RugbyRebels

Which Tyler wrote: ↑Tue Jun 25, 2024 11:42 pm John Oliver on the UK's GE

Son of Mathonwy wrote: ↑Wed Jun 26, 2024 2:03 pm

Zhivago wrote: ↑Tue Jun 25, 2024 10:41 pm

Son of Mathonwy wrote: ↑Tue Jun 25, 2024 10:14 pm
Interesting paper. I would say though that things are materially different - the full-scale Ukraine invasion has had a huge impact on Russia's capabilities, positively and negatively. They have lost a huge number of men and weapons. But they have gained experience and have geared up their economy to a war footing. They are under much greater financial strain. NATO and the Baltic states have learned from the Ukraine war too. How all these changes add together to impact the vulnerability of the Baltic states is hard to determine but I wouldn't assume they are easy pickings, any more than Ukraine turned out to be.

Ukraine is a much larger country. The possibility to conduct defence in depth existed. That is not so in the Baltics. Plus the Russians would immediately cut off the Suwalki gap and attack from three sides. There would be no logistics for NATO to support the Baltics, apart from sea. That would complicate any defence that NATO mounted.

Absolutely. The Baltics are not Ukraine. Also I think there was a fair possibility that the defence of Kyiv might have failed if had circumstances been only slightly different - luck was involved.

I just don't think things are quite as desperate for the Baltic states as you suggest. Russia's situation is weaker in a number of ways (if stronger in others) since the Ukraine invasion began.

Zhivago wrote: ↑Wed Jun 26, 2024 5:27 pm

Son of Mathonwy wrote: ↑Wed Jun 26, 2024 2:03 pm

Zhivago wrote: ↑Tue Jun 25, 2024 10:41 pm

Ukraine is a much larger country. The possibility to conduct defence in depth existed. That is not so in the Baltics. Plus the Russians would immediately cut off the Suwalki gap and attack from three sides. There would be no logistics for NATO to support the Baltics, apart from sea. That would complicate any defence that NATO mounted.

Absolutely. The Baltics are not Ukraine. Also I think there was a fair possibility that the defence of Kyiv might have failed if had circumstances been only slightly different - luck was involved.

I just don't think things are quite as desperate for the Baltic states as you suggest. Russia's situation is weaker in a number of ways (if stronger in others) since the Ukraine invasion began.

NATO has 2200 troops in Estonia, 4000 in Latvia, and 3700 in Lithuania. Russia currently has 470,000 ground troops active in Ukraine.

Son of Mathonwy wrote: ↑Tue Jun 04, 2024 4:51 pm

Puja wrote: ↑Tue Jun 04, 2024 3:56 pm Just looked a bit further into Clacton and my hopes of Labour winning the seat have taken a nose-dive. Their candidate is young, black, university-educated, which are all things the constituency is adamantly not, and has been parachuted in from London (which will not endear, considering Clacton regards Londoners as either bloody tourists ruining our town or not touristy enough and abandoning the British seaside for cheap flights abroad, depending on how much your job depends on the tourism trade). He seems like an excellent candidate who would win most seats, but the constituency has an average age of 51, is 97% White British (literal stat, not hyperbole), is highly insular, and I cannot see them voting for someone named Jovan Owusu Nepaul.

I hope to be proven wrong, but I don't have faith in the place where I grew up not to be incredibly racist.

Puja

Oh FFS, what is the matter with Starmer HQ? Admittedly, they didn't know this was going to be THE fight with Reform UK, but they should have tried to field a suitable candidate. Maybe this is why Farage picked the seat.

Puja wrote: ↑Wed Jun 26, 2024 5:59 pm

Zhivago wrote: ↑Wed Jun 26, 2024 5:27 pm

Son of Mathonwy wrote: ↑Wed Jun 26, 2024 2:03 pm
Absolutely. The Baltics are not Ukraine. Also I think there was a fair possibility that the defence of Kyiv might have failed if had circumstances been only slightly different - luck was involved.

I just don't think things are quite as desperate for the Baltic states as you suggest. Russia's situation is weaker in a number of ways (if stronger in others) since the Ukraine invasion began.

NATO has 2200 troops in Estonia, 4000 in Latvia, and 3700 in Lithuania. Russia currently has 470,000 ground troops active in Ukraine.

There is the fairly major difference that Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania are members of NATO and the EU. Even if we assume a Trump that guts NATO, the EU is bound by mutual defence treaties and those countries have over 1.5 million troops in active forces, with technology and materiel and training of much higher quality than that available to the 470,000 ground troops that Russia has in Ukraine who are a) still involved with Ukraine, b) missing a lot of quality equipment and experience from the fact that they've been fed into Ukrainian mincers on occasions and had their replacements from convicts and draftees.

Can we stop Russia from taking the Baltic States if they were to launch a surprise attack? No, probably not, although I suspect moving those 470,000 troops northwards might be noticed and met with a troop build-up of our own. Would Russia be able to win a conventional warfare battle against just the EU nations? No, probably not. If the rest of NATO joined in? Absolutely not.

Puja

Puja wrote: ↑Wed Jun 26, 2024 7:54 pm

Son of Mathonwy wrote: ↑Tue Jun 04, 2024 4:51 pm

Puja wrote: ↑Tue Jun 04, 2024 3:56 pm Just looked a bit further into Clacton and my hopes of Labour winning the seat have taken a nose-dive. Their candidate is young, black, university-educated, which are all things the constituency is adamantly not, and has been parachuted in from London (which will not endear, considering Clacton regards Londoners as either bloody tourists ruining our town or not touristy enough and abandoning the British seaside for cheap flights abroad, depending on how much your job depends on the tourism trade). He seems like an excellent candidate who would win most seats, but the constituency has an average age of 51, is 97% White British (literal stat, not hyperbole), is highly insular, and I cannot see them voting for someone named Jovan Owusu Nepaul.

I hope to be proven wrong, but I don't have faith in the place where I grew up not to be incredibly racist.

Puja

Oh FFS, what is the matter with Starmer HQ? Admittedly, they didn't know this was going to be THE fight with Reform UK, but they should have tried to field a suitable candidate. Maybe this is why Farage picked the seat.

Oh, and it gets so much worse: https://www.theguardian.com/politics/ar ... in-clacton

Maybe Clacton wasn't winnable once Farage got involved, but on the other hand, maybe it could've been! Have the frothing racist vote split between Reform and the Tories and campaign on the "Dear gods, do you really want Farage representing you?!?!" ticket and there's a route to victory there. Even if there isn't, at least they'd've *tried* to stop the literal worst person from winning. I suspect they have looked at it without ethics or morals being involved, decided that they're interested in trying to knock the Tories' MPs as low as possible, and a Reform win achieves that just as well as a Labour one does.

Puja

Mikey Brown wrote: ↑Wed Jun 26, 2024 10:19 pm

Puja wrote: ↑Wed Jun 26, 2024 7:54 pm

Son of Mathonwy wrote: ↑Tue Jun 04, 2024 4:51 pm
Oh FFS, what is the matter with Starmer HQ? Admittedly, they didn't know this was going to be THE fight with Reform UK, but they should have tried to field a suitable candidate. Maybe this is why Farage picked the seat.

Oh, and it gets so much worse: https://www.theguardian.com/politics/ar ... in-clacton

Maybe Clacton wasn't winnable once Farage got involved, but on the other hand, maybe it could've been! Have the frothing racist vote split between Reform and the Tories and campaign on the "Dear gods, do you really want Farage representing you?!?!" ticket and there's a route to victory there. Even if there isn't, at least they'd've *tried* to stop the literal worst person from winning. I suspect they have looked at it without ethics or morals being involved, decided that they're interested in trying to knock the Tories' MPs as low as possible, and a Reform win achieves that just as well as a Labour one does.

Puja

For fucks sake.

Honestly I am trying not to be so negative about what Labour are offering, but I’m struggling to read this as pragmatic rather than simply pathetic.

