Discussion:
OT: Please support Ukraine by sending an email to the PM!
(too old to reply)
Java Jive
2024-09-06 11:26:14 UTC
Permalink
Please write to the PM urging him in the strongest possible terms to
lift the restrictions on the use of long-range weapons supplied by the
UK to Ukraine.

You can contact the PM's office here:

https://contact.no10.gov.uk/

If it's any help, this is what I wrote, but it would be better if you
would write your message in your own words:

"Congratulations on your election win in the spring.

We have many problems to solve in this country, but TODAY before you
apply yourself to anything else, please avoid tomorrow's war. I grew up
in this country in the post-WW2 years, and consequently am well aware of
the historical events that led to that war, and hence know that the
surest way to bring about WW3 would be to show weakness to a bully like
Putin, or Putler as many now call him. If Ukraine doesn't defeat
Russia, NATO will have to do it, putting British lives at risk.

Ukraine MUST be given everything it needs to defeat Russia. In
particular, please, ignore US restrictions and give permission for
Ukraine to use the long-range weapons that we have already supplied, and
pressure the US in the strongest possible terms to lift their own
restrictions on the use of such weapons.

Slava Ukraini!

[anonymised]"
--
Fake news kills!

I may be contacted via the contact address given on my website:
www.macfh.co.uk
JMB99
2024-09-06 12:24:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by Java Jive
Please write to the PM urging him in the strongest possible terms to
lift the restrictions on the use of long-range weapons supplied by the
UK to Ukraine.
Two Tier Keir has shown that he is completely out of touch with
everything and does not listen to other people's opinions so I can't
imagine EMails will be even read.
Java Jive
2024-09-06 12:36:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by JMB99
Post by Java Jive
Please write to the PM urging him in the strongest possible terms to
lift the restrictions on the use of long-range weapons supplied by the
UK to Ukraine.
Two Tier Keir has shown that he is completely out of touch with
everything and does not listen to other people's opinions so I can't
imagine EMails will be even read.
What a ridiculous straw man! Ask yourself: which is more important to
the world, your own personal bigotry against Starmer, or helping Ukraine
win its freedom?!

They will be read by some PA or other, and if enough of them on the same
subject arrive they, or a summary of them, with perhaps even a sample of
the best written, are more likely to come to his attention.
--
Fake news kills!

I may be contacted via the contact address given on my website:
www.macfh.co.uk
Java Jive
2024-09-06 12:47:56 UTC
Permalink
Oops, please read the following correction ...
Post by Java Jive
Please write to the PM urging him in the strongest possible terms to
lift the restrictions on the use of long-range weapons supplied by the
UK to Ukraine.
https://contact.no10.gov.uk/
If it's any help, this is what I wrote, but it would be better if you
"Congratulations on your election win in the spring.
We have many problems to solve in this country, but TODAY before you
apply yourself to anything else, please avoid tomorrow's war.  I grew up
in this country in the post-WW2 years, and consequently am well aware of
the historical events that led to that war, and hence know that the
surest way to bring about WW3 would be to show weakness to a bully like
Putin, or Putler as many now call him.  If Ukraine doesn't defeat
Russia, NATO will have to do it, putting British lives at risk.
Ukraine MUST be given everything it needs to defeat Russia.  In
particular, please, ignore US restrictions and give permission for
Ukraine to use the long-range weapons that we have already supplied
... on the territory of the Russian Federation ...
Post by Java Jive
, and
pressure the US in the strongest possible terms to lift their own
restrictions on the use of such weapons.
Slava Ukraini!
[anonymised]"
Hopefully in the case of my own email what I should have said will be
understood.
--
Fake news kills!

I may be contacted via the contact address given on my website:
www.macfh.co.uk
Max Demian
2024-09-06 17:07:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by Java Jive
Please write to the PM urging him in the strongest possible terms to
lift the restrictions on the use of long-range weapons supplied by the
UK to Ukraine.
"War, huh, yeah
What is it good for?"
--
Max Demian
Java Jive
2024-09-06 18:13:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by Max Demian
Post by Java Jive
Please write to the PM urging him in the strongest possible terms to
lift the restrictions on the use of long-range weapons supplied by the
UK to Ukraine.
"War, huh, yeah
What is it good for?"
Preserving your freedom when someone else threatens it ...
--
Fake news kills!

I may be contacted via the contact address given on my website:
www.macfh.co.uk
Chris
2024-09-06 17:48:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by Java Jive
Please write to the PM urging him in the strongest possible terms to
lift the restrictions on the use of long-range weapons supplied by the
UK to Ukraine.
https://contact.no10.gov.uk/
You're best setting up a petition. There is a formal mechanism to get
issues discussed in parliament. The Office at No. 10 won't care.
https://petition.parliament.uk/
Java Jive
2024-09-06 18:21:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by Chris
Post by Java Jive
Please write to the PM urging him in the strongest possible terms to
lift the restrictions on the use of long-range weapons supplied by the
UK to Ukraine.
https://contact.no10.gov.uk/
You're best setting up a petition. There is a formal mechanism to get
issues discussed in parliament. The Office at No. 10 won't care.
https://petition.parliament.uk/
Thanks for the only sensible reply, so far, but a brief search doesn't
convince me:

https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions?q=arms+for+ukraine
--
Fake news kills!

I may be contacted via the contact address given on my website:
www.macfh.co.uk
Chris
2024-09-06 23:10:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by Java Jive
Post by Chris
Post by Java Jive
Please write to the PM urging him in the strongest possible terms to
lift the restrictions on the use of long-range weapons supplied by the
UK to Ukraine.
https://contact.no10.gov.uk/
You're best setting up a petition. There is a formal mechanism to get
issues discussed in parliament. The Office at No. 10 won't care.
https://petition.parliament.uk/
Thanks for the only sensible reply, so far, but a brief search doesn't
https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions?q=arms+for+ukraine
I guess that tells you people don't really care enough.
Andy Burns
2024-09-07 08:25:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by Chris
Post by Java Jive
https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions?q=arms+for+ukraine
I guess that tells you people don't really care enough.
Or that people have worked out that the petitions website is just there
to divert attention, and the few petitions that make it past 100k
signatures can be grudgingly dealt with by a debate is a side-chamber in
parliament, but nothing will actually happen ... wikip lists seven
petitions with over half a million votes, they all failed to make a
difference.

