data point.
I happen to read lots of small Russian press on a daily basis, the local kind that usually talks about burst pipes and rarely makes it to Twitter. I find that the picture this kind of press paints often gives one a much better sense of how things really stand.
Beyond Moscow and St. Petersburg, beyond the carefully crafted image of the enduring Russian who can quietly take any pain indefinitely, beyond the pompous headlines about the newest Ukrainian city they've been able to obliterate, the very fabric of Russian society is about to come apart.. https://x.com/Daractenus/status/2004459660951105749
Bear in mind, of course, that the invasion is usually the easy part. Russia will have a long and expensive issue ruling over a bunch of people who would rather be part of the country next door. And occupation is usually economically ruinous.
There are brave prime continuing to resist Russia's occupation in Eastern and Southern Ukraine, but the evidence that emerged from Kherson after its liberation was that the Russians were prepared to do what was necessary to occupy a hostile country, and they're much better at that bloody business than the war-fighting end of things.
I think that the collective Western strategy means that continuing the war is a free hit for Putin. He does not have to fear overextending and pushing Russia past the point of endurance, because he knows Ukraine will be forced to accept a ceasefire whenever he feels the need to offer one.
Our actions and choices are therefore prolonging the war because we are minimising the risk of Russian defeat. Somehow we have to change the calculus. We need a change of strategy.
I don't disagree that a change of strategy is needed - frankly European leaders need to grow a pair - but I disagree re Putin.
He can't accept the current cease fire lines, because 1.1 million dead or invalided out for about 15% of the Ukraine, with the rest of Ukraine now clearly in the Western orbit, and essentially zero chance of a friendly Ukrainian government in the future means the end of Putin.
Putin needs a decisive victory. And he's been told that one is imminent.
I disagree. Saddam survived his disastrous escapade in Kuwait, and that was more clearly an embarrassing defeat than the status quo would represent for Putin. And if Russians were going to care about the 1.1 million casualties then Putin would already be toppled - but they don't because they've accepted that as being well-recompensed volunteers.
Remember it was only around 10,000 dead in the Afghanistan war that caused much more trouble for the USSR, but that had more impact because they were conscripts.
It's hard to tell how much this kind of stuff means. Another data point.
I happen to read lots of small Russian press on a daily basis, the local kind that usually talks about burst pipes and rarely makes it to Twitter. I find that the picture this kind of press paints often gives one a much better sense of how things really stand.
Beyond Moscow and St. Petersburg, beyond the carefully crafted image of the enduring Russian who can quietly take any pain indefinitely, beyond the pompous headlines about the newest Ukrainian city they've been able to obliterate, the very fabric of Russian society is about to come apart.. https://x.com/Daractenus/status/2004459660951105749
Similarly from Steve Rosenberg.
Today’s Russian papers sounding downbeat about the economy. “It may slide into stagnation...key sectors weakening.” Another paper: “Slowdown in investment & falling production in civilian industries.” VAT rise may spark “temporary acceleration in inflation.” .. https://x.com/BBCSteveR/status/2003151181347192935
Former Foreign Minister Tanaka Makiko, reacted to Japanese Prime Minister Takaichi's 73% approval rating by stating it's a sign that the general public doesn't understand politics. https://x.com/mrjeffu/status/2004551973924913575
I have a bad feeling that all those warnings about not giving governments excessive powers in the name of fighting terrorism, for fear of how those powers would be used by a government of bad guys, are all about to be proven true.
Yes, of course, but it doesn't even have to be a government of bad guys.
The modern state is so powerful and omnipresent that, if given unnecessary or excessive power and unwatched, governments of the incompetent, sloppy, arrogant, careless and complacent can do plenty of damage without a shred of malice.
F1: less than a month to the first test (26-30 January), though it will be a private one. Then there are two public tests before the season gets going.
Bear in mind, of course, that the invasion is usually the easy part. Russia will have a long and expensive issue ruling over a bunch of people who would rather be part of the country next door. And occupation is usually economically ruinous.
