Posts by I ain't Spartacus 10171 publicly visible posts • joined 18 Jun 2009
Slx,
I like your description of the UK/Ireland divorce. It reminds me when I was visiting Dublin Castle. Rather impressively the Governor-general seems to have stolen a 50' dining table on his way out the door. I bet the bugger nicked the cutlery too.
I was rather surprised that he didn't have it away with the throne, while he was at it.
We haven't actually ever had a truely floating currency. It was always either tied to Sterling or to a basket of EU currencies before being replaced with the Euro.I honestly think a lot of the complications for Scotland are being completely over played.
Slx,
The world has changed since then. Most of the time that the currencies were linked was during a global exchange rate system (Bretton Woods). Although there was admittedly a huge global war in there too... But also foreign exchange markets weren't quite the red-blooded beasts that they are today.
Finally Ireland didn't have a large oil industry and a staggeringly huge financial services sector, which Scotland does. The oil introduces a lot of volatility into a currency. It's bounced the Pound around quite a lot since the late 70s, and that's an economy ten times the size of Scotlands for roughly the same amount of oil. Oil prices fluctuate so damned much. This year they've been as high as $140 a barrel (iirc), and there are predictions that they may drop as low as $80/b (at least temporarily). That kind of shift, over a couple of months could easily punt the Scottish currency 10-20% either way.
Remember that Scotland should be taking on some share of the UK debt. I suspect a deal where Scotland takes on less than the full 9-10% and gives up some of its claim on the shared assets in return. But this is difficult. It's unlikely they can raise this on the markets in one go, so they're going to be paying off government debt in a foreign currency. This is courting disaster if the currencies diverge sufficiently, and however well the Scottish manage their economy the one thing they cannot control is oil prices.
Sharing the pound is massively unpopular in the rest of the UK. See the Eurozone ongoing disaster for reasons. Also some hurt nationalist pride too I'm sure. Plus us Southern voters don't fancy underwriting Scotland's financial system (we're not very happy doing that for our own!) - and as the Euro has also shown, a single currency without a banking backstop is a huge fucking disaster area. That won't happen.
For the same reasons of both sentiment and practical economics, Scotland is unlikely to join the Euro in the immediate future.
Now we come to the other fly in the ointment. Financial services. The large debt in a foreign country is solvable. I'm sure the rUK can do a deal where if the Scottish currency plummets we forgive some of the debt. It'd be unpopular, but it's the only sane solution. Scottish financial services though, are 12x the size of their economy. In Cyprus it was only 7x, and the Eurozone decided to punish them for it. In the UK it's 5x. We nearly went bankrupt bailing that lot out. If the Euro collapses there's another financial storm coming. Scotland can only manage that properly with a central bank, and therefore a currency. And even then can't backstop a finance sector that large. Chances are that large chunks of it will move to London. That's a big hit to the Scottish economy, or a huge risk to the Scottish economy. Neither are nice choices. And that is going to be one of the biggest costs of nationhood.
If Scots believe in it that's great. Politically if they feel so different to the rest of the UK then they should leave. Even if it's just England. England dominates the Union by being over 80% of it. I'm not sure that's a soluable problem.
But there are costs. Huge ones. It won't be the paradise set out by the SNP. Scotland will almost certainly get a lot poorer, for at least a few years. Oil production is declining by 10% a year at the moment, and the financial services sector is currently huge in comparison the economy and will shrink quite rapidly. If it remains large it will distort Scottish politics (in a way it doesn't in a devolved assembly) and be a huge risk to the economy - but also give some nice benefits. But bits of it will probably always be asking for special favours or threatening to run off to London. Exports to rUK will be a large sector of the economy, and will probably fluctuate somewhat with exchange rates. And the relationship with the EU will probably be complicated and uncertain for 5-10 years. Plus I believe there'll be a massive Eurozone crisis in 2-3 years (Italian debt), which may lead to partial break-up.
Jess,
Nope. Scotland is not part of the EU. Scotland is not a state. The EU treaties are between the UK and the various other member states.
Scottish people are citizens of the EU because all citizens of member states, are also EU citizens. If Scotland is no longer part of a member state, then it's no longer in the EU, and neither are its citizens.
Personally I'd say it makes sense for the rest of the EU to simply act as if Scotland can rejoin as soon as the divorce from the UK is finished. They'd probably lose the Euro, justice and Schengen opt-outs in the negotiation, but then become EU members on Independence Day. The rules don't allow this for various reasons, but then the rules didn't allow Euro bailouts until they were the only sensible thing to do. Then they did.
However, I'm not holding my breath waiting for common sense from the EU…
The UK situation will be unaffected. Unless for some bizarre reason the Scottish put an export duty on it.
Nooooooooooooooo!!!!!!!! The Scots can bring England to our knees at last! What will I do without my bottle glass of The Balvenie? Oh woe is me! I'd even go so far as to say, "Crivens!"
It will be too costly for them to create their own currency, so their best bet is to attempt to join the Euro as soon as possible after independence.
I don't see why. Scotland has a decent sized economy with 5 million people. There are plenty of similar sized countries. It would cost money to set up a currency, but it's almost certainly the right thing to do. Because I don't think the rest of the UK will go for a currency union, and informally sharing the pound is a rubbish idea. As well as breaking EU accession rules.
I also don't think Scotland should join the Euro. So I think they should think Swedish. Sweden signed up to joining the Euro, after a referendum. Apparently most of their politicians are in favour, but 70% of the people are against, and it's gone down in at least one referendum. So Sweden by treaty has committed to join, but won't. That's a good position for Scotland to be in. I'd have thought it's quite hard to stop. Even if the accession treaty says they have to join in a set time, that can be fudged/ignored after the event. Depends on how tough the negotiations get.