I do support Ukraine, but writing to Kier isn't going to help.
Graham J
2024-09-07 09:14:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by Andy Burns
Post by Chris
Post by Java Jive
https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions?q=arms+for+ukraine
I guess that tells you people don't really care enough.
Or that people have worked out that the petitions website is just there
to divert attention, and the few petitions that make it past 100k
signatures can be grudgingly dealt with by a debate is a side-chamber in
parliament, but nothing will actually happen ... wikip lists seven
petitions with over half a million votes, they all failed to make a
difference.
The anti-Brexit petition gained over 6 million votes and still made no
difference.

<https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions/241584>
--
Graham J
Spike
2024-09-07 09:37:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by Graham J
Post by Andy Burns
Post by Chris
Post by Java Jive
https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions?q=arms+for+ukraine
I guess that tells you people don't really care enough.
Or that people have worked out that the petitions website is just there
to divert attention, and the few petitions that make it past 100k
signatures can be grudgingly dealt with by a debate is a side-chamber in
parliament, but nothing will actually happen ... wikip lists seven
petitions with over half a million votes, they all failed to make a
difference.
The anti-Brexit petition gained over 6 million votes and still made no
difference.
<https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions/241584>
But there had been a real vote on Brexit, so what difference did the
petition make in going against the expressed wish of the voters?
--
Spike
Chris
2024-09-07 11:56:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by Graham J
Post by Andy Burns
Post by Chris
Post by Java Jive
https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions?q=arms+for+ukraine
I guess that tells you people don't really care enough.
Or that people have worked out that the petitions website is just there
to divert attention, and the few petitions that make it past 100k
signatures can be grudgingly dealt with by a debate is a side-chamber in
parliament, but nothing will actually happen ... wikip lists seven
petitions with over half a million votes, they all failed to make a
difference.
The anti-Brexit petition gained over 6 million votes and still made no
difference.
<https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions/241584>
Nor should it have done. We had a referendum across the whole country that
isn't going to be overturned by a petition.
alan_m
2024-09-08 09:12:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by Graham J
Post by Andy Burns
Post by Chris
Post by Java Jive
https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions?q=arms+for+ukraine
I guess that tells you people don't really care enough.
Or that people have worked out that the petitions website is just
there to divert attention, and the few petitions that make it past
100k signatures can be grudgingly dealt with by a debate is a
side-chamber in parliament, but nothing will actually happen ... wikip
lists seven petitions with over half a million votes, they all failed
to make a difference.
The anti-Brexit petition gained over 6 million votes and still made no
difference.
<https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions/241584>
Much the same as starting a new petition to immediately have another
general election because you disagree that the current Labour government
shouldn't have been voted in.
--
mailto : news {at} admac {dot} myzen {dot} co {dot} uk
Java Jive
2024-09-07 11:45:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by Andy Burns
I do support Ukraine, but writing to Kier isn't going to help.
Maybe, but this is a democracy, so it's not going to do you or anyone
else harm, so why not actually do it?
--
Fake news kills!

I may be contacted via the contact address given on my website:
www.macfh.co.uk
alan_m
2024-09-08 09:03:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by Java Jive
Post by Chris
Post by Java Jive
Please write to the PM urging him in the strongest possible terms to
lift the restrictions on the use of long-range weapons supplied by the
UK to Ukraine.
https://contact.no10.gov.uk/
You're best setting up a petition. There is a formal mechanism to get
issues discussed in parliament. The Office at No. 10 won't care.
https://petition.parliament.uk/
Thanks for the only sensible reply, so far, but a brief search doesn't
https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions?q=arms+for+ukraine
It has worked in the past with over a 1.7 million signatures on
prospective road pricing policies.

The problem with petitions or emails is that unless you have the support
of more than hundreds of thousands they are likely to be ignored.

While a few may have very strong views on a subject many tens of
millions couldn't care less.
--
mailto : news {at} admac {dot} myzen {dot} co {dot} uk
Indy Jess John
2024-09-06 19:39:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by Java Jive
Please write to the PM urging him in the strongest possible terms to
lift the restrictions on the use of long-range weapons supplied by the
UK to Ukraine.
https://contact.no10.gov.uk/
If it's any help, this is what I wrote, but it would be better if you
"Congratulations on your election win in the spring.
We have many problems to solve in this country, but TODAY before you
apply yourself to anything else, please avoid tomorrow's war.  I grew up
in this country in the post-WW2 years, and consequently am well aware of
the historical events that led to that war, and hence know that the
surest way to bring about WW3 would be to show weakness to a bully like
Putin, or Putler as many now call him.  If Ukraine doesn't defeat
Russia, NATO will have to do it, putting British lives at risk.
Ukraine MUST be given everything it needs to defeat Russia.  In
particular, please, ignore US restrictions and give permission for
Ukraine to use the long-range weapons that we have already supplied, and
pressure the US in the strongest possible terms to lift their own
restrictions on the use of such weapons.
Slava Ukraini!
[anonymised]"
I still look in on digital-tv now and again but don't normally comment
because I object to the cancel culture that was regularly aimed at me. I
am making an exception having spotted this post.

I have also sent in a message to the PM's office, with a similar
request, expressed rather differently. This is what I sent.

Having seen how Ukraine's incursion into Russian territory has rattled
Putin's Government and brought home to the Russian residents that there
is a war going on and it affects non-combatants, the restrictions that
were put on how the weaponry supplied by the UK and others could be used
look totally out of place. What Ukraine needs now is the permission to
use the weaponry to freely attack military capability, arms and fuel
stores, and any other targets that would hamper the Russian war
capability. Effectively, Ukraine needs to win the war by all means
available because otherwise Nato will become dragged into the conflict
and British forces will be involved. Ukraine can't do so with one arm
tied behind its back. UK restrictions can and must be removed quickly,
but the UK Government also needs to persuade other NATO countries,
especially the USA, to do the same.

