National News Rishi Sunak

MustardYellow said:
If Russia are struggling against Ukraine then surely he wouldn't risk taking on NATO?

He's a nutter, but even nutter's have limits!
Click to expand...
At a guess, I would think that if Nato (and more specifically the US) are unable or unwilling to sustain their current support, then Russia will very slowly at first turn the tide until they get as much of Ukraine as they want. They will then offer terms from a dominant position, which Ukraine will have little option other than to accept or face losing everything to Russia.

Putin will then turn his attention to other bits of neighbouring countries, all in the name of bringing security to Mother Russia from NATO aggressors on its borders and also regions that he sees as rightfully belonging in the bosom of Mother Russia. Sanctions have been almost useless in doing much more than making it harder and take longer for Putin to achieve his aims. There's plenty of customers only too willing to continue to pour money into Russia in return for their abundant resources, which in turn will perpetuate Putin's ability to do pretty much what he wants, for pretty much as long as he wants to do it. The image he has very carefully crafted (internally at least) is that Putin is Russia and Russia is Putin.

Not only that but he will continue to silence opponents and critics across the world through assassinations and continue to interfere in elections across the world too whilst waging ever increasingly sophisticated cyber wars on those he sees as Russia's sworn enemies (ie us). Putin won't stop until he's defeated. That will only happen through his removal or by humiliating defeat and putting him back in his box. He was only too happy to celebrate the 10th anniversary of the annexation of Crimea - he's very proud of that. He will celebrate the annexation of other parts of Ukraine, such as Donbass with equal pride....and any others that follow, which he sees as being rightfully belonging to mother Russia. And what price on him starting to agitate around Kaliningrad and needing to come to their rescue, whilst surrounded by Western aggressors?

He's gone full blown nutter and I doubt he'll back down until he feels his twisted vision of Russia and it's relationship to "the West" is vindicated and satisfied.

Trusting nutters like Putin to know their limits and make sensible choices doesn't really seem much of strategy for gaining peace and stability really 🤷‍♂️
 
Sheik djibouti said:
At a guess, I would think that if Nato (and more specifically the US) are unable or unwilling to sustain their current support, then Russia will very slowly at first turn the tide until they get as much of Ukraine as they want. They will then offer terms from a dominant position, which Ukraine will have little option other than to accept or face losing everything to Russia.

Putin will then turn his attention to other bits of neighbouring countries, all in the name of bringing security to Mother Russia from NATO aggressors on its borders and also regions that he sees as rightfully belonging in the bosom of Mother Russia. Sanctions have been almost useless in doing much more than making it harder and take longer for Putin to achieve his aims. There's plenty of customers only too willing to continue to pour money into Russia in return for their abundant resources, which in turn will perpetuate Putin's ability to do pretty much what he wants, for pretty much as long as he wants to do it. The image he has very carefully crafted (internally at least) is that Putin is Russia and Russia is Putin.

Not only that but he will continue to silence opponents and critics across the world through assassinations and continue to interfere in elections across the world too whilst waging ever increasingly sophisticated cyber wars on those he sees as Russia's sworn enemies (ie us). Putin won't stop until he's defeated. That will only happen through his removal or by humiliating defeat and putting him back in his box. He was only too happy to celebrate the 10th anniversary of the annexation of Crimea - he's very proud of that. He will celebrate the annexation of other parts of Ukraine, such as Donbass with equal pride....and any others that follow, which he sees as being rightfully belonging to mother Russia. And what price on him starting to agitate around Kaliningrad and needing to come to their rescue, whilst surrounded by Western aggressors?

He's gone full blown nutter and I doubt he'll back down until he feels his twisted vision of Russia and it's relationship to "the West" is vindicated and satisfied.

Trusting nutters like Putin to know their limits and make sensible choices doesn't really seem much of strategy for gaining peace and stability really 🤷‍♂️
Click to expand...
What he wants is power, and what he fears is humiliation. He must know that any attempt to start a direct war with 'the west' will ultimately end in his demise? Would China really come to his defence in a full scale war? I'm not so sure they would.