Also in my opinion, the Euro will have partially collapsed within 3 years. So it won't matter. Italy is still in recession, and in deflation. Italy's debt to GDP is going up by over 5% per year, and it's already over 130%. Unless Italy can be got back to growth and at least a little positive inflation, they're going to need a huge bail-out in 2 or 3 years.
I don't think Scotland will continue to use the pound. Without a formal currency union that was never an option, assuming Scotland also wishes to join (or remain in) the EU. They'll have to set up their own currency, as the Euro is also not an option. You can't join the EU without having your own central bank.
As for your comment on the EU, who knows? The logical thing to do is to keep Scotland as a member. A quick bit of negotiation on Schengen, the Euro and a few other queries later - and Scotland is a newly minted member. But I'm pretty sure that the logical thing is the last thing that actually will happen. So I'd imagine Scotland will have to leave and re-join - with some sort of associate member status to cover the mess in the short-term. With Scotland already complying with most things (being part of a member state), there should hopefully be a faster than normal acceession.
Your comment on it being an easy out for the rest of the UK is bizarre though, and irrelevant. If a nation decided to leave tomorrow, there's nothing the EU can do. But that's an unlikely scenario, so not worth worrying about.
It's nice to see how complicated and convuluted things are getting. I can't imagine why though, it's not as if it's rocket science. Oh hang on...
On scrolling past your extensive list of sponsors 'n helpers logos, I'm afraid I tragically misread one. I therefore wish to apologise to 3T RPD Ltd for mis-reading their slogan as, "Building Success Lawyer by Lawyer".
This may upset them, unless they're patent trolls in their spare time, or they use ground up lawyers as part of their manufacturing process. In which case, please carry on.
Keep up the good work!
Not only regulation. Small production runs as well.
Also in the UK, you're not selling to the customers, you're selling to the NHS or social services. Which means products don't improve as they should. As an example that's why Apple and Samsung destroyed the previous top mobile phone manufacturers, who'd forgotten who the customers were, and did everything to keep the networks happy.
I like mobile email, sat-nav, train timetables. Most importantly I have 4,500 work contacts on my phone, and a separately managed personal contact list.
That's not possible on a dumbphone. So I have a smartphone. But no sneering, as I'd really like some sort of hybrid where I could have both.
In an ideal world, I'd have something like the Motorola RAZR 3, but with 4G access and the ability to be a WiFi hotspot. Or use Bluetooth. Then another device, probably a tablet in my case, which would do all the smart stuff and piggyback its connection off the phone. I could then choose the function to have with me at any time. Maybe the phone thingy could do a bit of email and sat-nav.
I'm unusual though, I carry a bag. Almost everywhere. It's often got 4 pairs of glasses in it, plus jewellers screwdriver (to fix them), other useful things and a tablet.
Hmm... I've just realised that makes me a mugger's delight. I rarely leave the house without over £2k worth of kit on my. £500 iPad, £500 reading glasses, £500 (work) iPhone, £200 ordinary glasses, £50 sunglasses (sometimes x2), £50 of tools (leatherman, screwdriver set, jewellers driver), £200 watch, £50 in the wallet, £200 iPod... Should I get a gun? Nah that'd be even more worth stealing. How about a bomb? Mugger turns up, reveal grenade, pull out pin, smile...
What we need is the ability to install an app, run it, and grant or deny the permissions it requires individually, at the moment it requires them, with an option to remember the choice or not.The fact that such a blindingly obvious and easily implemented improvement has not appeared yet tells me that the OS providers just don't want it.
That's pretty much what you get from Apple. I would complain slightly that when you download an app, you don't get a warning of everything it'll want in future, but you do get warned when it tries to access, contacts, photos or whatever.
And then a list of what apps have access to each area, and a simple slider to switch that permission off again.
The only thing they don't have is the ability to temporarily allow an app something for five minutes, and then expire it. Though you can do this manually. Also they don't have a way to deny an app network access, that's a given with everything.
I've got the Arrivabus app on my iPhone, so I thought I'd check. It has access to location. iOS doesn't have an option for network - so I assume all apps have access to that. But it's stayed out of the photos, mic, contacts and camera.
I prefer the Apple security model. You can go to a specific list, and see which apps have access to your contacts say. None in my case, but Google are the only ones asking. And the first time they do anything, apps have to ask permission via an OS pop-up. Then, even if you've accepted (or say your nephew has before you could stop him), you just pop to that list and disallow.
I believe in Android you still check by going to the app's section of settings. Although my 'Droid knowledge is increasingly out-of-date.
I hope things improve. I really want a stylus on my next tablet, and Apple don't believe in them. So I think Android is going to be the one.
What do you mean we haven't managed to make money? We've sold shares. We're about to get lent $1 billion. We're making loadsamoney!
Oh sorry, you meant profits? Oh carry on then. I'm just off on the corporate jet to my other office in Tahiti. Let me know when you need some really vital PR Pwnage, and I'll be right back at ya...
Except the "Microsoft file copy dialog team" and "National Rail" cells, who keep pushing back the predicted time.
I was copying some files onto a friends' PC for him the other day. About 5GB. The dialogue popped up saying 20 mins. Fair enough, it's only USB. Then it suddenly changed to "time to copy: 3 days". Erk!