There are brave prime continuing to resist Russia's occupation in Eastern and Southern Ukraine, but the evidence that emerged from Kherson after its liberation was that the Russians were prepared to do what was necessary to occupy a hostile country, and they're much better at that bloody business than the war-fighting end of things.
I think that the collective Western strategy means that continuing the war is a free hit for Putin. He does not have to fear overextending and pushing Russia past the point of endurance, because he knows Ukraine will be forced to accept a ceasefire whenever he feels the need to offer one.
Our actions and choices are therefore prolonging the war because we are minimising the risk of Russian defeat. Somehow we have to change the calculus. We need a change of strategy.
I don't disagree that a change of strategy is needed - frankly European leaders need to grow a pair - but I disagree re Putin.
He can't accept the current cease fire lines, because 1.1 million dead or invalided out for about 15% of the Ukraine, with the rest of Ukraine now clearly in the Western orbit, and essentially zero chance of a friendly Ukrainian government in the future means the end of Putin.
Putin needs a decisive victory. And he's been told that one is imminent.
I disagree. Saddam survived his disastrous escapade in Kuwait, and that was more clearly an embarrassing defeat than the status quo would represent for Putin. And if Russians were going to care about the 1.1 million casualties then Putin would already be toppled - but they don't because they've accepted that as being well-recompensed volunteers.
Remember it was only around 10,000 dead in the Afghanistan war that caused much more trouble for the USSR, but that had more impact because they were conscripts.
And you think conscripts aren’t being sent?
It’s just conscripts from Moscow and St Pete’s that are protected
Do you have a source for conscripts being sent to fight in Ukraine?
Unless I've made an embarrassingly large mistake in listening/reading comprehension (always possible, granted) it would be news to the experts at RUSI and the ISW.
It is remarkable to think that just two players who played in Australia’s last defeat against England in Oz - Smith and Khawaja - are still playing Tests, and only two more (Siddle and Anderson) still playing at all.
Bear in mind, of course, that the invasion is usually the easy part. Russia will have a long and expensive issue ruling over a bunch of people who would rather be part of the country next door. And occupation is usually economically ruinous.
There are brave prime continuing to resist Russia's occupation in Eastern and Southern Ukraine, but the evidence that emerged from Kherson after its liberation was that the Russians were prepared to do what was necessary to occupy a hostile country, and they're much better at that bloody business than the war-fighting end of things.
I think that the collective Western strategy means that continuing the war is a free hit for Putin. He does not have to fear overextending and pushing Russia past the point of endurance, because he knows Ukraine will be forced to accept a ceasefire whenever he feels the need to offer one.
Our actions and choices are therefore prolonging the war because we are minimising the risk of Russian defeat. Somehow we have to change the calculus. We need a change of strategy.
I don't disagree that a change of strategy is needed - frankly European leaders need to grow a pair - but I disagree re Putin.
He can't accept the current cease fire lines, because 1.1 million dead or invalided out for about 15% of the Ukraine, with the rest of Ukraine now clearly in the Western orbit, and essentially zero chance of a friendly Ukrainian government in the future means the end of Putin.
Putin needs a decisive victory. And he's been told that one is imminent.
I disagree. Saddam survived his disastrous escapade in Kuwait, and that was more clearly an embarrassing defeat than the status quo would represent for Putin. And if Russians were going to care about the 1.1 million casualties then Putin would already be toppled - but they don't because they've accepted that as being well-recompensed volunteers.
Remember it was only around 10,000 dead in the Afghanistan war that caused much more trouble for the USSR, but that had more impact because they were conscripts.
And you think conscripts aren’t being sent?
It’s just conscripts from Moscow and St Pete’s that are protected
Do you have a source for conscripts being sent to fight in Ukraine?
Unless I've made an embarrassingly large mistake in listening/reading comprehension (always possible, granted) it would be news to the experts at RUSI and the ISW.
Bear in mind, of course, that the invasion is usually the easy part. Russia will have a long and expensive issue ruling over a bunch of people who would rather be part of the country next door. And occupation is usually economically ruinous.