A larger scale war won't happen. It's interesting to talk about, but it won't. It's far too risky for Putin, that's why as you say most of his 'attacks' on the west are through cyber interference - it isn't direct enough to start a conflict. It's also why Iran funds terror groups they do their dirty work for them and it means they can't be held directly responsible (the groups are instead), again avoiding direct conflict.

There's no doubt there's plenty of looney's out there that the west needs to keep their eyes on, but there's a reason why there are almost never direct attacks from said looney's. It doesn't end well for everyone, including them.
 
Sheik djibouti said:
So the fact those countries are members of NATO is neither here nor there because they are facing an emboldened Putin, and quite possibly a Trump who will enable him by standing back and letting him do what the hell he wants.

So it IS something to be worried about then.
Click to expand...
Yes it is if Putin invades a NATO Country then NATO says it is an attack on all of them and America has a duty. There are 32 members of NATO and if Russia invades any NATO country then they will be retaliation in the form of Defence.
As regard Trump the quicker there is a Lee Harvey Oswald moment the safer things will be, but then also you would need a Ли Харви Освальд the better this world will be.
 
MustardYellow said:
What he wants is power, and what he fears is humiliation. He must know that any attempt to start a direct war with 'the west' will ultimately end in his demise? Would China really come to his defence in a full scale war? I'm not so sure they would.

A larger scale war won't happen. It's interesting to talk about, but it won't. It's far too risky for Putin, that's why as you say most of his 'attacks' on the west are through cyber interference - it isn't direct enough to start a conflict. It's also why Iran funds terror groups they do their dirty work for them and it means they can't be held directly responsible (the groups are instead), again avoiding direct conflict.

There's no doubt there's plenty of looney's out there that the west needs to keep their eyes on, but there's a reason why there are almost never direct attacks from said looney's. It doesn't end well for everyone, including them.
Click to expand...
There are direct attacks on us every day from a number of players. To think that cyber attacks are not direct attacks is naive. The challenges faced by our security services daily shouldn’t be underestimated. Before the start of the Ukraine invasion, Russia would openly test our responses with Military flights right up to our airspace 2-3 times a month and even the odd ship going down the coast and along the channel just to see how we react.

They jammed a plane that they knew a British minister was onboard.
 
Yep, and the judge in his fraud case has said he will start liquidating his assets if he can't raise the bond (which he can't). I'm sure he'll find some nice Russian donors to help him out of a tight spot (in return for making him President then turning a blind eye while Putin does what he wants).
 
MustardYellow said:
A larger scale war won't happen.
Click to expand...

MustardYellow said:
If Russia are struggling against Ukraine then surely he wouldn't risk taking on NATO?

He's a nutter, but even nutter's have limits!
Click to expand...

Nutters like Putin often don't have limits as they're surrounded by yes men who will say what they think Putin wants to hear rather than what he needs to hear. They often also have believe their own fantasies as underlings will rarely want to give bad news considering you can end up spontaneously jumping from a balcony or through a window or at the better end being stuck in a Siberian Gulag.

Think how Russia conducted the initial invasion. Putin genuinely thought they'd be welcomed by Ukrainians and that was the info that intelligence/military fed him.

I hate to go all Godwin, but this was said about Hitler at the time and that a larger war won't happen. It may or may not happen but a real danger of a wider war exists and that Putin may want that.

There are already rumours of a false flag operation in Transnistria to give a pretence to ramp up pressure on Moldova.
 
Marked Ox said:
No, unless it has changed since yesterday. He can't get a bond for the $450m needed for the New York fraud case as those who could provide such appear not to trust him.

He has managed to get a bond for the $80m or so for the sexual assault/defamation case though.
Click to expand...
Thanks I hadn’t heard or read that
 
Marston Road yellow said:
There are direct attacks on us every day from a number of players. To think that cyber attacks are not direct attacks is naive. The challenges faced by our security services daily shouldn’t be underestimated. Before the start of the Ukraine invasion, Russia would openly test our responses with Military flights right up to our airspace 2-3 times a month and even the odd ship going down the coast and along the channel just to see how we react.

They jammed a plane that they knew a British minister was onboard.
Click to expand...
But all those are things that are simply never going to result in an aggressive response. We aren't going to start WW3 because they flew a plane in our airspace or entered our waters. They know that, which is why they do it and limit their actions to just that.