For Windows 8, it's 105 patches, before you're allowed to install Windows 8.1 from the Marketplace. Then a few more after that. Unusually it allows you to do them all in one go, without multiple reboots in between. This will inevitably crash the PC during the patching or reboot though, so best to do it in smaller batches.
I like Adobe's approach to patching. Yes we have an auto-updater. What that does is to pop a window up that says can I update. You click yes. Then it downloads an updater. You then have to find that, and click on it. That then downloads the actual software. Then a thing pops up trying to get you to miss a tickbox so it can add some crapware from McAfee. Then it FINALLY installs. Then it launches your browser to prove to you it's installed. Then it installs and runs the McAfee security scan you forgot to untick earlier. Heaven knows what that does next.
I love unobtrusive updates...
Notice how the tablet market has eased off, but the smartphone market not so much? OK there's more than one reason for that. Many people in the developing world have gone phone, smartphone, and never detoured via PC or laptop. They won't be going into tablet, and continuing the growth. At least not for a long while.
Another reason is upgrade lifetime. You used to be forced to upgrade your PC when it stopped running anything you needed. But my iPad 3 can do almost anything that the iPad Air can do. Although the Air is lighter, and I want one. But discipline is so far holding. The upgrade from an original iPad was worth it for the better screen. I still see mine every-so-often in use by the person I sold it to for £50. So it would still have been working perfectly fine, had I kept it. The same seems to be true in Android land. The first generation of tablets were lacking in screen and power. Since the Android 4 ones, the rate of improvement stalled. So why not stick to what you've got?
Phones do get damaged more often. But otherwise the upgrades don't seem to be going so fast any more. I'd suspect a Samsung Galaxy 2 is not that much worse than a G4. Or are we up to 5 now? However, seeing as the upgrade is "free" after 2 years, why not stay on the same contract and take it?
The funny thing is, Samsung's tablets are almost half the price of its mobiles. And yet the most expensive bit is the screen, and the tablet one is 3 times the size of the phone one. Everything else is roughly the same parts, except the bigger battery. The iPad Air starts at £150 less than the iPhone. Even the one with the massively overpriced mobile chip is cheaper.
When there was no competition it still made some sense. But you can have a really nice Lumia for £250, or a still quite nice one for £120. Or a Motorola G. I wonder if Google will bother with another Nexus phone now?
On US networks (T-Mo excepted, as they don't do subsidies), non-smartphone customers are subsidising customers who buy iPhones.
I shouldn't have thought so. The data tariffs in the US are very high compared with Europe. And dumbphone customers don't pay for data. Plus the iPhone probably won't be avaiable on the minimum cost data tariff, that comes with a Moto G. It'll be on the top-dollar, bells-and-whistles and your blood and your firstborn tarriff.
Couldn't the same be said for the iPad? Many of us thought so.
No. The iPad did fulfill a need. One people didn't quite know they had. A desktop PC is stuck in one place. A laptop is awkward to use. A tablet is just right, so long as you don't have to type too much. And of course everyone was now using the internet to read online news, or watch online catchup TV. Smart TVs were horrible to use as well. Still are...
I knew the iPad would sell, although I didn't expect it to go quite so mainstream. I had an HP laptop with swivelly screen. So a heavy tablet, and burdened by Vista. Which was a bit slow and lumbering, but perfectly usable with a stylus. Fingers could navigate you to use the basic stuff, but there weren't any 12" capacitative screens around, so it was resistive too.
Nonetheless I loved that tablet. I could sit in a comfy chair and read El Reg. I could write emails with the stylus in that same comfy chair. Faster than any onscreen keyboard or voice activated doohickey I've used up to now.
Other people were fascinated with it too. Whenever people saw me with it, they'd want a go, and be very impressed. But it wasn't nice looking, or all that easy to use, and it was pretty heavy. You had to be pretty strong to use it one handed, without propping it up on something. The iPad was cheaper, and but for having proper file storage and a stylus, better in every other way.
DominoT,
There is a difference. The iPhone (even the original that didn't do very much) and the iPad were both nice. The Watch isn't. It's ugly. It's not a very good watch, and it doesn't seem to be pointing the way to a very good wrist computer either. They may as well have not bothered.
I don't think Steve Jobs would have made it, because I don't think the technology is available to make one that's worth it yet. Not that will sell in its millions at high profit anyway, and that's Apple's market.
Coming into a market that's maturing, but still imperfect due to technological limitations is what Apple did with the iPhone, iPod and iPad. They also integrated the things you did with your new iShiny into a suite of apps and services. Love 'em or hate 'em, Apple were bloody good at this. It's what makes me think they can get NFC payment to go mainstream, when no-one else has managed it.
Surely forced/agreed sales are a standard part of US monopolies regulation, as they are in the UK and Europe? You buy a comnpany that gives you a massive monopoly in one sector, as part of getting regulatory approval you agree to sell the bit that's causing the problem. Problem solved, takeover goes through. In the case of T-Mobile / Orange becoming EE, it was radio spectrum they had to sell, this isn't anything out of the ordinary.
Obviously there will be some nerd along to explain how much better lossless MP3s sound through their iPod headphones
Lusty,
Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear...
How shall I educate you, let me count the ways:
1. Perhaps you need to go to nerd-school for retraining. For surely it cannot be beyond your imagination that one doesn't have to use Apple headphones... Gasp! The shock! Not that it's that important, all headphones sound crap on the train, but I have a pair of semi-foldable £20 Sony things with closed backs to as not to annoy everyone else. But the other thing you can do with an iPod is plug it into a dock. Which is how I deal with kitchen podcast listening, while cooking.