There are brave prime continuing to resist Russia's occupation in Eastern and Southern Ukraine, but the evidence that emerged from Kherson after its liberation was that the Russians were prepared to do what was necessary to occupy a hostile country, and they're much better at that bloody business than the war-fighting end of things.
I think that the collective Western strategy means that continuing the war is a free hit for Putin. He does not have to fear overextending and pushing Russia past the point of endurance, because he knows Ukraine will be forced to accept a ceasefire whenever he feels the need to offer one.
Our actions and choices are therefore prolonging the war because we are minimising the risk of Russian defeat. Somehow we have to change the calculus. We need a change of strategy.
I don't disagree that a change of strategy is needed - frankly European leaders need to grow a pair - but I disagree re Putin.
He can't accept the current cease fire lines, because 1.1 million dead or invalided out for about 15% of the Ukraine, with the rest of Ukraine now clearly in the Western orbit, and essentially zero chance of a friendly Ukrainian government in the future means the end of Putin.
Putin needs a decisive victory. And he's been told that one is imminent.
I disagree. Saddam survived his disastrous escapade in Kuwait, and that was more clearly an embarrassing defeat than the status quo would represent for Putin. And if Russians were going to care about the 1.1 million casualties then Putin would already be toppled - but they don't because they've accepted that as being well-recompensed volunteers.
Remember it was only around 10,000 dead in the Afghanistan war that caused much more trouble for the USSR, but that had more impact because they were conscripts.
And you think conscripts aren’t being sent?
It’s just conscripts from Moscow and St Pete’s that are protected
Do you have a source for conscripts being sent to fight in Ukraine?
Unless I've made an embarrassingly large mistake in listening/reading comprehension (always possible, granted) it would be news to the experts at RUSI and the ISW.
Yes, there's a lot of coercion used to force conscripts to sign contracts, but it means the Russian state can say that conscripts aren't sent to fight.
Bear in mind, of course, that the invasion is usually the easy part. Russia will have a long and expensive issue ruling over a bunch of people who would rather be part of the country next door. And occupation is usually economically ruinous.
There are brave prime continuing to resist Russia's occupation in Eastern and Southern Ukraine, but the evidence that emerged from Kherson after its liberation was that the Russians were prepared to do what was necessary to occupy a hostile country, and they're much better at that bloody business than the war-fighting end of things.
I think that the collective Western strategy means that continuing the war is a free hit for Putin. He does not have to fear overextending and pushing Russia past the point of endurance, because he knows Ukraine will be forced to accept a ceasefire whenever he feels the need to offer one.
Our actions and choices are therefore prolonging the war because we are minimising the risk of Russian defeat. Somehow we have to change the calculus. We need a change of strategy.
I don't disagree that a change of strategy is needed - frankly European leaders need to grow a pair - but I disagree re Putin.
He can't accept the current cease fire lines, because 1.1 million dead or invalided out for about 15% of the Ukraine, with the rest of Ukraine now clearly in the Western orbit, and essentially zero chance of a friendly Ukrainian government in the future means the end of Putin.
Putin needs a decisive victory. And he's been told that one is imminent.
I disagree. Saddam survived his disastrous escapade in Kuwait, and that was more clearly an embarrassing defeat than the status quo would represent for Putin. And if Russians were going to care about the 1.1 million casualties then Putin would already be toppled - but they don't because they've accepted that as being well-recompensed volunteers.
Remember it was only around 10,000 dead in the Afghanistan war that caused much more trouble for the USSR, but that had more impact because they were conscripts.
And you think conscripts aren’t being sent?
It’s just conscripts from Moscow and St Pete’s that are protected
Do you have a source for conscripts being sent to fight in Ukraine?
Unless I've made an embarrassingly large mistake in listening/reading comprehension (always possible, granted) it would be news to the experts at RUSI and the ISW.
Yes, there's a lot of coercion used to force conscripts to sign contracts, but it means the Russian state can say that conscripts aren't sent to fight.
That is not what that article says. It says conscripts are being forced to fight using forged documentation saying they are contract soldiers, which is altogether different.
This is economic cataclysm: double-digit drops in Russian production of the vast majority of industrial goods from 2024 to 2025. (The tables below show this isn’t a November problem, but across the whole year)
You can keep up that kind of thing for quite a long time: let's not forget that Germany was at peak war production really remarkably late in the war - late 1944, six months after D-Day.
The issue is more that Putin has tried very hard to shield his population from the effects of the war. But he's currently facing a pretty nasty dilemma: is oil output exported abroad to pay the Chinese for the materiel he needs to persecute the war, but leave the domestic economy short? Or does he do the reverse?
There's apparently a seasonal cycle to Russian domestic fuel demand - it's lower in winter than in summer. Consequently the fuel station queues and shortages we saw a while ago have abated. Russian production can now cover Russian demand.
However, exports of refined fuel products are still banned, showing that refinery capacity has not recovered, so we can expect domestic shortages to reappear in the spring (unless the economic downturn reduces domestic demand).
This suggests that Putin will prioritise satisfying domestic demand over exporting for cash. He knows it is political important to do so, and the Russian budget still has some headroom to increase borrowing to pay for expenditure in place of oil export earnings. Which is just as well as the Ukrainians are going to make that choice for him and reduce the capacity for the Russians to export oil.
What's curious is that the Russian government increased borrowing this year, but they're currently cutting spending, and have a lot of cash on hand that they've raised from bond sales.
That makes me wonder about a change in policy. Although I suppose it could be stockpiling cash to be able to deal with the collapse in oil revenue expected with the predicted oil glut early next year.
The really important statistic out of Russia is the decline in food consumption. This speaks of a big decline in real spending power of the Russian population as a result of the economic difficulties. Lots of four-day working, coal miners facing wage arrears, etc.
On oil, Putin has to prioritise local consumption because American sanctions and Ukrainian drones have frightened off foreign buyers. If you run a foreign refinery or chain of petrol stations, you need a continuous supply of oil (of one grade or another) but Russia can no longer guarantee supply dates because Ukrainian drones keep blowing up pipelines, ports and refineries, so you need to buy from a country that can deliver what you need when you need it. This also mitigates against America wrecking your country's economy or seizing your tankers.
On Russia's economic slump over the past year, so what? First, the people who matter have barely noticed because their supermarkets are full of knock-offs of the Western brands they used to sell. It's like switching from Tesco to Lidl, from Heinz beans to Schmeinz beans, they're still beans and some even prefer the latter.
More importantly, Russia really was in the toilet when Putin came to power. That's why Russians keep voting for him (well, that and his opponents disappear). The break-up of the Soviet Union had queues and shortages everywhere. Further back, yet still within living memory, Moscow housewives queued for rotten meat. That is the standard against which short-lived petrol shortages are judged.
I'm not suggesting that the Russian economy is so bad that a revolt against the regime is imminent, but the economic indicators have started to move consistently in a negative direction for Russia, and this is a step on the way to reaching such a breaking point.
The deal with the Russian people was that the war wouldn't negatively impact them, only volunteers would fight, and those who die would have their families looked after. It's not certain how bad things would have to get before the war became very unpopular.
I don't think foreign buyers have been as frightened off Russian oil as you say. It's true that the discount Russia has had to offer has increased, and the amount of Russian oil at sea has increased, but plenty of Russian oil is still being bought and delivered. There's a way for Ukraine to go on that.
From what I understand, that's not necessarily a good thing though. Russia is often selling oil at a loss because its oil is expensive to produce, but it has to keep producing it, otherwise the wells and pipelines are damaged and then wrecked, irretrievably without costly Western equipment, and there's nowhere for it to store the oil it has to keep pumping. So the fact that it is still selling oil at such low prices is a sign of weakness rather than strength.
Which, together with the effect on the global oil price, could be why we're not doing more to choke off the market than we are.
Just what I've heard from usually reliable sources combined with my own speculation.
