Search results

What's brown, steaming and comes out of Cow(e)s? The Isle of Wight Ferry. To bring this back on topic, the IOW has two rivers called the Yar. They are known locally, but not officially as the Western Yar and Eastern Yar.

Orban could be useful as a mediator. A NATO member but close to Putin. A random thought: If an individual NATO member did something reckless like deciding to police a no fly zone alone without the consent of the others, and found itself getting attacked, would NATO be obliged to step in?

Were the carriages painted or vinyled in to the retro BR livery? If it's vinyl, I dread to think what state the bodywork is in underneath.

I got stopped in Salisbury last week by someone in a car who claimed that their mother was in hospital and they needed £15 to buy fuel to get to Bristol. Not a particularly convincing actor (crying but no tears). I told them I was off duty (I'm not a policeman, but I never said I was) and gave...

He won't get a no fly zone, and he knows that. It's playing to a domestic audience. NATO has been abundantly clear that it won't get involved militarily unless it's own territory is attacked.

Ireland is temporarily reducing its tax on fuel to offset the price increases. I doubt that will happen here.

There is nothing he has done so far that he hasn't done before, either in Syria or Chechnya. So I don't subscribe to the bonkers theory either. He is evil, not mad. He thinks the rules don't apply to Russia, whether that's not bombing hospitals at one extreme, to not doping athletes at the other.

Yet it's being reported now that the US were not forewarned about the announcement. https://www.france24.com/en/europe/20220307-live-ukraine-updates-zelensky-says-russian-attacks-preventing-evacuation-of-civilians

How much Russian oil does the US actually import? Edit: Not much. About 1% of the total they use.

China has a no strike first policy (and has its warheads all stored to allow time for diplomacy) Russia has a no first strike policy, unless the country is attacked with any weapon of mass destruction, or if conventional warfare "threatens the very existence of the state" whatever that means...

I suppose the question is whether we need an independent nuclear deterrent, or whether we are sufficiently covered by the US under NATO Article 5. I don't know the answer to this.

It's straight from the Russian playbook. They did it in Syria. Open up "humanitarian corridors", blame ceasefire violations on "Nationalists" (Ukraine) or "Terrorists" (Syria) and deflect attention away from your own misdeeds.

And those of many Western leaders, military experts etc etc.

He really does need to stop the calls for a no fly zone. NATO made it abundantly clear why it it won't work. My concern is that the hotheads in Washington will win out on this one. Most if not all military pundits agree it won't work, as well as being dangerous. Yet there are columnists out...

Esso Downton diesel at 170.9 First one I've seen that expensive off the motorways.

Putin's troops are already in Moldova in the form of "peacekeepers" in Transnistria. Wouldn't take much for them to go on the offensive.

If he succeeds with Ukraine, he will stir up Georgia and Moldova. He knows what happens if he goes near NATO. If he wasn't afraid of Nato he wouldn't have given a stuff whether Ukraine joined or not

Nato sec General has said there will not be a no fly zone, nor any other military intervention. I'm glad we have cool heads prevailing there.

The triggering after 9/11 was an interesting one. Article 5 has long been assumed to effectively get the US involved if a smaller country was attacked. The US triggering it due to an attack on the US was more likely symbolic.

Article 5 was triggered after 9/11