2. You can't have lossless MP3s. But higher bitrate is better. Or at least better than lowest, and I couldn't be arsed to test all the way up the scale so went for 320-odd. Storage is cheap. That gives me about 25GB of music. About 200 CDs worth. But then there's another 5GB of comedy audiobook and drama CDs.
3. Podcasts are legal. I've never downloaded any music, legally or otherwise. It all comes on shiny plastic discs in order to be able to avoid having to be totally paranoid about backups.
4. Convenience. I like a big wodge of storage, so I can be lazy. I have the choice of all my music. In case I'm in the mood for something different. But I have a wide range of podcasts on the thing. And I like to have all the ones I've not listened to yet. They get deleted when its synched with the PC every week, so I can downoad more. Alistaire Cooke's 'Letter from America'. Thanks BBC, I remember that from years ago, I wonder what it's like. Download all 900-odd episodes you've released? Oh, OK. Turns out it was interesting, as a historical picture of the US from the 50s onwards. Sure I could manage it properly, micromanage each week the couple I was listening to off my PC and onto the iPod, but why? Also some BBC comedy, a few shows I like. Mike Duncan's excellent 'History of Rome' podcast. First episode's a bit dodgy, but it's great after that. And there are hundreds of them. Why muck about playing with storage? Shove it all on, listen through it over a year or two.
I find I like Radio 4's 'More or Less'. OK podcast it. But hang on, there's 4 years of back issues. Oh well, download the lot. Turns out it was interesting. Sure I could think about manging all this, or I could just tell a program on my PC to download everything that looks vaguely interesting, then bung it on a portable device and away we go. That came to about 40GB of podcasts.
Perhaps when the iPod dies I'll see if Neil Young's Pono thingy is any good. I like bright yellow, and I like Toblerone. Or my smartphone battery and storage shennanigans will have improved sufficiently to allow it to take over.
I've been a solid fan of smaller phones, and thought some of the monsters were getting ridiculous. Even though i'm one of the same people, who realises that other people's technology needs can differ from my own. My favourite smartphone case design was the HTC Desire and Wildfire.
But then I persuaded a friend to get a Galaxy Note 2. A stylus happened to suit him as a professional designer. The combination of hugeness but thinness is absolutely amazing. I've been jealous ever since, particularly whenever I try to look something up online on the iPhone.
However I can see very little justification for spending much over £200 on a phone, given the great stuff you can get for that money. Next time I'm in the position that the company isn't picking up the bill. So I'd probably still take smaller over pricier. But then I'm barely ever parted from my tablet. When this iPad dies, I really want something with a stylus.
Totally the wrong kind of mindset for supercar ownership.
Yup. I remember seeing a little piece on TV. Can't remember what program it was, not something earth-shatteringly interesting. But they'd persuaded a chap who'd just bought a McLaren MPC-12-whatever to take their presenter out for a spin in it.
This turned out to be rather more literally than planned. It had snowed, but they went to some track or other, and were whizzing round doing laps, on the rather damp tarmac between plowed snowbanks. She was alternately going "wheeee" and "eek". Then he spun it, and stuffed it into a solid waist high snowbank at about 50. With a rather sad crunching noise.
The presenter was standing there looking like she was going to burst into tears, as they surveyed the sad wreckage of the front wing and bonnet. Commiserating about how terrible it was. And he just laughed and said that was what sportscars were for, and why you raced them on tracks. He was now a couple of mid-sized family cars poorer, but he'd got to play with his new toy for a bit, and such was life.
The ones who terrify me, as the guys who spend years lovingly restoring unique 1930s classics and racing cars. Spending hours, and thousands, sourcing parts, or getting new ones hand-made. Then taking them off to the track and racing them, often in the rain, at full pelt and competitively. And what they'll probably say, as they're interviewed over the smoking wreckage of their pride-and-joy is "that's racing". Then go back and do it all again. Loonies.
Or so I discovered on Thursday night, when I was asked to babysit. He had requested his Uncle iPad I ain't Spartacus, for no ulterior motives whatsoever. Oh no.
He then requested a bedtime story in which he defeated zombies with a chainsaw. Oh dear, oh dear, youth of today, I blame the parents etc. Not wishing to discuss blood-soaked hacked off limbs flying through the air, just before turning the lights out, the conversation moved on to how zombies go to the toilet. A question that still intrigues me now, as if they eat brains then surely they've got to go... Whether dead, alive or undead, what goes up must come down.
Anyway, it turns out a 7 year-old can defeat these moaning shufflers in time for tea and medals. I'm hoping he's a good deal older before I get asked about Aliens or Kate Beckinsale in tight, wet leather.
The UI is the best bit about it. As a phone. Big writing, for those of us caught on the street without our reading glasses. Big buttons for same. Shame the live tiles thing still doesn't seem to work properly. Although I don't personally want anything other than notifications on those anyway.
Plus the People Hub which is better than anything Google or Apple have managed, but possibly only about as good as the new Blackberry.
The real problem is that it's still not fully polished and consistent when using the less-common bits of the OS. Also the lack of apps, which I understand is a lot better than when I used a Win Phone, but still not as good as iOS or Android.
When it comes to SatNav and using it as a phone, my old Lumia 710 is still much better than my work iPhone 5. As a mobile computer the iPhone is way better.
you overlook, that _relative_ poverty, unlike in the West, does not turn the Russians against their government
For a bit. But Putin's whole schtick is that he's going to make the economy strong, and make Russia militarily/diplomatically strong again. Thumbing his nose at the West is good. That shows he's strong. Collapsing the economy shows he's incompetent. In the long term, I don't think he can survive that and remain popular. He can resort to massive repression to keep power, but that's not the same.