Point is, they're not going to do something that would result in an aggressive military response.
 
Marked Ox said:
Nutters like Putin often don't have limits as they're surrounded by yes men who will say what they think Putin wants to hear rather than what he needs to hear. They often also have believe their own fantasies as underlings will rarely want to give bad news considering you can end up spontaneously jumping from a balcony or through a window or at the better end being stuck in a Siberian Gulag.

Think how Russia conducted the initial invasion. Putin genuinely thought they'd be welcomed by Ukrainians and that was the info that intelligence/military fed him.

I hate to go all Godwin, but this was said about Hitler at the time and that a larger war won't happen. It may or may not happen but a real danger of a wider war exists and that Putin may want that.

There are already rumours of a false flag operation in Transnistria to give a pretence to ramp up pressure on Moldova.
Click to expand...
Putin's been Russian PM/President for 25 years. During that time period no country in the west has had significant direct military conflict with Russia.

I believe since Putin came to power 16 countries have joined NATO. A war with the west is harder now than it's ever been, what is he waiting for? As I say, it's interesting to discuss but it's incredibly unlikely to happen. What dictator with world domination in mind waits 25 years for their enemy to get stronger, while poorly upgrading their own military equipment before choosing to start a larger war?

At *most* Putin may bank on pressuring the smaller countries around Russia and NATO not getting directly involved, but he won't want to start a full scale war with the west intentionally.
 
I'm not sure how many people are aware of this but, on the day that the headlines are about inflation falling to 3.4%, we should be reminded that CPI excludes housing costs. So it doesn't take account of the large mortgage and rent increases impacting/about to impact on millions of us. Can't say I've hear/read any mention of this, even in The Guardian!

www.theguardian.com

Average monthly UK rent up 9% – the highest annual increase recorded

Cost of renting rises in all parts of the UK, ONS says, with the average monthly rent in England now £1,276
www.theguardian.com www.theguardian.com
 
QR said:
I'm not sure how many people are aware of this but, on the day that the headlines are about inflation falling to 3.4%, we should be reminded that CPI excludes housing costs. So it doesn't take account of the large mortgage and rent increases impacting/about to impact on millions of us. Can't say I've hear/read any mention of this, even in The Guardian!

www.theguardian.com

Average monthly UK rent up 9% – the highest annual increase recorded

Cost of renting rises in all parts of the UK, ONS says, with the average monthly rent in England now £1,276
www.theguardian.com www.theguardian.com
Click to expand...
We should also remember that prices are still going up, albeit at a slower rate, and that the inflation rate has vastly exceeded pay rises over the last few years, meaning we are all poorer than we were.
 
PottersRightBoot said:
Nice work on the independent football regulator wouldn’t we agree ?
Click to expand...
Very promising piece of legislation, hopefully the regulator will have the required teeth to make a significant change, and will be able to stop rubbish like the Cardiff owner changing their kit from Blue to Red against the wishes of the supporters, and will be able to force through the money sharing deal which the EPL clubs are dragging their feet on.
 
QR said:
I'm not sure how many people are aware of this but, on the day that the headlines are about inflation falling to 3.4%, we should be reminded that CPI excludes housing costs. So it doesn't take account of the large mortgage and rent increases impacting/about to impact on millions of us. Can't say I've hear/read any mention of this, even in The Guardian!

www.theguardian.com

Average monthly UK rent up 9% – the highest annual increase recorded

Cost of renting rises in all parts of the UK, ONS says, with the average monthly rent in England now £1,276
www.theguardian.com www.theguardian.com
Click to expand...

In addition to the recent mortgage interest rises being passed on to tenants, the targeted tax raid on landlords in terms of mortgage interest relief restrictions, capital gains tax uplift, stamp duty uplift as well additional referencing and regulatory costs etc, has created an exodus of landlords and a barrier to investing.

Demand remains high, supply drops off, and a lack of new housing to keep pace with this swelling population creates a s**t storm.

Ironically, the recent budget announcement to drop the top CGT rate from 28% to 24% was designed to generate more revenue by encouraging more landlords to sell, which will just decrease supply further.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom