Cycling UK Forum

^" My point was partly to say, never make an agrement with Putin since that is giving him victory. He never keeps to them anyway. Yes, I think all EU and European NATO countries should be gearing up their defence industries to the tune of 5% GDP for starters. Putin's military economy will break eventually"

I tend to agree, but I don't see it happening - at least not until Putin does something even more outrageous than invade Ukraine. And then might be too late.

^ "We in Europe shouldn't agree and should oppose him forever. That means continuing to support Ukraine no matter what, even if Putin takes Kiev we should actively support a resistance."

"...no matter what..." would surely be more than "actively support(ing) a resistance". How much more? Would UK masses support a war economy, doubling taxes etc? Would Germany or France? 250,000 troops fighting on the ground? If "we" did would need to openly admit and accept nuclear destruction a possibility. Without USA could "we" even win?

Damn, more questions....

Psamathe wrote: ↑12 Mar 2024, 9:42am I do wonder what will happen if Ukraine "wins" (wins in quotes as I'm not sure what form a "win" would take).

Would Putin be deposed or assassinated? and if so, would his replacement be even more extreme?
Would the "win" be a brief period whilst Putin/Russia re-arms, re-trains and invades again?

Basically, with Putin and/or without radical governance change in Russia can Ukraine ever be safe from a re-armed Russia?

Ian

Just "questions" is realistic and understandable! Any "answers" entirely speculative.

Any "win" would surely be pyrrhic, waving a flag while stood atop a smouldering pile of rubble. And even that I think very unlikely.

If Russia were to withdraw, then yes Putin might fall, however he presents events through his controlled media. A successor(s) would probably have to "avenge Mother Russia's humiliation, caused by Putin's errors...." some time in the future. I do not see how a state as inherently powerful and large and nuke-capable can be contained.

A cynical deal could cede Ukraine in return for "no more", but then who could take any leader likely to succeed Putin at their word? A fudge would be to do so, simply to kick the can down the road.

If the US and then the rest of the west desert Ukraine then would the latter fight on to certain destruction? Actually I suspect they would.

Even speculation fails me!

Clearer by the day that this will all end badly.......

^ FSO (Federal Protective Service) minders? Trumpovski Towers Hotel? 1% of Russian gas revenues? So many possibilities.....

For once Orban is right I think.

"Donald Trump will not fund Ukraine's fight against Russia's invasion if he is elected US president again, Hungarian PM Viktor Orban has said.

"He will not give a penny in the Ukraine-Russia war. That is why the war will end," the conservative premier said after meeting Mr Trump in Florida.

The former US president has pledged to end the war "within 24 hours" if elected - but provided no details.

Mr Orban is openly backing his long-term ally in the 2024 White House race.

Is Europe doing enough to help Ukraine?
"It is obvious that Ukraine cannot stand on its own feet," Mr Orban told Hungary's M1 TV channel late on Sunday.

"If the Americans don't give money and weapons, along with the Europeans, then the war is over. And if the Americans don't give money, the Europeans alone are unable to finance this war. And then the war is over."

He added that Mr Trump had "pretty detailed plans" on how to end the Russia-Ukraine war - but did not elaborate. The BBC has asked the Trump campaign for comment.

As president Mr Trump would have to sign off spending bills that come from Congress. He has in the past expressed scepticism that the US should go on funding Ukraine's defence."

Russia could win; it can't lose. Ukraine could lose; it can't win.

Anderson and Reform:

"Speaking at a press conference, Mr Anderson said he was "prepared to gamble on myself" because he said he knew "how many people support Reform and what they have to say".

"All I want is my country back," he added." (BBC News)

Yeah, so do I pal. Only it's not the one YOU want.

PH wrote: ↑10 Mar 2024, 12:19pm

djnotts wrote: ↑10 Mar 2024, 10:04am I don't buy new!

But you do buy frequently
How many bikes in the last five years? Your choice of course to spend so much time and effort swapping bikes, just as it might be someone else's choice to spend a lot more and keep the bike for decades.

Hold my hands up to that! Last 5 years? I don't keep count... 20 - 25 maybe. 5 in garage, between them cover any sort of ride/terrain that I can still ride. And 2 Bromptons.

My point about 2nd hand is different really - can easily save at least 50% on a bike that is so near to new that will still run for decades.

I don't buy new! Mine was 270 quid with less than 100 miles on the clock. A (mechanical) disc braked Elite version can usually be picked up for <500 quid.
Touring bikes don't fetch much. Let someone else take the over 50% depreciation hit.

Thank you!

Good discussion and "reviews", but it's the money that folk are able and prepared to spend on such bikes that grabs my attention.
Are they really worth 10x what my Jamis (with <100 miles on it) cost? Certainly wouldn't take me anywhere 10x as extreme.

Nasty cold and brisk easterly last few days.

^ It is a little surprising that Govt decided OK to not favour the age group most likely to vote and to vote Tory. OTOH, also age group most likely to have a photo ID problem with voting.

Anyway, I am apparently "hopping mad"!

"There's more fallout from the budget in The Mirror, which leads with angry reaction to measures that experts say could make eight million pensioners worse off. Under the headline "Pension Pinchers", the paper calls it a "budget bombshell" that means OAPs are being "clobbered" with stealth taxes. The article quotes the Silver Voices campaign group as saying that older people are "hopping mad". The Mirror's leader article says "only this government would raid the incomes of the elderly to cover the cost of its economic mismanagement"." (BBC News)

roubaixtuesday wrote: ↑7 Mar 2024, 2:45pm

Biospace wrote: ↑7 Mar 2024, 2:09pm

roubaixtuesday wrote: ↑1 Mar 2024, 3:26pm Putin isn't nuking anyone. His objective is to stay rich.

He'll do whatever he feels will protect the integrity of Russia. I think it's very unlikely he would use nuclear weapons, but it's a dangerous position to assume he wouldn't.

Putin doesn't give a stuff about anything other than his personal power and wealth.

I'm not so sure about that. There's also an element of "Mother Russia" which most of us in the "west" can find difficult to understand - altho Brexit and "reclaim our sovereignty" to an extent echo that idiocy.

mattheus wrote: ↑7 Mar 2024, 12:45pm

djnotts wrote: ↑7 Mar 2024, 9:57am The job is Minister of the Crown. The job is to serve and defend the Crown. The Government of the day acts for and as the Crown. Hence its survival is a matter of "national interest". ANY act carried out in defence of the "national interest" is by definition legitimate. That's how the Constitution works (or doesn't).

I've no idea why you are so keen to defend this bizarre behaviour - perhaps just a rhetorical buzz? - but I don't think many of us are buying it my friend!

Personally I'm worried that she'll be distracted from her day-job - how will Science and Industry prosper without her 100% attention?!?

I am most definitely not defending her (nor the system and constitution), simply describing how it can be seen from within the institutions that operate the levers.

The job is Minister of the Crown. The job is to serve and defend the Crown. The Government of the day acts for and as the Crown. Hence its survival is a matter of "national interest". ANY act carried out in defence of the "national interest" is by definition legitimate. That's how the Constitution works (or doesn't).