At the moment he's playing Bismarck. Nationalist, and not a democrat, but definitely not a dictator, and both democratically elected and popular. It's a role he's been very successful at. The democracy may be extremely ropey, but I think it's pretty clear he's the legitimate leader the people of Russia want.
It's a completely different kettle of fish when you have to start killing your opponents en masse. That's a huge hit to your own self-image, as well as that of your supporters. When you can no longer excuse the odd murdered journalist and arrested opponent as cracking down on hooliganism and protecting stability. Once you have snipers picking off demonstrators then you're turning into Assad. The Yanukovych government couldn't survive doing it. Could Putin's? He's got a lot more ex-KGB people on board. But they're the foreign intelligence types. The story the KGB sells is how they fought the Cold War but Gorbachev stabbed us in the back, and surrendered. But that KGB narrative rather neglects all the Russians that they arrested, tortured and killed. The story they tell themelves, and their public, is of being Cold Warriors. Good Russian spies fighting foreigner threats. It's a lot less fun and heroic being the murdering bastards who arrest and torture fellow Russians...
These are all valid concerns you list. I don't have definitive answers to that, except that there is still and still will be a lot of support for Russia (if not for Putin) among the general Ukrainian population and when the economic hardships will start to bite - will even Western support for the current government keep it from falling?"I still don't undersand what the plan was."
You are not alone. But I actually think there wasn't a plan.
The Crimea was probably an overreaction but who knows? By doing that, Russia may well have spared its 2 million or so population from the destruction that fell upon Donetsk and Lugansk.
Or started a civil war in Ukraine that otherwise might not have happened. Obviously there was going to be civil strife. Democracy is about the losers, not the winners. It only works when the losers of the election trust the winners to let them have a fair chance next time round - and not to completely destroy their interests in the meantime. And I guess one thing people had learned in Ukraine is that if you don't like the government, you can always try occupying some buildings, and see if you can get it to change.
I've seen other suggestions that Crimea was a kneejerk reaction. A political tantrum almost. I can understand that. It was done quickly. In diplomatic terms it worked. Washington and London already distrusted the Russian government, but with a bit of diplomatic nicety, I'm sure Italy, Germany and France could have been kept onboard. But through stupidity and thuggishness, Russia has suffered massive diplomatic loss of trust and prestige.
Taking the winnings of Crimea and quitting while you're ahead would have made sense. Going on into Eastern Ukraine didn't.
Remember that in Syria Western governments agonised about giving shoulder launched SAMs to the rebels, and didn't arm them in the end. Even though they were getting bombed. Because those might turn up in dangerous hands. And yet Russia was sending full SAM systems to the rebels. Even if MH17 wasn't shot down by the rebels (and it looks pretty certain they did) there's been evidence of several of these things crossing the border at various times. That was almost bound to go wrong. And was massively irresponsible.
There I also don't think that Putin expected Kiev to shell the cities, I think he was confident they will negotiate once Poroshenko got through the elections. I thought so myself actually, or hoped.
I guess he may have over-estimated the Ukrainian government. Given how dysfunctional their politics have been since the collaps of the Soviet Union, I can't imagine why. Particularly as it seems to have been Russian policy to keep them that way.
This one comes down to how much Russia supported the rebellion. Was Putin taken by surprise, and started helping it because he thought he had to? Or was it basically instigated by Russia? If the latter, then Putin and his team are idiots. If the former, then Russia is as tangled up in events as everyone else. And having played the nationalist card, it's then very hard to make the compromises required for peace. As China will find with all its maritime border disputes.
It's too easy to blame Russia for the whole rebellion. But I find it hard to believe it was spontaneous, because of how fast and successful it was at taking territory, and because so many of the leaders turned out to be Russians. Suppsedly retired, intelligence types. And there were reports at the time of people in uniform helping out, who then disappeared again. It's the Crimea play-book all over again.
Finally Angela Merkel said that she'd talked to Putin and he was disconnected from reality. It's probably what moved Germany from the ignore it and keep trading camp to the sanctions side.
In that scenario I can see no peace. And you can't blame the Ukrainian government for trying to quickly chuck the Russian invaders out, before the crisis spirals totally out of control. Even if that does mean shelling their own cities. Not that this is something Putin would stop at. The Russians totally destroyed Grozny. It's endless war on the border, where Russia doesn't want to let Ukraine win, but doesn't want to take over the destroyed territory and spend money to rebuild. Given the Russian government is about to be a lot poorer, due to sanctions.
Russia will not let go of Ukraine for the reasons I outlined and sanctions will not deter it, therefore, the only practical solution to this is for the government in Kiev to stop their "anti-terrorist operation" (which is a disgrace by all accounts) and negotiate with the East and with Russia a settlement. Quite what that might be I don't know, but it will consist of some concession on autonomous powers, some guarantee of retaining influence by the East-Ukrainian "oligarchs" and some undertakings to Russia that Ukraine will not be joining NATO
Vladimir Plouzhnikov,
I disagree with quite a bit of your analysis, but see where you're coming from. However, Russia has lost Ukraine. It was a mess, with a tension between the pro-Russian and more pro-Western populations. By removing Crimea that population balance is now broken. How can there ever be a pro-Russian government again?
Current Russian government policy is a disaster on its own terms. They've gained Crimea, and may gain the Eastern parts of Ukraine, although I don't think they want them. However the cost is enormous. Any possibility of partnership with the EU is now gone. The Russian economy needs lots of foreign investment. That's unlikely to happen for years. That's going to ruin Putin's narrative of being the strong-man who sorted out the economic chaos. The oligarchs taking most of the money will look a lot worse once ordinary people are struggling like the 90s again.