Jim
Andy Burns
2024-09-06 19:54:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by Indy Jess John
I object to the cancel culture that was regularly aimed at me.
Eh? I don't remember you getting stick ...
Andy Burns
2024-09-06 19:54:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by Indy Jess John
I object to the cancel culture that was regularly aimed at me.
Eh? I don't remember you getting stick ...
Java Jive
2024-09-06 21:47:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by Indy Jess John
I have also sent in a message to the PM's office, with a similar
request, expressed rather differently.  This is what I sent.
Having seen how Ukraine's incursion into Russian territory has rattled
Putin's Government and brought home to the Russian residents that there
is a war going on and it affects non-combatants, the restrictions that
were put on how the weaponry supplied by the UK and others could be used
look totally out of place.  What Ukraine needs now is the permission to
use the weaponry to freely attack military capability, arms and fuel
stores, and any other targets that would hamper the Russian war
capability.  Effectively, Ukraine needs to win the war by all means
available because otherwise Nato will become dragged into the conflict
and British forces will be involved. Ukraine can't do so with one arm
tied behind its back.  UK restrictions can and must be removed quickly,
but the UK Government also needs to persuade other NATO countries,
especially the USA, to do the same.
Tx. Hope it's more than just us 2.
--
Fake news kills!

I may be contacted via the contact address given on my website:
www.macfh.co.uk
David Rance
2024-09-07 15:46:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by Indy Jess John
I have also sent in a message to the PM's office, with a similar
request, expressed rather differently.  This is what I sent.
Having seen how Ukraine's incursion into Russian territory has rattled
Putin's Government and brought home to the Russian residents that
there is a war going on and it affects non-combatants, the
restrictions that were put on how the weaponry supplied by the UK and
others could be used look totally out of place.  What Ukraine needs
now is the permission to use the weaponry to freely attack military
capability, arms and fuel stores, and any other targets that would
hamper the Russian war capability.  Effectively, Ukraine needs to win
the war by all means available because otherwise Nato will become
dragged into the conflict and British forces will be involved. Ukraine
can't do so with one arm tied behind its back.  UK restrictions can
and must be removed quickly, but the UK Government also needs to
persuade other NATO countries, especially the USA, to do the same.
Tx.  Hope it's more than just us 2.
While I sympathise greatly with your argument - and I think that Indy's
reply is well thought out - have you stopped to consider that we are
dealing with a David and Goliath situation? Whatever Ukraine can muster
as far as weaponry is concerned, we must remember that Russia's arsenal
is far, far greater. The more that Ukraine is able to attack Russia on
its own soil the more Russia is likely to escalate.

Russia fired an attack on Lviv just a few days ago which is on the
western side of Ukraine and not far from the Polish border. Another
attack like that which isn't quite so accurate could well go over the
border into Poland. And what then?

And if Ukraine were allowed to fire into Russia just how much damage
could it achieve, bearing in mind the geographical spread of the Russian
Federation? It would still be an irritant to Russia which could prompt
them into more reckless attacks on Ukraine.

I don't know. There is no simple answer. I am old enough to remember the
summer of 1963 and Kennedy facing up to Khruschev. We were all on
tenterhooks. I can remember walking down Edgware Road in London and
looking around me, thinking that all that I could see might not exist in
a week's time - we believed we were that close to a world disaster!
Fortunately Khruschev backed down and turned the ship around which was
bound for Cuba with materials to build a nuclear missile base there.
Kennedy said that, if the ship weren't turned around by a deadline, he
would sink it! None of us expected Khruschev to back down - but he did.

Ukraine has not yet been able to put Russia in a similar position where
Putin has to back down - or even negotiate in terms at all favourable to
Ukraine. But will giving Ukraine the ability to fire into Russia lead to
anything useful? It might do. On the other hand it might not. It might
make things a lot worse.

Just my thoughts.

David
Andy Burns
2024-09-07 15:59:42 UTC
Permalink
The more that Ukraine is able to attack Russia on its own soil the more
Russia is likely to escalate.
The West should let them have half a dozen of the "good" ATACMS so they
can properly take out the Kerch bridge ...
Java Jive
2024-09-07 17:11:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by David Rance
Post by Indy Jess John
I have also sent in a message to the PM's office, with a similar
request, expressed rather differently.  This is what I sent.
Having seen how Ukraine's incursion into Russian territory has
rattled Putin's Government and brought home to the Russian residents
that there is a war going on and it affects non-combatants, the
restrictions that were put on how the weaponry supplied by the UK and
others could be used look totally out of place.  What Ukraine needs
now is the permission to use the weaponry to freely attack military
capability, arms and fuel stores, and any other targets that would
hamper the Russian war capability.  Effectively, Ukraine needs to win
the war by all means available because otherwise Nato will become
dragged into the conflict and British forces will be involved.
Ukraine can't do so with one arm tied behind its back.  UK
restrictions can and must be removed quickly, but the UK Government
also needs to persuade other NATO countries, especially the USA, to
do the same.
Tx.  Hope it's more than just us 2.
While I sympathise greatly with your argument - and I think that Indy's
reply is well thought out - have you stopped to consider that we are
dealing with a David and Goliath situation? Whatever Ukraine can muster
as far as weaponry is concerned, we must remember that Russia's arsenal
is far, far greater.
All things are relative, and after all David won ...

Ukraine's population is 37m, Russia's is 145m, which supports your
argument. However, Russia is desperate to avoid another round of
conscription and also is trying to avoid sending ethnic Russians to war,
because both moves would be highly unpopular with the ethnic Russians
that are the core of governmental support. Russia's non-ethnic
population is 34m, of the same order of magnitude as Ukraine's. Of
those totals, both have a similar proportion of age suitable for
military service, about 44%

When it comes to arms, in the short term Russia's have been and are
being emasculated by corruption and by suicidal attacks, particularly at
the beginning of the war, but they still continue. For example, there
are online before and now satellite photos of Russian tanks parked at
depots, and while there are still some left now, the 'low hanging fruit'
have been well and truly picked, those remaining are likely to take some
considerable rebuilding to become serviceable, and most of them are 50s
or 60s technology which would need further revamping to make them
effective in modern combat.

In the longer term, Ukraine is being armed by the West, and the West's
GDP is 27 Trillion $ (2021 figures) excluding the US, 50 including the
US, while Russia's is only 1.78, or 20 if you include all its allies
including China.
Post by David Rance
The more that Ukraine is able to attack Russia on
its own soil the more Russia is likely to escalate.
Russia doesn't need an excuse to escalate, it has been escalating
continuously since 2014 or even before. The purpose of it is to
intimidate the west. We must not allow ourselves to be intimidated,
because that will only encourage them. Indeed a convincing argument can
be made that our passive reaction to previous Russian escalations is
precisely what has contributed to the current situation and has brought
us to where we are now.
Post by David Rance
Russia fired an attack on Lviv just a few days ago which is on the
western side of Ukraine and not far from the Polish border. Another
attack like that which isn't quite so accurate could well go over the
border into Poland. And what then?
Most probably NATO will ignore it, the way it has already ignored
Russian drones crashing in Romania, and the same way that on the
opposing side Belarus will ignore the drones that it had to shoot down
the other day. Another possibility is that NATO will allow those
countries bordering Ukraine to shoot down any Russian missile that comes
within range of the air defences, but I think this is unlikely.
Post by David Rance
And if Ukraine were allowed to fire into Russia just how much damage
could it achieve, bearing in mind the geographical spread of the Russian
Federation? It would still be an irritant to Russia which could prompt
them into more reckless attacks on Ukraine.
Have you actually been following the conflict at all? Ukraine has
already been doing this since almost the start of the war. At
conservative estimates, they have already destroyed about 10% of
Russia's refinery capacity, have destroyed a number of planes on the
ground at airfields, destroyed a number of factories making military
goods, etc.
Post by David Rance
I don't know. There is no simple answer. I am old enough to remember the
summer of 1963 and Kennedy facing up to Khruschev. We were all on
tenterhooks. I can remember walking down Edgware Road in London and
looking around me, thinking that all that I could see might not exist in
a week's time - we believed we were that close to a world disaster!
Fortunately Khruschev backed down and turned the ship around which was
bound for Cuba with materials to build a nuclear missile base there.
Kennedy said that, if the ship weren't turned around by a deadline, he
would sink it! None of us expected Khruschev to back down - but he did.
Putin will not use nukes, both because Russia will come out worst from a
nuclear exchange, and because he will lose what little support he still
has left from countries like China and India.
Post by David Rance
Ukraine has not yet been able to put Russia in a similar position where
Putin has to back down - or even negotiate in terms at all favourable to
Ukraine. But will giving Ukraine the ability to fire into Russia lead to
anything useful? It might do. On the other hand it might not. It might
make things a lot worse.
Putin has already stated that his next target after Ukraine and Moldova
will be the NATO countries in the eastern Baltic, they discuss such
things frequently on official Russian State TV. Parts or all of
Finland, Latvia, Estonia, Poland, etc were all once part of the Russian
Empire and/or the Communist Block, and he wants them back, so, if we
don't support Ukraine to help it *WIN*, sooner or later NATO will have
to defeat him.
--
Fake news kills!

I may be contacted via the contact address given on my website:
www.macfh.co.uk
Java Jive
2024-09-07 23:47:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by Java Jive
When it comes to arms, in the short term Russia's have been and are
being emasculated by corruption and by suicidal attacks, particularly at
the beginning of the war, but they still continue.  For example, there
are online before and now satellite photos of Russian tanks parked at
depots, and while there are still some left now, the 'low hanging fruit'
have been well and truly picked, those remaining are likely to take some
considerable rebuilding to become serviceable, and most of them are 50s
or 60s technology which would need further revamping to make them
effective in modern combat.
In the longer term, Ukraine is being armed by the West, and the West's
GDP is 27 Trillion $ (2021 figures) excluding the US, 50 including the
US, while Russia's is only 1.78, or 20 if you include all its allies
including China.
I happened to stumble upon this video while looking for another about
disinformation and propaganda that I remember watching a few months ago.
It's 11 months old, but analyses Russian claims about arms production,
based on fairly sound stats - at least as sound as possible amidst the
fog of war - and mostly comes to the same conclusions as I have stated
above. It's long, but worth watching from start to finish, if only to
hear the dry humour in the commentary:


--
Fake news kills!

I may be contacted via the contact address given on my website:
www.macfh.co.uk
Spike
2024-09-08 08:40:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by Java Jive
Post by Java Jive
When it comes to arms, in the short term Russia's have been and are
being emasculated by corruption and by suicidal attacks, particularly at
the beginning of the war, but they still continue.  For example, there
are online before and now satellite photos of Russian tanks parked at
depots, and while there are still some left now, the 'low hanging fruit'
have been well and truly picked, those remaining are likely to take some
considerable rebuilding to become serviceable, and most of them are 50s
or 60s technology which would need further revamping to make them
effective in modern combat.
In the longer term, Ukraine is being armed by the West, and the West's
GDP is 27 Trillion $ (2021 figures) excluding the US, 50 including the
US, while Russia's is only 1.78, or 20 if you include all its allies
including China.
I happened to stumble upon this video while looking for another about
disinformation and propaganda that I remember watching a few months ago.
It's 11 months old, but analyses Russian claims about arms production,
based on fairly sound stats - at least as sound as possible amidst the
fog of war - and mostly comes to the same conclusions as I have stated
above. It's long, but worth watching from start to finish, if only to
http://youtu.be/ctrtAwT2sgs
The Russian tanks are mainly T-72s or developments based on them, such as
the T-90 Proryv (‘Breakthrough’). These have a fundamental if not fatal
flaw, the causes of which have been both researched and designed out of
Western tanks. It’s why Russian tanks blow up and Western tanks don’t.

The linked 37-minute video goes into some detail, starting with a
David-and-Goliath battle between two Bradley IFVs and a T-90 Proryv.


--
Spike
Java Jive
2024-09-25 15:21:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by Java Jive
The more that Ukraine is able to attack Russia on its own soil the
more Russia is likely to escalate.
Russia doesn't need an excuse to escalate, it has been escalating
continuously since 2014 or even before.  The purpose of it is to
intimidate the west.  We must not allow ourselves to be intimidated,
because that will only encourage them.  Indeed a convincing argument can
be made that our passive reaction to previous Russian escalations is
precisely what has contributed to the current situation and has brought
us to where we are now.
The following is a really good talk on this subject. It dates from
April when the US was politically deadlocked and moribund over support
for Ukraine because of the MAGA group's abuse of power in the House Of
Representatives, but much of it is still very relevant now:

Foreign Policy Association - The Peril Of Slowness: American Mistakes
During Russia’S War Of Aggression In Ukraine - Prof Timothy Snyder

--
Fake news kills!

I may be contacted via the contact address given on my website:
www.macfh.co.uk
Andy Burns
2024-09-25 16:41:06 UTC
Permalink
The following is a really good talk on this subject.  It dates from
April when the US was politically deadlocked and moribund over support
for Ukraine
Can't see the white house being too interested in zelensky's "victory
plan" this side of the election, or likely the inauguration, after that,
who knows?

On the positive side ukraine seems to be doing a fantastic job
targetting russian missile storage and transport recently.
Java Jive
2024-09-25 19:59:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by Andy Burns
The following is a really good talk on this subject.  It dates from
April when the US was politically deadlocked and moribund over support
for Ukraine
Can't see the white house being too interested in zelensky's "victory
plan" this side of the election, or likely the inauguration, after that,
who knows?
Yes, sadly, I think you're probably right, which raises the question as
to whether it is wise for Zelensky to reveal his plans to Trump, or did
he explain the real plans to Biden/Harris and a dummy one to Trump?
Post by Andy Burns
On the positive side ukraine seems to be doing a fantastic job
targetting russian missile storage and transport recently.
Yes, and how! Truly spectacular explosions! Let's hope they won't be
the last! There must still be some ammunition depots, oil storage
depots, and refineries within range, I would think.
--
Fake news kills!

I may be contacted via the contact address given on my website:
www.macfh.co.uk
alan_m
2024-09-25 22:14:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by Andy Burns
The following is a really good talk on this subject.  It dates from
April when the US was politically deadlocked and moribund over support
for Ukraine
Can't see the white house being too interested in zelensky's "victory
plan" this side of the election, or likely the inauguration, after that,
who knows?
I heard recently a comment that Biden was going to support Ukraine but
any legislation would have to made Trump proof to stop it being reversed
by Christmas.
Post by Andy Burns
On the positive side ukraine seems to be doing a fantastic job
targetting russian missile storage and transport recently.
There seems to be a LOT of Ukrainian propaganda on platforms like
Youtube but you only have to watch something posted 6 months ago and
then something posted 6 hours ago to find the something being "reported"
in two different locations uses the same, now stock, footage of the
destruction of Russian military equipment and personnel.

Every week there are lots of videos being posted by "experts and
analysts " indicating that Russia will collapse, militarily, financially
or both, in a couple of week's time. The same predictions have been made
regularly for over a year.
--
mailto : news {at} admac {dot} myzen {dot} co {dot} uk
Java Jive
2024-09-25 22:55:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by alan_m
Post by Andy Burns
The following is a really good talk on this subject.  It dates from
April when the US was politically deadlocked and moribund over
support for Ukraine
Can't see the white house being too interested in zelensky's "victory
plan" this side of the election, or likely the inauguration, after
that, who knows?
I heard recently a comment that Biden was going to support Ukraine but
any legislation would have to made Trump proof to stop it being reversed
by Christmas.
You seem to be assuming that Trump will win, but ATM at least Kamala
Harris has a lead in the polls, not just in the nationwide polls, but
those in the all important swing states. Generally, I get the
impression that her momentum is upwards, Trump's is downwards; long may
he continue to suffer from foot in mouth disease.
Post by alan_m
Post by Andy Burns
On the positive side ukraine seems to be doing a fantastic job
targetting russian missile storage and transport recently.
There seems to be a LOT of Ukrainian propaganda on platforms like
Youtube but you only have to watch something posted 6 months ago and
then something posted 6 hours ago to find the something being "reported"
in two different locations uses the same, now stock, footage of the
destruction of Russian military equipment and personnel.
I suspect it depends which of the plethora of channels that you watch,
most of them are crap and/or in foreign languages, I do not notice this
in the channels that I watch. ATM, Ukraine is gradually losing ground
in the SE area of the front, but also sporadically gaining ground
elsewhere, and both are being reported in those channels.
Post by alan_m
Every week there are lots of videos being posted by "experts and
analysts " indicating that Russia will collapse, militarily, financially
or both, in a couple of week's time. The same predictions have been made
regularly for over a year.
In some cases yes, Times Radio seems to be particularly prone to such
hand-waving videos, but most of the experts I watch suggest that it's
going to take some time, 12 to 18 months from now, before Russia is
likely to break. You don't say whether you watched the video I posted
earlier today, but it talks about the importance of not just doing the
right thing but doing it AT THE RIGHT TIME, and 'confluences' of
circumstance that provide opportunity, too many of which we have allowed
to pass without seizing the opportunities presented. IMO, it's an
excellent presentation, and well worth the watch.
--
Fake news kills!

I may be contacted via the contact address given on my website:
www.macfh.co.uk
Chris
2024-09-26 06:34:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by Java Jive
Post by alan_m
Post by Andy Burns
The following is a really good talk on this subject.  It dates from
April when the US was politically deadlocked and moribund over
support for Ukraine
Can't see the white house being too interested in zelensky's "victory
plan" this side of the election, or likely the inauguration, after
that, who knows?
I heard recently a comment that Biden was going to support Ukraine but
any legislation would have to made Trump proof to stop it being reversed
by Christmas.
You seem to be assuming that Trump will win, but ATM at least Kamala
Harris has a lead in the polls, not just in the nationwide polls, but
those in the all important swing states. Generally, I get the
impression that her momentum is upwards, Trump's is downwards; long may
he continue to suffer from foot in mouth disease.
The margins are razor thin and is basically a toss up at the moment. 538
are leaning towards Trump.

Trump's vote is baked in and regardless what he does he won't lose that
support. Pretty sure they'd still vote for him even if he was killed.
Harris needs to persuade people to turn out for her, and importantly in the
right places, so won't really know how successful she's been until november
5th.

Sadly there are a lot of americans who won't vote for a black woman no
matter how good she is.
Java Jive
2024-09-26 09:30:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by Chris
Post by Java Jive
Post by alan_m
I heard recently a comment that Biden was going to support Ukraine but
any legislation would have to made Trump proof to stop it being reversed
by Christmas.
You seem to be assuming that Trump will win, but ATM at least Kamala
Harris has a lead in the polls, not just in the nationwide polls, but
those in the all important swing states. Generally, I get the
impression that her momentum is upwards, Trump's is downwards; long may
he continue to suffer from foot in mouth disease.
The margins are razor thin and is basically a toss up at the moment. 538
are leaning towards Trump.
I don't know where you get "538 are leaning towards Trump" from, it's
not anything I recognise from anywhere. Harris seems to have been
consistently ahead in the national polls, however, as you seem to
understand, instead of a straight majority of votes cast, the winning
candidate needs to get at least 270 votes from the electoral college of
538, the votes for which are partitioned between the states on a
population basis (oversimplifying slightly). Hence, what happens at the
state level is critical, and hence the importance of the few 'swing'
states that are close enough to be won by either party. A while back, I
saw an analysis that showed that while Harris had several possible
combinations of state wins to victory, Trump had only one. However,
just over the last few days, there has been some worrying developments,
but first an aside about polling generally.