Puja wrote: ↑Wed Jun 26, 2024 5:59 pm

Zhivago wrote: ↑Wed Jun 26, 2024 5:27 pm

Son of Mathonwy wrote: ↑Wed Jun 26, 2024 2:03 pm
Absolutely. The Baltics are not Ukraine. Also I think there was a fair possibility that the defence of Kyiv might have failed if had circumstances been only slightly different - luck was involved.

I just don't think things are quite as desperate for the Baltic states as you suggest. Russia's situation is weaker in a number of ways (if stronger in others) since the Ukraine invasion began.

NATO has 2200 troops in Estonia, 4000 in Latvia, and 3700 in Lithuania. Russia currently has 470,000 ground troops active in Ukraine.

There is the fairly major difference that Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania are members of NATO and the EU. Even if we assume a Trump that guts NATO, the EU is bound by mutual defence treaties and those countries have over 1.5 million troops in active forces, with technology and materiel and training of much higher quality than that available to the 470,000 ground troops that Russia has in Ukraine who are a) still involved with Ukraine, b) missing a lot of quality equipment and experience from the fact that they've been fed into Ukrainian mincers on occasions and had their replacements from convicts and draftees.

Can we stop Russia from taking the Baltic States if they were to launch a surprise attack? No, probably not, although I suspect moving those 470,000 troops northwards might be noticed and met with a troop build-up of our own. Would Russia be able to win a conventional warfare battle against just the EU nations? No, probably not. If the rest of NATO joined in? Absolutely not.

Puja

Sandydragon wrote: ↑Thu Jun 27, 2024 7:52 am

Puja wrote: ↑Wed Jun 26, 2024 5:59 pm

Zhivago wrote: ↑Wed Jun 26, 2024 5:27 pm

NATO has 2200 troops in Estonia, 4000 in Latvia, and 3700 in Lithuania. Russia currently has 470,000 ground troops active in Ukraine.

There is the fairly major difference that Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania are members of NATO and the EU. Even if we assume a Trump that guts NATO, the EU is bound by mutual defence treaties and those countries have over 1.5 million troops in active forces, with technology and materiel and training of much higher quality than that available to the 470,000 ground troops that Russia has in Ukraine who are a) still involved with Ukraine, b) missing a lot of quality equipment and experience from the fact that they've been fed into Ukrainian mincers on occasions and had their replacements from convicts and draftees.

Can we stop Russia from taking the Baltic States if they were to launch a surprise attack? No, probably not, although I suspect moving those 470,000 troops northwards might be noticed and met with a troop build-up of our own. Would Russia be able to win a conventional warfare battle against just the EU nations? No, probably not. If the rest of NATO joined in? Absolutely not.

Puja

Without the US we won’t have the ammunition to last that long. And you seem to think that all NATO armies are equally competent, that’s far from the truth.

The Baltic states aren’t defensible in the long term. I doubt very much that we would poor in troops to defend them, there isn’t the space to trade for time to soak up Russias numerical advantage. For them we are hoping a token presence and the threat of nukes will suffice.

And of course reducing defence spending will encourage Putin to try his arm still further. Sending the signal that if you don’t hurt us we won’t hurt you, as we the Green spokesman, send the message that we won’t honour our nato commitments when severely pressed.


What we need is a united approach and strong commitment to collective defence.

Zhivago wrote: ↑Thu Jun 27, 2024 9:09 am

Sandydragon wrote: ↑Thu Jun 27, 2024 7:52 am

Puja wrote: ↑Wed Jun 26, 2024 5:59 pm

There is the fairly major difference that Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania are members of NATO and the EU. Even if we assume a Trump that guts NATO, the EU is bound by mutual defence treaties and those countries have over 1.5 million troops in active forces, with technology and materiel and training of much higher quality than that available to the 470,000 ground troops that Russia has in Ukraine who are a) still involved with Ukraine, b) missing a lot of quality equipment and experience from the fact that they've been fed into Ukrainian mincers on occasions and had their replacements from convicts and draftees.