Also, they already had Crimean bases. Ukraine would have agreed another lease, even if it took gas blackmail like before. Which I doubt it would. But with Ukraine as a weak state on the border still. I can't see Russia wanting to have to suppress 30m people by invading. So what's the remnant of Ukraine going to do now? Quietly hate Russia, and build up their army, while trying to get into NATO. Like Georgia I'm sure they won't be allowed more than a partnership agreement. But that will involve training and weapons sales. If Russia absorbs the rebel republics they'll have to worry about that security threat anyway. Whereas NATO would never have allowed Ukraine to join before either, so there'd have been no threat. Or at least not until they'd got a stable political system, and got some of the nastier ex-soviet elements out of the military and intelligence apparatus. If Russia doesn't absorb the rebels, but lets them form mini-states, then Ukraine may eventually re-invade. Autonomy is probably the best option, but have Russia given the rebels so much support that they'll refuse to agree to that? Then it's back to more fighting, Ukraine eventually getting the upper hand, and Russia having to recommit troops.
It's a horrible mess. If Putin had left well enough alone, Ukrainian politics would have carried on as normal, another corrupt government would have come in, and nothing much would probably have changed.
Or was his real fear not NATO. But an oligarch being overthrown, and maybe this time people getting organised to clean-up their politics? That might be too close to comfort for the current Russian system? I don't know, I still don't undersand what the plan was. Or what he's hoping to gain.
<blockquote.Well, if there is a sure way of getting Russian tanks rolling over Khreschatik Avenue in Kiev ASAP - that's certainly it.</blockquote>
I agree. It's Ukraine's trump card. Not as powerful as the hand the Russians are holding, and massively hurts Ukraine, but could really screw Putin's plans up.
Nice job of smuggling in the assertion you are trying to prove. You begin by talking about "Russia's invasion of Ukraine", which is logically similar to "the golden mountain" - something that does not exist.
Tom Welsh,
Last year Crimea was part of Ukraine. This year it's mysteriously part of Russia. After denying the intervention of Russian troops in these events, Mr Putin awarded them medals in a televised ceremoney 3 weeks later.
Most of those troops may have started in Russian bases, allowed by treaty. But they weren't allowed by that treaty to surround the parliament building, besiege Ukrainian military bases, or administer an illegal referendum with 2 weeks notice.
That is an invasion and annexation. It may have been the will of the people, although I doubt it. But nonetheless it was still an invasion.
As for Russia having invaded the rest of Ukraine, that's harder to prove. Russia denies it, but they may be handing out medals in a few weeks... We've go reports from Russian media and social networks of troops in Ukraine and secret funerals. Western journalists on the ground saying they've seen Russian troops, as well as interviews with Ukrainians on both sides of the conflict. Statements from rebel commanders that they have holidaying Russian troops helping them. Quite a few of those commanders are ex (or maybe current?) Russian intelligence people. NATO saying it has satellite piccies of Russian armour heading into Ukraine. Oh and the Russian President changing his story of wanting negotiations to saying yesterday that he wanted an independent buffer state now, just after the Ukrainian offensive had mysteriously collapsed - amid fresh reports of massive Russian deployments in Ukraine.
Crimea was an invasion. It's now proved, and admitted. The latest is almost certainly the same. If no conventional troops are there, the rebels are still receiving massive Russian support. That is proved and admitted.
Now what was it you were saying about argument by assertion? Oh yes, using the word Junta for the Ukrainian government. Ah yes, that'll be it. I believe your next post talks about propaganda too. Shame on you.
I shouldn't really argue with you about European politicans being bought, as it's irrelevant. Perhaps a deliberate distraction from the argument? Although you might want to provide some evidence. Particularly as Tony Blair, your example, was earning £200k a year as PM for 10 years, his wife was on £500k-£1m a year for a longer period, and they bought extensive properties in our bonkers housing market. Add in that he left Downing Street and started lecturing at £50-£100k a pop - and you shouldn't really be surprised if the guy's loaded.
Tom Welsh,
Just a minute? That's the Iraqi government that won the election. Not perfect, but also not the one the US wanted. The US left because they couldn't get on with them. And the government that subsequently had closer relations with Iran than with the US. You'd have to be an idiot to think that was the outcome the US wanted.
Plus they pulled their troops out. Because they were asked, but also because the US President made it part of his election strategy. They'd have left advisors, and wanted to, but couldn't come to a deal.
So no, it clearly wasn't a puppet government. It was a crap government, which was too sectarian, hence Obama used the opportunity of the ISIS attack to say they wouldn't give help until Maliki resigned.
But don't let facts get in the way of a good US-bashing. I make no claims that US and UK policy in Iraq has been perfect. Or worked. By whattabboutery that supposed Western special forces support for a government that asked for it is equivalent to an invasion of Ukraine is total bollocks.
Frankly, RT may contain some lies and distortions - but if so, they are a great deal less obvious than those in the Western media.
That's a ridiculous comment. I occasionally look at RT, and it has stuff that I've not seen since the days of the Cold War Soviet propaganda.
Western media isn't perfect. Western politicians don't always tell the truth. But the UK media is free, and pretty mixed. With the Guardian, Torygraph, Indy and Times, as well as the Beeb, Private Eye and various others - there's usually a chance that the truth is out there somewhere. You have to be careful with sources. And sometimes you can't know the truth until a while afterwards, but there's almost always an indication to tell you if something's going on.