There is always a problem of bias in polling, particularly in the US
given the small sample sizes from a population of hundreds of millions.
One way of getting over that is to average the polls, a poll of polls if
you like, over a given period, but the problem with that may be that
changes over time are slower to appear. Does one give more credence to
the average, or the latest?

I think it was yesterday, but possibly the day before, that I saw news
of a poll that them equal in some of the swing states, which initially
worried me, but then I noticed that it was a telephone poll with a
sample of only about 1700 people, and, as I wouldn't answer my phone to
a number that I did not recognise, so those who would are a form of
self-selection, I felt that it wasn't necessarily significant. However,
today I see that Trump has turned things around in two of the swing
states, but also that others are coming into play as the Republicans
choice of candidates at state level and state abortion bans are causing
problems for them.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/harris-trump-polls-latest-news-election-b2618216.html
Post by Chris
Trump's vote is baked in and regardless what he does he won't lose that
support. Pretty sure they'd still vote for him even if he was killed.
Harris needs to persuade people to turn out for her, and importantly in the
right places, so won't really know how successful she's been until november
5th.
Only a section of Trump's vote is baked in, probably also a section of
Harris'; as in any election, it's the swing voters in the middle who matter.
Post by Chris
Sadly there are a lot of americans who won't vote for a black woman no
matter how good she is.
Yes, in an ideal world people would vote rationally for what's best for
their country, but, particularly in the USA but also more generally,
political debate seems to be spiralling ever downwards to an emotive
lowest common denominator, dragged ever downwards by platforms like Shitter.
--
Fake news kills!

I may be contacted via the contact address given on my website:
www.macfh.co.uk
Chris
2024-09-26 15:12:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by Java Jive
Post by Chris
Post by Java Jive
Post by alan_m
I heard recently a comment that Biden was going to support Ukraine but
any legislation would have to made Trump proof to stop it being reversed
by Christmas.
You seem to be assuming that Trump will win, but ATM at least Kamala
Harris has a lead in the polls, not just in the nationwide polls, but
those in the all important swing states. Generally, I get the
impression that her momentum is upwards, Trump's is downwards; long may
he continue to suffer from foot in mouth disease.
The margins are razor thin and is basically a toss up at the moment. 538
are leaning towards Trump.
I don't know where you get "538 are leaning towards Trump" from, it's
not anything I recognise from anywhere.
They are a very influential organisation which improved forecasting
significantly with better models.

I was wrong about leaning towards Trump, looks like Harris has a very
slight advantage, but still within margin of error:
https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2024-election-forecast/
Post by Java Jive
Harris seems to have been
consistently ahead in the national polls, however, as you seem to
understand, instead of a straight majority of votes cast, the winning
candidate needs to get at least 270 votes from the electoral college of
538,
Correct. In order for a majority to translate to an EC win, Harris needs a
comfortable 6% lead in national polls.
Post by Java Jive
There is always a problem of bias in polling, particularly in the US
given the small sample sizes from a population of hundreds of millions.
Size doesn't matter, it's representativeness that matters most. Famously a
poll in the 1950s I think of over 2m americans was utterly wrong because
they focused on people with telephones and car owners which targeted the
middle classes.

Typically, professional polls of around 2,000 are statistically sound. If
you do the sampling correctly there's no need to get more opinions.
Post by Java Jive
One way of getting over that is to average the polls, a poll of polls if
you like, over a given period, but the problem with that may be that
changes over time are slower to appear. Does one give more credence to
the average, or the latest?
Both are useful for different reasons.
Post by Java Jive
I think it was yesterday, but possibly the day before, that I saw news
of a poll that them equal in some of the swing states, which initially
worried me, but then I noticed that it was a telephone poll with a
sample of only about 1700 people, and, as I wouldn't answer my phone to
a number that I did not recognise, so those who would are a form of
self-selection, I felt that it wasn't necessarily significant.
That's your own internal bias *hoping* it's wrong.
Post by Java Jive
However,
today I see that Trump has turned things around in two of the swing
states, but also that others are coming into play as the Republicans
choice of candidates at state level and state abortion bans are causing
problems for them.
Yep. This is going to jump around back and forth. We'll have to watch the
results from behind the sofa
Java Jive
2024-09-26 15:50:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by Chris
Post by Java Jive
Post by Chris
Post by Java Jive
Post by alan_m
I heard recently a comment that Biden was going to support Ukraine but
any legislation would have to made Trump proof to stop it being reversed
by Christmas.
You seem to be assuming that Trump will win, but ATM at least Kamala
Harris has a lead in the polls, not just in the nationwide polls, but
those in the all important swing states. Generally, I get the
impression that her momentum is upwards, Trump's is downwards; long may
he continue to suffer from foot in mouth disease.
The margins are razor thin and is basically a toss up at the moment. 538
are leaning towards Trump.
I don't know where you get "538 are leaning towards Trump" from, it's
not anything I recognise from anywhere.
They are a very influential organisation which improved forecasting
significantly with better models.
Ah! Of course! *THAT* 538! Sorry, completely failed to make that
connection, I was trying to read it as some sort of mistyped percentage
or similar :-(
Post by Chris
I was wrong about leaning towards Trump, looks like Harris has a very
https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2024-election-forecast/
Interestingly, the only poll on that page giving Trump a lead is the
Quinnipiac University one, which I now remember is the telephone poll I
thought might be misrepresentative.
Post by Chris
Post by Java Jive
Harris seems to have been
consistently ahead in the national polls, however, as you seem to
understand, instead of a straight majority of votes cast, the winning
candidate needs to get at least 270 votes from the electoral college of
538,
Correct. In order for a majority to translate to an EC win, Harris needs a
comfortable 6% lead in national polls.
Post by Java Jive
There is always a problem of bias in polling, particularly in the US
given the small sample sizes from a population of hundreds of millions.
Size doesn't matter, it's representativeness that matters most. Famously a
poll in the 1950s I think of over 2m americans was utterly wrong because
they focused on people with telephones and car owners which targeted the
middle classes.
Typically, professional polls of around 2,000 are statistically sound. If
you do the sampling correctly there's no need to get more opinions.
Post by Java Jive
One way of getting over that is to average the polls, a poll of polls if
you like, over a given period, but the problem with that may be that
changes over time are slower to appear. Does one give more credence to
the average, or the latest?
Both are useful for different reasons.
Post by Java Jive
I think it was yesterday, but possibly the day before, that I saw news
of a poll that them equal in some of the swing states, which initially
worried me, but then I noticed that it was a telephone poll with a
sample of only about 1700 people, and, as I wouldn't answer my phone to
a number that I did not recognise, so those who would are a form of
self-selection, I felt that it wasn't necessarily significant.
That's your own internal bias *hoping* it's wrong.
Well no, it really *is* an outlier, as the page you linked above shows.
Post by Chris
Post by Java Jive
However,
today I see that Trump has turned things around in two of the swing
states, but also that others are coming into play as the Republicans
choice of candidates at state level and state abortion bans are causing
problems for them.
Yep. This is going to jump around back and forth. We'll have to watch the
results from behind the sofa
No, that won't do, if it all goes pear-shaped, you can't throw things at
the TV from there ...
--
Fake news kills!

I may be contacted via the contact address given on my website:
www.macfh.co.uk
Andy Burns
2024-09-26 16:41:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by Chris
Post by Java Jive
I don't know where you get "538 are leaning towards Trump" from, it's
not anything I recognise from anywhere.
They are a very influential organisation which improved forecasting
significantly with better models.
I've heard of them, they're the politics arm of the broadcaster ABC
<https://abcnews.go.com/538>
Andy Burns
2024-09-26 07:20:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by Java Jive
You seem to be assuming that Trump will win
Harris is being proclaimed as the new saviour, but nobody can explain
why and she's avoiding the spotlight. The democrats realised too late
that Biden was a no-hoper, but had no choice other than Harris without
re-starting funding from scratch, she seems really weak to me, and
there's time before November for voters to realise that.

We seem to have moved from
"Are those the best two candidates you could find?"
to
"Are *THOSE* the best two candidates you could find?"
Post by Java Jive
but ATM at least Kamala Harris has a lead in the polls, not just in
the nationwide polls, but those in the all important swing states.
Generally, I get the impression that her momentum is upwards,
Trump's is downwards;
Doesn't seem quite as a cut and dried as that.
Java Jive
2024-09-26 09:41:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by Andy Burns
Post by Java Jive
You seem to be assuming that Trump will win
Harris is being proclaimed as the new saviour, but nobody can explain
why and she's avoiding the spotlight.  The democrats realised too late
that Biden was a no-hoper, but had no choice other than Harris without
re-starting funding from scratch, she seems really weak to me, and
there's time before November for voters to realise that.
She's never seemed weak to me. I thought from before the selection
process started that they should drop Biden, and that she would be a
pretty good replacement.
Post by Andy Burns
We seem to have moved from
"Are those the best two candidates you could find?"
to
"Are *THOSE* the best two candidates you could find?"
I have no problems so far with Harris, but how the Republicans could
possibly have continued with a wannabee dictator/jailbird (delete the
inapplicable) who might well be a Russian asset is mystifying to me, but
that's what politics is these days, a cacophony of bullshit, and he who
shouts loudest wins, few seem to listen to exactly WHAT he's shouting
and think through the potentially disastrous consequences.
Post by Andy Burns
Post by Java Jive
but ATM at least Kamala Harris has a lead in the polls, not just in
the nationwide polls, but those in the all important swing states.
Generally, I get the impression that her momentum is upwards,
Trump's is downwards;
Doesn't seem quite as a cut and dried as that.
Not when I read the news this morning after posting that yesterday
evening, although I still think she has the edge - I guess we'll just
have to hope for the best over the coming weeks.
--
Fake news kills!

I may be contacted via the contact address given on my website:
www.macfh.co.uk
Andy Burns
2024-09-26 11:11:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by Java Jive
I have no problems so far with Harris
I know we're not the target audience, but the only words I can remember
her saying are "I own a gun".
Java Jive
2024-09-26 11:21:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by Andy Burns
Post by Java Jive
I have no problems so far with Harris
I know we're not the target audience, but the only words I can remember
her saying are "I own a gun".
Yes, she did say that, and out of context that would be worrying, but
the gun lobby is absurdly powerful in the US, and I think she was trying
to appeal to the more moderate and responsible gun-owners who might
support control over assault weapons such as have been used in recent
massacres, but not a ban on gun-owning in general.
--
Fake news kills!

I may be contacted via the contact address given on my website:
www.macfh.co.uk
Andy Burns
2024-09-26 11:27:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by Java Jive
Yes, she did say that, and out of context that would be worrying
But we (or at rather Americans) should be hearing her views on
Ukraine/Russia, Palestine/Israel ... enough that the worldwide media
picks up on it.
Java Jive
2024-09-26 13:08:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by Andy Burns
Post by Java Jive
Yes, she did say that, and out of context that would be worrying
But we (or at rather Americans) should be hearing her views on
Ukraine/Russia, Palestine/Israel ... enough that the worldwide media
picks up on it.
She has certainly talked about the need to support the allies of the
USA, has visited Ukraine, and today's meeting with Zelensky will be
their 6th; perhaps she will have more to say on the matter after they
have met:

https://edition.cnn.com/2024/09/26/politics/zelensky-biden-harris-washington-visit/index.html

"In the weeks since taking the political baton from Biden, Harris and
her aides have gone to great lengths to insist that on major matters of
foreign policy, there is no daylight between the vice president and the
outgoing president.

The ongoing war between Ukraine and Russia is no exception, they say,
insisting that Ukraine would continue to have the US’s unwavering
support against Russian aggression under a Harris presidency.

The vice president’s face time with Zelensky on Thursday would mark
their sixth meeting since the war broke out in February of 2022. Just
several days prior to the start of Russian attacks in February 2022, the
vice president also saw Zelensky at the Munich Security Conference,
where the two discussed Russia’s military build-up around Ukraine and
the possibility of the start of a war.

In her remarks at the Democratic National Convention last month, Harris
was deliberate in taking credit for the US’s response.

“Five days before Russia attacked Ukraine, I met with President Zelensky
to warn him about Russia’s plan to invade. I helped mobilize a global
response – over 50 countries – to defend against Putin’s aggression,”
she said. “And as president, I will stand strong with Ukraine and our
NATO allies.”"