Oil income's contribution to the Federal budget has declined, but it's not nothing yet. I think Russia is losing money on the oil from some of its wells, but not all of them, and not overall.
There's a massive difference between current cash contribution from a well, and the long-term cost of production. The long-term cost includes maintenance and remedial work, replacement of equipment, etc.
The cash contribution is how much can I sell this barrel for, and what are my immediate costs?
I have little doubt that -at current prices and shorn of Western equipment- Russia is selling oil (on average) at well below its long-term cost of production. But that doesn't mean they're not generating billions of dollars of revenue per month from it right now.
At some point, though, the piper will need to be paid: seals fail, pumps sieze up, you don't have the pumps to do EOR and/or redrill a well. And -of course- as @Richard_Tyndall can tell you, if you don't treat an oilfield right, your ultimate recoverable number will fall.
But as far as the Russian government is concerned, these are all problems for another day.
Venezuela ate its seed corn in such a manner, starting under Chavez. And with much more expensive extraction for much of its reserves. Took a good few years to reach the coffin corner they are in now.
Bear in mind, of course, that the invasion is usually the easy part. Russia will have a long and expensive issue ruling over a bunch of people who would rather be part of the country next door. And occupation is usually economically ruinous.
There are brave prime continuing to resist Russia's occupation in Eastern and Southern Ukraine, but the evidence that emerged from Kherson after its liberation was that the Russians were prepared to do what was necessary to occupy a hostile country, and they're much better at that bloody business than the war-fighting end of things.
I think that the collective Western strategy means that continuing the war is a free hit for Putin. He does not have to fear overextending and pushing Russia past the point of endurance, because he knows Ukraine will be forced to accept a ceasefire whenever he feels the need to offer one.
Our actions and choices are therefore prolonging the war because we are minimising the risk of Russian defeat. Somehow we have to change the calculus. We need a change of strategy.
I don't disagree that a change of strategy is needed - frankly European leaders need to grow a pair - but I disagree re Putin.
He can't accept the current cease fire lines, because 1.1 million dead or invalided out for about 15% of the Ukraine, with the rest of Ukraine now clearly in the Western orbit, and essentially zero chance of a friendly Ukrainian government in the future means the end of Putin.
Putin needs a decisive victory. And he's been told that one is imminent.
I disagree. Saddam survived his disastrous escapade in Kuwait, and that was more clearly an embarrassing defeat than the status quo would represent for Putin. And if Russians were going to care about the 1.1 million casualties then Putin would already be toppled - but they don't because they've accepted that as being well-recompensed volunteers.
Remember it was only around 10,000 dead in the Afghanistan war that caused much more trouble for the USSR, but that had more impact because they were conscripts.
And you think conscripts aren’t being sent?
It’s just conscripts from Moscow and St Pete’s that are protected
Do you have a source for conscripts being sent to fight in Ukraine?
Unless I've made an embarrassingly large mistake in listening/reading comprehension (always possible, granted) it would be news to the experts at RUSI and the ISW.
Yes, there's a lot of coercion used to force conscripts to sign contracts, but it means the Russian state can say that conscripts aren't sent to fight.
That is not what that article says. It says conscripts are being forced to fight using forged documentation saying they are contract soldiers, which is altogether different.
Comments
Not even a sheep or donkey harmed...
On Christmas day, about 450 people died from heart disease, 200 from smoking, 60 from alcohol, 100 from diabetes (using annual figures/365). 100s more will have been prevented by people keeping fit and doing mad stuff like sea swimming and mountaineering.
https://bsky.app/profile/rolandmcs.bsky.social/post/3mav5twmyv22a
People like Drunkard Hegseth.
More likely to be the guidance-control loop - the missile knows where it is supposed to go, but can’t quite get the manoeuvres right.
Let me make it clear that I am not recommending anyone take advantage of this offer. Especially coming from this administration.
But I did want to tell you about this policy, thinking it might have a flaw or two in it.
https://www.ronniescotts.co.uk/find-a-show/tuba-skinny
If there are tickets left: buy them. It's like a cheap trip New Orleans
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tM8ZnbS1nhU
But my wife and I are keen walkers and it is really noticeable how many people are now out walking or even running when we go out. Massively more than there was pre-Covid. I think the message that you really have to look after your own health has some traction, at least with certain proportions of the population.
Waiting lists are used as a way of rationing scarce resources, but rather like waiting lists for a trial date carries problems in its wake.
This is knowledge the Chinese will be benefiting from as well.
I'm not sure that improvements to our best weapons are being made at the same pace.
Vance is even more anti-Ukraine than is Trump.
Ukraine's best hope is the rest of Europe - it hasn't been the US which is funding Ukraine's defence for quite some time now.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PBS_AI-PBS-350
Ukraine is producing more, not less kit since the Russian invasion.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/articles/justice-department-says-filming-immigration-150006881.html
Long ago, at the dawn of CCTV, a policeman’s lawyers (in Oxford) tried to argue that using CCTV from a bank violated his rights. Since it showed said policeman committing crimes…
Edit: see the comic War On Photographers that the Met tried.
Anyone for a national id card database, which obviously needs to list everyone’s religion, sexuality and medical history? I’m quite sure that a Reform run council (let alone national
Government) wouldn’t do anything bad with that….
Private heathcare in Britain is very distorted by the NHS. Private maternity care for example doesnt really exist apart from the Edward VII in London, and that is only viable because it is the private wing of an NHS Hospital. Ditto Emergency Departments.
It isn't really possible to opt out of NHS care because the private system is very dependent on it. Any plan to privatise the NHS falls at the infrastructure step, in that private hospitals are very limited in what they can cope with, though they often do that fairly well.
Incidentally, Spire Hospitals are up for sale:
https://www.business-sale.com/news/business-sale/1-billion-spire-healthcare-explores-sale-as-shareholders-push-for-premium-valuation-228179
Personally, I think the prospectus is polishing a turd in terms of investment. I won't be touching it.
Such a system is used in a number of countries, usually expressed as level of cover.
Melpomene in the Yorkshire Sculpture Park.
The role of a discussant is to read the latest draft (draft 8 as of this moment), point out mistakes, and write a response both about the article and your views on the subject, even if you think I am stupid and the article is bad. Please note that you are being invited in as a discussant not a pre-reader: I might not change the article in response to your remarks, but I will write up your responses and put them in the appendices. You can change your response as much as you like before the final publication, but please note that any interactions with/comments about the other discussants must be limited because that limits their right to change theirs.
On Russia's economic slump over the past year, so what? First, the people who matter have barely noticed because their supermarkets are full of knock-offs of the Western brands they used to sell. It's like switching from Tesco to Lidl, from Heinz beans to Schmeinz beans, they're still beans and some even prefer the latter.
More importantly, Russia really was in the toilet when Putin came to power. That's why Russians keep voting for him (well, that and his opponents disappear). The break-up of the Soviet Union had queues and shortages everywhere. Further back, yet still within living memory, Moscow housewives queued for rotten meat. That is the standard against which short-lived petrol shortages are judged.
The deal with the Russian people was that the war wouldn't negatively impact them, only volunteers would fight, and those who die would have their families looked after. It's not certain how bad things would have to get before the war became very unpopular.
I don't think foreign buyers have been as frightened off Russian oil as you say. It's true that the discount Russia has had to offer has increased, and the amount of Russian oil at sea has increased, but plenty of Russian oil is still being bought and delivered. There's a way for Ukraine to go on that.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=npZ6Y7v8CyY
"This vintage railway film, produced by British Transport Films in 1957, shows the last steam hauled train leaving Liverpool Street before the commencement of electric train services. It also shows how the electrification was done and the men who did it."
He can't accept the current cease fire lines, because 1.1 million dead or invalided out for about 15% of the Ukraine, with the rest of Ukraine now clearly in the Western orbit, and essentially zero chance of a friendly Ukrainian government in the future means the end of Putin.
Putin needs a decisive victory. And he's been told that one is imminent.