Do the papers take an editorial line? Sure. But they're mostly open about it. And you know it when you read the news stories, so you can correct for bias. Do the UK media take government propaganda and run it under orders? No. They may report government information as fact, but then they also cover the scandal if the government have told porkies. They're also mostly good at telling you what's confirmed and by who, so you can make a judgement. You don't get that in RT.
So I know that NATO says Russia has been sending weapons, and now troops into Ukraine. I also know that the Telegraph and Guardian have both had journalists on the ground who claim to have seen Russian military formations inside Ukraine. As well as the Ukrainian government. And Ukraine's rebels have admitted it in interviews too. And journalist from several sources have had interviews with residents and troops on the ground who say it.
Agains that we have Russian denials. But then didn't they just deny invading Crimea. And then admit it three weeks later, and award medals to the troops involved. Oh yes, they did. Oops. Oh and the rebels have suddenly counter-attacked, and done amazingly well. But with no help? Hmm...
Nah. I think I'll take the Western media, with a strong pinch of salt.
the borderline ultra-right "government" of Ukraine
Destroy all Monsters,
Who says it's borderline ultra-right? The last government was mostly made up of Yanukvovyc's party. Just without him, as he'd buggered off.
Sure there's some far-right elements in there. And also in the army, given that militias seem to be doing as much of the fighting as the regular army. The new president was only just elected, and as I understand it was a mainstream politician/oligarch before the crisis started. There hasn't been a parliamentary election yet. Given the country's just invaded, I expect that nationalists might do well at that election as well.
But this, mostly ultra-right / nazi comment is straight out of the Putin narrative. It's a simplification in order to justify Russia's actions in Ukraine. I don't think Ukrainian politics are any different to Russia or Eastern European politics in general. There are still mainstream far-right parties and ex-communist ones, although mostly not in government, or getting more than 10% of the vote. Let's take the Russian example - Vladimir Zhirinovsky for example...
Ukrainian politics are fucked up. Which is why the county was a virtual basket-case even before their government collapsed in an almost revolution, and then got invaded by Russia. Followed by what was either a spontaneous, or Russian-backed, insurgency and another Russian invasion of the non-Crimean bit of the country.
Finally, your comment about war being prepared is rather silly. The US isn't planning a war. The US doesn't want a war. NATO could muster sufficient forces to defeat the Russian army, although I suspect there aren't the stocks of ammo and spares for a major war any more. But why would it? Russia has nukes. And what would it do with Russia once it had conquered it? Or is this a cunning plan to militarily defeat Russia just for the hell of it? It's just bizarre.
Totally irrelevant if they're there with Iraqi government permission. The Iraqi government has asked for Western military assistance, so I'd actually be surprised if we didn't have special forces there.
The point about Russia's invasion of Ukraine is that it's an invasion. Aimed (possibly?) at annexing territory. Of course, Russia denies this. But then didn't they just annex Crimea? After denying the wanted to. Oh yes. Funnily enough, they did almost the same thing in Georgia a couple of years ago. Probably best we don't mention Checheya.
Did the US annex Iraq? Nope. Did US forces leave at the government's request? Yup. Are US forces leaving Afghanistan at the government's request? Yup. Did the US annex part of Afghanistan? Nope. Notice a difference?
There's a glut of liquid natural gas at the moment. And Europe has mothballed quite a few coal plants to meet green targets. As well as Germany turning off its nuclear plants. And the US starting to export shale gas. Europe can survive without Russian gas, it would hurt but it can be done.
Russia can't sell that gas to anyone else, as it hasn't got the LNG infrastructure or pipelines to anywhere else yet. That's a huge chunk of its exports and government revenue at risk. It would cause a massive depression in their economy, which is already in recession.
Were I the Ukraine government I'd think about mining the gas pipeline, Russia stopped delivering to them 2 months ago anyway. As well as threaten to blow up the Nordstream pipeline, which carries most of the rest. That would certainly piss off the EU, but they're not helping all that much, and it would certainly make Putin think.
Various people have been thinking about sanctions, for years. As you say, they had limited effect on South Africa. And even less on Iraq, where Saddam didn't care about the effects on the population.
But things have changed. The world economy is more tightly knit. Russia is more integrated with that economy. Russia's biggest single market is the EU.
Also, Russia is reliant on its oil and gas industry. That's where most of its government revenues come from. I believe the standard calculation is that if the oil price (gas prices are linked to oil prices) drops below $100-$110 a barrel, then the Russian government goes into deficit. No problem, they've got huge reserves. But what if Europe stops buying their gas? Or Ukraine blows up the pipeline? Then government revenues collapse. Then it's either massive cuts, or massive tax rises. Calculated to make a government popular...
Now add in the fact that Russia was already going into recession before the sanctions started. And that over the last 2 years it's lost a net $150 billlion in capital flight. That's accelerated since too.
Now add in the fact that the Russian oil and gas industry needs massive investment and modernisation. Who's going to lend them the money? Who's going to sell them the kit. The global oil and gas companies are all Western.
Russia can sell its gas to China. Once it's built a pipeline. Which will take 5 years. China agreed a price that was about a third less than what Europe is currently paying, and half what they now charge Ukraine.