However, we have to remember what is important to us 'forreners' is not
what is important to American voters; to them, Ukraine is less important
than the Middle East crisis, and is classed as important by less than
50% of voters, so it's only natural that currently Harris majors on what
is important to get herself elected. Time enough to think about what is
really important if and when that first crucial milestone is achieved.
--
Fake news kills!

I may be contacted via the contact address given on my website:
www.macfh.co.uk
alan_m
2024-09-26 15:46:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by Java Jive
However, we have to remember what is important to us 'forreners' is not
what is important to American voters; to them, Ukraine is less important
than the Middle East crisis, and is classed as important by less than
50% of voters, so it's only natural that currently Harris majors on what
is important to get herself elected.  Time enough to think about what is
really important if and when that first crucial milestone is achieved.
I doubt if the vast majority of American voters care a shit about
Ukraine or the Middle East. I doubt if the vast majority of voters care
a shit about what happens in Europe.
--
mailto : news {at} admac {dot} myzen {dot} co {dot} uk
Java Jive
2024-09-26 16:15:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by alan_m
Post by Java Jive
However, we have to remember what is important to us 'forreners' is
not what is important to American voters; to them, Ukraine is less
important than the Middle East crisis, and is classed as important by
less than 50% of voters, so it's only natural that currently Harris
majors on what is important to get herself elected.  Time enough to
think about what is really important if and when that first crucial
milestone is achieved.
I doubt if the vast majority of American voters care a shit about
Ukraine or the Middle East. I doubt if the vast majority of voters care
a shit about what happens in Europe.
I refer you again to the page linked before ...

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/harris-trump-polls-latest-news-election-b2618216.html

... table near the bottom in the para entitled: "Trump still leads on
the economy, and Harris on social issues", importance to voters of
Israel/Hamas war is 51% - unsurprisingly because the Jewish lobby has
always been very strong in the USA, and also the pro-Palestinian lobby
seems to have become more vocal in recent years - but Ukraine is not
listed, presumably because it's less than 50%.
--
Fake news kills!

I may be contacted via the contact address given on my website:
www.macfh.co.uk
Andy Burns
2024-09-26 16:47:08 UTC
Permalink
the pro-Palestinian lobby seems to have become more vocal in recent years
Their publicity-wing has has upped their game, I just wish they'd hold
their protests in Tel Aviv instead of London ...

Chris
2024-09-26 16:04:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by Andy Burns
Post by Java Jive
Yes, she did say that, and out of context that would be worrying
But we (or at rather Americans) should be hearing her views on
Ukraine/Russia, Palestine/Israel ... enough that the worldwide media
picks up on it.
She isn't going to say anything that might alienate one side or the other.
Biden is a lame duck now so won't get anything done now.

That's why Netanyahu has taken the opportunity to attack Hezbollah. The US
is out of the picture until at least November.
Abandoned Trolley
2024-09-26 13:33:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by Andy Burns
I know we're not the target audience, but the only words I can remember
her saying are "I own a gun".
and speaking of "not the target audience" it occurs to me that the 3
newsgroups this post appears on have no connection with the matter being
discussed, although I concede that the OP had the courtesy to mark it as
"OT" at the outset



Meanwhile, over at alt.current-events.ukraine things look fairly quiet,
although I have no idea how many people keep an eye on that group in the
hope of a relevant post
Andy Burns
2024-09-26 07:01:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by alan_m
There seems to be a LOT of Ukrainian propaganda on platforms like
Youtube but you only have to watch something posted 6 months ago and
then something posted 6 hours ago to find the something being "reported"
in two different locations uses the same, now stock, footage of the
destruction of Russian military equipment and personnel.
This channel doesn't do that style of video, he's half a world away in
Taiwan but seems well connected in terms of sources for images and
videos from Ukraine


Post by alan_m
Every week there are lots of videos being posted by "experts and
analysts " indicating that Russia will collapse, militarily, financially
or both, in a couple of week's time. The same predictions have been made
regularly for over a year.
Yes there are several vloggers who endlessly churn out claims "this is
the final straw for putin", learn to spot them and don't watch.
Spike
2024-09-26 09:54:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by alan_m
There seems to be a LOT of Ukrainian propaganda on platforms like
Youtube but you only have to watch something posted 6 months ago and
then something posted 6 hours ago to find the something being "reported"
in two different locations uses the same, now stock, footage of the
destruction of Russian military equipment and personnel.
To avoid those repetitions of stock footage, and to keep up with the latest
happenings, try this web site:

<https://mil.in.ua/en/news/>

Going up to the top level on the site allows access to Articles, Blogs, and
Video Content, as well as News.

I found the video in this report to be dismal, it shows winter combat
footage in what was left of Vuhledar.

Trigger warning: depicts combat deaths:

<https://mil.in.ua/en/news/russians-launched-unsuccessful-offensive-near-vuhledar/>
--
Spike
alan_m
2024-09-25 23:45:01 UTC
Permalink
The following is a really good talk on this subject.  It dates from
April when the US was politically deadlocked and moribund over support
for Ukraine because of the MAGA group's abuse of power in the House Of
Foreign Policy Association  -  The Peril Of Slowness: American Mistakes
During Russia’S War Of Aggression In Ukraine  -  Prof Timothy Snyder
http://youtu.be/JVs2y-YeiFM
I gave up after approx 15 minutes when a lecture on how slow the USA had
been said practically nothing. A slow and tedious lecture that would
have gone on for another hour.
--
mailto : news {at} admac {dot} myzen {dot} co {dot} uk
Java Jive
2024-09-26 09:54:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by alan_m
The following is a really good talk on this subject.  It dates from
April when the US was politically deadlocked and moribund over support
for Ukraine because of the MAGA group's abuse of power in the House Of
Foreign Policy Association  -  The Peril Of Slowness: American
Mistakes During Russia’S War Of Aggression In Ukraine  -  Prof Timothy
Snyder
http://youtu.be/JVs2y-YeiFM
I gave up after approx 15 minutes when a lecture on how slow the USA had
been said practically nothing. A slow and tedious lecture that would
have gone on for another hour.
Well obviously I don't agree - having studied for a degree, I assure
you that I've sat through much more boring and soporific lectures than
that, wondering if there was ever going to be life after Number Theory.
However, now in my 70s, I still like to learn new things, which I did
from watching that lecture.

So I guess it takes all sorts, and we'll have to agree to differ.
--
Fake news kills!

I may be contacted via the contact address given on my website:
www.macfh.co.uk
Loading...