Which, together with the effect on the global oil price, could be why we're not doing more to choke off the market than we are.
Just what I've heard from usually reliable sources combined with my own speculation.
Remember it was only around 10,000 dead in the Afghanistan war that caused much more trouble for the USSR, but that had more impact because they were conscripts.
Australia are now 82 for 4.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/cricket/live/cj6xrz556zwt#LiveReporting
You'd think this series would be competitive in that respect.
The cash contribution is how much can I sell this barrel for, and what are my immediate costs?
I have little doubt that -at current prices and shorn of Western equipment- Russia is selling oil (on average) at well below its long-term cost of production. But that doesn't mean they're not generating billions of dollars of revenue per month from it right now.
At some point, though, the piper will need to be paid: seals fail, pumps sieze up, you don't have the pumps to do EOR and/or redrill a well. And -of course- as @Richard_Tyndall can tell you, if you don't treat an oilfield right, your ultimate recoverable number will fall.
But as far as the Russian government is concerned, these are all problems for another day.
It’s just conscripts from Moscow and St Pete’s that are protected
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2025/12/26/uk-twice-as-many-foreign-doctors-and-nurses-oecd-average/ (£££)
Foreign medics shunning NHS because of anti-migrant rhetoric, says top doctor
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2025/dec/26/foreign-medics-shunning-nhs-anti-migrant-rhetoric
You pays your money and you takes your choice.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-15415209/amateur-sleuth-Zodiac-Black-Dahlia.html
Black Dahlia and Zodiak murders were committed by the same ex-sailor, is the theory.
Could be a really exciting afternoon session.
Not sure whether England can get the runs.
But the wicket is getting better... so it's far from impossible.
All we have to do is not be complete muppets.
England need 175 to win.
That's a lot of money to be refunded.
Crawley at least looks competent.
45 for 0 from 6 overs.
What on earth is going on?
England definitely in with a shout here.
I happen to read lots of small Russian press on a daily basis, the local kind that usually talks about burst pipes and rarely makes it to Twitter. I find that the picture this kind of press paints often gives one a much better sense of how things really stand.
Beyond Moscow and St. Petersburg, beyond the carefully crafted image of the enduring Russian who can quietly take any pain indefinitely, beyond the pompous headlines about the newest Ukrainian city they've been able to obliterate, the very fabric of Russian society is about to come apart..
https://x.com/Daractenus/status/2004459660951105749
Today’s Russian papers sounding downbeat about the economy. “It may slide into stagnation...key sectors weakening.” Another paper: “Slowdown in investment & falling production in civilian industries.” VAT rise may spark “temporary acceleration in inflation.” ..
https://x.com/BBCSteveR/status/2003151181347192935
Former Foreign Minister Tanaka Makiko, reacted to Japanese Prime Minister Takaichi's 73% approval rating by stating it's a sign that the general public doesn't understand politics.
https://x.com/mrjeffu/status/2004551973924913575
Also, 73% ?!
The revitalisation of Bazball.
The modern state is so powerful and omnipresent that, if given unnecessary or excessive power and unwatched, governments of the incompetent, sloppy, arrogant, careless and complacent can do plenty of damage without a shred of malice.
To have two two-day Tests in the same summer is a massive failure from the Aussies.
https://x.com/cricketopiacom/status/2004771650932523172
They’re going to hate these short matches as much as the rest of us, doubly so when they lose well inside two days.
F1: less than a month to the first test (26-30 January), though it will be a private one. Then there are two public tests before the season gets going.
Unless I've made an embarrassingly large mistake in listening/reading comprehension (always possible, granted) it would be news to the experts at RUSI and the ISW.
Other sources:
https://www.rferl.org/a/russia-ukraine-conscripts-war-combat/33415104.html
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c36718p52eyo
He has also been using North Korean ‘volunteers,’ ie conscripts.
Stories ranging from Wagner offering $$$, to I went to Moscow to study and got pressganged into signing up.
They’re doing everything possible to avoid regular Russians from the cities ending up in the fight.