The other thing that has changed is the importance of global finance. I don't just mean speculation, but loans, insurance, transfers. I've seen two rujmours from the EU negotiations on the next round of sanctions. One that Cameron suggested kicking Russia off the SWIFT payment network. Done to Iran. Then Russian companies would struggle to pay their bills, and their banks would be buggered. This can be worked round, but would waste time and money. The second was that no EU firm/bank would be able to give more than 30 days credit to a Russian one. So Russian companies would struggle to get trade financing to buy. And finance for long-term investment, which mostly comes from Western sources. That way our companies would still be able to trade with them, and the disadvantages would be equal for any company they buy from, Western or otherwise.
Of course Russia could then retaliate against Western companies. I guess they'd do that where they could get as good alternatives elsewhere.
One query with the article. Saying sanctions have had little effect so far. According to the Telegraph, no Russian company has managed to issue a bond on the Russian bond market (or the European one) since the end of June! Apparently Russia's corporate finance needs are nearly $200bn this year, just to refinance maturing debt. And according to the German government exports to Russia in July were down 60% on last year.
Finally the most developed financial markets are Europe and the US. But moving to far Eastern markets doesn't help much. The biggest banks in Hong Kong, Japan and Singapore also operate in the US and EU. So have to comply with their laws. Is it worth Japanese and Singaporean banks cutting off their trade with the West, just to win some trade with Russia? Maybe some China-only banks might? But I doubt that gives Russia the cash it needs. And the terms would be awful.
Ledswinger,
I don't believe a cyber-attack could turn off our whole infrastructure. But I'm pretty sure it's possible to quite a lot of damage, with some forward planning. Mostly it's going to be annoyances. But if you can disrupt the economy for a week, that could be the difference between low growth for the year and recession. It's not the end of the world, but costing an opponents economy a few tens of billions for the outlay of a few tens of millions is something to be concerned about.
DDoS is inconvenient but seems to be posible (sometimes easy) to work around. Although some of them seem to have got bigger recently, but I'd imagine that'll just shut a few websites, then slow things down a bit for everyone. No big deal.
SCADA kit worries me. Security doesn't even seem to have been an issue with the design, and I'm not sure it's that high a priority now. it'd be interesting to know how much of this stuff is actually hooked up to the net. Hopefully not much. Damaging offline stuff with a long-term infection via the update process (as with Stuxnet), would seem to be less of an immediate threat. But if you can get live access to various national systems, there is a possibility you could do some serious damage.
If you can control pumping systems, you can cause pressure spikes, and break pipelines in multiple places. Water, oil, and sewage have momentum. By playing around with pumps and control valves, you should be able to get serious water-hammer (I assume with sewage it's called poo-hammer?). Do that repeatedly and you start breaking pipe joints. Hopefully these control systems are properly secured. I do wonder though.
Are the 999 systems all safe from attack? Even if you can't get at the emergency systems, I'm sure you could have some fun buggering up less important government big IT. These have so many people that access them, that I'm sure a determined hacker can get in and break things.
You can also do some major disruption to the economy by attacking large companies IT. Even more if you're willing to spend the time and effort on attacking small company IT. They won't have the resources to fix things, and many are probably running without backups. Bankrupt a few thousand smaller companies, and watch the recession happen.
Therefore the kind of people that we pay to worry on our behalf should be worrying about cyber-attacks, and how to deal with them.
Why does my thought process scare you? Just because of "big bad scary nuclear", doesn't mean that all nuclear things are equally dangerous. Reactors make more of a mess than spilled uranium enriched to 5% then 20% purity.
If you're talking about my comments on Iran's options - I don't think I made any justifications. I personally believe that the world is a worse place with more nuclear powers. Since we can't disinvent the damned things, we're stuck with having some nuclear powers though. But if Iran gets them, then Saudi and Turkey may do the same. The Middle East is already in a mess as it is.
In this situation I believe Iran hasn't retaliated because the leadership doesn't see any advantage in doing so. There's no diplomatic or economic sanctions they can use. So that leaves military ones. The biggest threat they can make is to Saudi and Kuwaiti oil supplies. Threatening to bring down the Western economies is likely to lead to a limited war. Which they'd probably lose. They did in the 80s. That's international politics as I understand it. I've made few assertions about morality.
Fukushima was serveral nuclear reactors that got hit by the world's biggest recorded earthquake and then a fucking huge tsunami. Being old designs, and working when hit, they still needed active cooling for at least a month in order to shut down safely. The contamination has mostly come from venting of coolant (as steam and water), in order to keep the reactors from melting down. Hence the contamination.
Iran will be centrifuging sub-critical amounts, unless they wanted fission inside their factory. So the risk is of direct contamination from uranium. Not from uranium fission products. Uranium's an alpha emitter, rather than beta or gamma radiation. From which your skin will mostly protect you, and a plastic suit and mask will do the rest. Therefore clean-up is easy.
As I understand it, the software wasn't even supposed to be breaking the centrifuges. Just mis-aligning them slightly so they required massive extra maintenance.
As to how Iran should respond? I did answer it. What do Iran want? Who knows? But they appear to desperately want sanctions to stop, so they can rebuild their economy. Therefore their response should be to grin and bear it. Dismantle their nuclear weapons program, and get sanctions lifted.
Alternatively they could start funding terrorists to attack the US and EU, and continue to devlop nukes. Then the US would probably agree with Israel that there was no better option, and bomb their nuclear plants. Or they could threaten to close the Persian Gulf, and stop Saudi oil exports. The last time they tried that NATO put a small fleet in, escorted the tankers, and kept the exports going. They could up the ante, and start using their air-force and surface-to-surface missiles to destroy the ships. Then the US, UK, France and gulf allies would probably bomb their air-force and missile sites. As well as blockade their oil exports.
They're not good options. I don't think Iran wants to escalate.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