Can we stop Russia from taking the Baltic States if they were to launch a surprise attack? No, probably not, although I suspect moving those 470,000 troops northwards might be noticed and met with a troop build-up of our own. Would Russia be able to win a conventional warfare battle against just the EU nations? No, probably not. If the rest of NATO joined in? Absolutely not.

Puja

Without the US we won’t have the ammunition to last that long. And you seem to think that all NATO armies are equally competent, that’s far from the truth.

The Baltic states aren’t defensible in the long term. I doubt very much that we would poor in troops to defend them, there isn’t the space to trade for time to soak up Russias numerical advantage. For them we are hoping a token presence and the threat of nukes will suffice.

And of course reducing defence spending will encourage Putin to try his arm still further. Sending the signal that if you don’t hurt us we won’t hurt you, as we the Green spokesman, send the message that we won’t honour our nato commitments when severely pressed.


What we need is a united approach and strong commitment to collective defence.

We simply must not let Ukraine lose. The consequences really are dire. I don't understand people who don't get this. People like Puja who worse still, want to scrimp on our defence budget and give up our nuclear power status.

We have a saying in the Netherlands. Goedkoop is duurkoop. It means cheap is expensive. If we spend less now, it'll just be more costly in the longer term.

Puja wrote: ↑Thu Jun 27, 2024 9:41 am

Zhivago wrote: ↑Thu Jun 27, 2024 9:09 am

Sandydragon wrote: ↑Thu Jun 27, 2024 7:52 am
Without the US we won’t have the ammunition to last that long. And you seem to think that all NATO armies are equally competent, that’s far from the truth.

The Baltic states aren’t defensible in the long term. I doubt very much that we would poor in troops to defend them, there isn’t the space to trade for time to soak up Russias numerical advantage. For them we are hoping a token presence and the threat of nukes will suffice.

And of course reducing defence spending will encourage Putin to try his arm still further. Sending the signal that if you don’t hurt us we won’t hurt you, as we the Green spokesman, send the message that we won’t honour our nato commitments when severely pressed.


What we need is a united approach and strong commitment to collective defence.

We simply must not let Ukraine lose. The consequences really are dire. I don't understand people who don't get this. People like Puja who worse still, want to scrimp on our defence budget and give up our nuclear power status.

We have a saying in the Netherlands. Goedkoop is duurkoop. It means cheap is expensive. If we spend less now, it'll just be more costly in the longer term.

I was going to copy your post and just paste in "climate emergency" in all the apposite places, but it felt cheap and I think my point can be made without it. Cheap is expensive in-fucking-deed, yet when it comes to budgets and spending, it's always "Can we afford to spend on Net Zero?" not, "What use is having our own individual nuclear penis to wave around if the world is on fire?"

Puja

Son of Mathonwy wrote: ↑Thu Jun 27, 2024 10:41 am For what it's worth I wouldn't want the Greens setting our defence policy*, although I'd like them to set everything else.

But since they're so far, far, far removed from the chance of getting into even double figures in parliament I'm comfortable with arguing to increase that number.

* on balance I'd go Lib Dem on defence. Tories and Labour are too war-mongery and happy to support states committing war crimes.

Son of Mathonwy wrote: ↑Fri Jun 28, 2024 10:50 am The latest Electoral Calculus prediction has the LibDems on 71 seats and the Tories on 65.
Oh please let this come true . . .

https://www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/pre ... _home.html

Son of Mathonwy wrote: ↑Fri Jun 28, 2024 10:50 am The latest Electoral Calculus prediction has the LibDems on 71 seats and the Tories on 65.
Oh please let this come true . . .

https://www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/pre ... _home.html

Zhivago wrote: ↑Thu Jun 27, 2024 10:15 am

Puja wrote: ↑Thu Jun 27, 2024 9:41 am

Zhivago wrote: ↑Thu Jun 27, 2024 9:09 am

We simply must not let Ukraine lose. The consequences really are dire. I don't understand people who don't get this. People like Puja who worse still, want to scrimp on our defence budget and give up our nuclear power status.

We have a saying in the Netherlands. Goedkoop is duurkoop. It means cheap is expensive. If we spend less now, it'll just be more costly in the longer term.

I was going to copy your post and just paste in "climate emergency" in all the apposite places, but it felt cheap and I think my point can be made without it. Cheap is expensive in-fucking-deed, yet when it comes to budgets and spending, it's always "Can we afford to spend on Net Zero?" not, "What use is having our own individual nuclear penis to wave around if the world is on fire?"

Puja

For the record, climate change policies are also necessary. I know the budget is finite, but I don't think it is so finite that we can only increase spending on one if we cut the other.

The climate change threat is probably greater, but more distant in the future. The geopolitical threats are rather more urgent though.

Which Tyler wrote: ↑Fri Jun 28, 2024 3:03 pm

Son of Mathonwy wrote: ↑Fri Jun 28, 2024 10:50 am The latest Electoral Calculus prediction has the LibDems on 71 seats and the Tories on 65.
Oh please let this come true . . .

https://www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/pre ... _home.html

Please, please, please, please, please

Banquo wrote: ↑Sat Jun 29, 2024 11:41 am

Which Tyler wrote: ↑Fri Jun 28, 2024 3:03 pm

Son of Mathonwy wrote: ↑Fri Jun 28, 2024 10:50 am The latest Electoral Calculus prediction has the LibDems on 71 seats and the Tories on 65.
Oh please let this come true . . .

https://www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/pre ... _home.html

Please, please, please, please, please

might even get tories supporting proportional representation....not that labour would then want that. When they push through 16 year olds getting the vote, they are absolutel nailed on for years.

Son of Mathonwy wrote: ↑Sat Jun 29, 2024 4:00 pm

Banquo wrote: ↑Sat Jun 29, 2024 11:41 am

Which Tyler wrote: ↑Fri Jun 28, 2024 3:03 pm

Please, please, please, please, please

might even get tories supporting proportional representation....not that labour would then want that. When they push through 16 year olds getting the vote, they are absolutel nailed on for years.

Nailed on for five years, no more than that. No more than Boris was nailed on after his 'landslide' in 2019.

Banquo wrote: ↑Sat Jun 29, 2024 6:04 pm

Son of Mathonwy wrote: ↑Sat Jun 29, 2024 4:00 pm

Banquo wrote: ↑Sat Jun 29, 2024 11:41 am
might even get tories supporting proportional representation....not that labour would then want that. When they push through 16 year olds getting the vote, they are absolutel nailed on for years.

Nailed on for five years, no more than that. No more than Boris was nailed on after his 'landslide' in 2019.

putting the 16 year old vote with not being boris/gbd and covid and the `no more than that` becomes `a lot different to`...

Banquo wrote: ↑Sat Jun 29, 2024 11:41 am

Which Tyler wrote: ↑Fri Jun 28, 2024 3:03 pm

Son of Mathonwy wrote: ↑Fri Jun 28, 2024 10:50 am The latest Electoral Calculus prediction has the LibDems on 71 seats and the Tories on 65.
Oh please let this come true . . .

https://www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/pre ... _home.html

Please, please, please, please, please

might even get tories supporting proportional representation....not that labour would then want that. When they push through 16 year olds getting the vote, they are absolutel nailed on for years.

Son of Mathonwy wrote: ↑Sat Jun 29, 2024 9:01 pm

Banquo wrote: ↑Sat Jun 29, 2024 6:04 pm

Son of Mathonwy wrote: ↑Sat Jun 29, 2024 4:00 pm
Nailed on for five years, no more than that. No more than Boris was nailed on after his 'landslide' in 2019.

putting the 16 year old vote with not being boris/gbd and covid and the `no more than that` becomes `a lot different to`...

Boris did his best to gerrymander things by introducing voter ID. Still wasn't enough. Votes for 16-17 won't be enough either if Labour don't make things better over the next 5 years.