Panto_Villan

I didn’t get to watch the match unfortunately, so I just followed the live text. Sounds like one of the better ones to have missed tbh. It’s a frustrating result but one positive is that most of these frustrating results are (away) draws, not losses, and we generally have had good opportunities to get all three points when it happens. But we can’t have too many more of these results if we want to earn a CL spot. It feels to me like things are slowly but surely slipping away after a really promising start. Ending up in the Europa places would feel like a disappointment, even though it’d still be an achievement worth celebrating.

They’re probably down to less than 10% of their reserves of specific types of vehicles but in general everything I’ve read suggests their overall reserves still have quite a way to go yet (I’ve seen estimates they’re like 50% empty). Obviously the best stuff was reactivated first so quality is declining over time as losses mount, but even older tanks are still tanks and are perfectly capable of killing people. The closest major weapon the Russians are close to running out of are the KA-52 attack helicopters, I believe. They’re down to about half their starting fleet of those, and they don’t have anything else that can do quite the same job. The danger long term is that the Russians slowly work their way up to producing significant numbers of helicopters and armoured vehicles each month, like they have done with artillery shells and missiles and drones. It’s not actually like the West builds that many each year so the boot would be on the other foot if they do.

Yeah. I mean it sorta depends what your stance would have been if Israel had brought a case against Russia for genocide and illegal occupation of foreign lands, right? I guess it should be assessed purely on merit, given Putin has been doing exactly that. And people should simply point out that Israel is perhaps not the best party to be bringing such a case, but not let that tarnish their views of the case. Hopefully after some consideration that’s the stance I’d take. Not sure that’s the view everyone would take in practice, mind.

Yeah. Fair point. I guess I should have been a little clearer there - I’m referring purely to Ukraine here when I say they are stronger than ever. Western aid is becoming ever less generous (US aid has now ended entirely) and the Russians are slowly ramping up their war economy, and eventually Ukraine is going to fold if the current trends continue. And if Russia does win the war, suddenly the calculus changes, right? Russia never had any intention of fighting NATO directly or invading the Nordics, so I’m sure they’d happy trade NATO enlargement for control over Ukraine. I’m sure Putin’s also perfectly happy to weather the economic damage if it means they win the war. If the West lets Putin win, this war becomes a strategic defeat for us and not him. Being able to take territory just means being willing to suffer enough deaths and economic disruption until the West gets distracted and divided.

Yeah, but they’re not. Lots of people (myself included) underestimated the stability of the Russian state at the start of the war, but some posters in this thread don’t seem to have updated their views since then.

That's not true imo. But it's apples and oranges anyway; sanctions and political repression clearly have a negative effect and while that might have held the USSR back from being the world's leading superpower, those same disadvantages won't necessarily handicap Russia enough to stop them acheiving their lesser goal of being a regional power. They're far larger than the neighbours they want to bully, and their economy is mostly based on digging stuff out the ground and selling it which is less vulnerable to sanctions than more complex supply chains are. People have been saying since the war began that Putin was about to fall because Russians just wouldn't accept the falling living standards or the heavy-handed repression or the enormous numbers of casualties or the forced mobilisations or the loss of access to the West, etc. None of it has happened. Russia is in a stronger position now than it has been at any time since the start of the war. Probably because everyone has just been sitting back and waiting for them to collapse rather than taking the threat of a long drawn-out war seriously.

Yeah. Sure, if you were talking about Mandela-era South Africa then they would be perfectly placed to mediate the conflict or put forward a case on human rights. They were respected worldwide. Mandela has been dead for a decade and out of power for far longer, and his successors have repeatedly shown they’re actually very happy to support genocide. I gave multiple examples in my previous post. They’ve squandered their legacy. Does it mean they’re wrong to bring this case to court? Not necessarily. But you seem to be holding them up as an example of a “good” country, which they’re absolutely not.

The USSR famously let up on repression and started to open up before it collapsed. That’s why it’s not on the map any more, whereas Iran and Russia are still around. Same as Maduro over in Venezuela. Control the army and police and you stay in power, sanctions or not. There’s no serious political rival to Putin on the scene for discontent to unite behind either. If one emerges it would certainly change the calculation, but there isn’t one who poses any threat. Yes, of course sanctions work - the Russian economy and war effort would clearly be performing much better without them. But they’re not going to cause regime change, or stop the war. They’re not THAT effective.

Is your argument seriously that we should admire the stance of the current SA government, which is “we’re pro-genocide everywhere in the world unless Israel do it” because Mandela once led their country?

Those are all fairly minor inconveniences in the grand scheme of things though. Iran and Cuba have shown you can survive decades and decades of sanctions, provided you’re willing to accept a fall in living standards - and Russians are no stranger to hard times. Unfortunately Russia is a big country with a lot of raw resources it can dig up and sell to fund the war. As long as Putin keeps the army and police loyal he can keep this up forever imo. Their economy isn’t exactly running great, but they’re still out producing Ukraine and it’s allies militarily right now. The West needs to step up military aid to Ukraine otherwise Russia is going to have endured a few years of hardship but still won the war (a smaller victory than he’d have liked, but a victory nonetheless). Gotta hope Nikki Haley somehow beats Trump in the primaries and maybe 2024 will look a bit brighter!

That’s bollocks, I’m afraid. Israel had a torrid history for most of their existence (y’know, with their neighbours repeatedly trying to exterminate them) but the present matters more than the past. The same South Africa that is bringing this case against Israel last week had a state visit from their buddy Hemedti, leader of the RSF who have been enthusiastically committing genocide in Sudan. They’re also one of the only governments that recognise Hamas specifically (i.e. not just embracing the wider Palestinian cause). And yeah, they support Putin committing genocide in Ukraine too. The “paradox” you referred to earlier is simply that SA will happily cheer genocide if it’s being committed by anti-Western forces, but will be appalled by it if a Western ally is involved. Same as Russia or China. Even if you support them in this specific instance, they’re absolutely not on the right side of history in general. Their days of moral superiority are long gone.

In a wheelchair for six to nine months then?

Equally Germany has been completely lacking balls in refusing to supply Taurus missiles while France and the UK have already provided Storm Shadow / Scalp missiles. Germany has consistently lagged everyone else in providing offensive rather than defensive weapons. Not to mention the fact the UK is hugely ramping 155mm production in a way say France has not. No country is really throwing their full weight behind Ukraine, Germany included.

It’s probably Traore. Bertie’s a free spirit and I can’t imagine he has much time for anyone giving him detailed tactical instructions (“please don’t backheel volley it across your own goal from 30 yards out” etc).

We turned that into an unnecessarily large banana skin and somehow managed to avoid slipping on it. But at the end of the day, the history books will only record the fact we got three points, as that’s all that really matters.

The issue for me is that we’ve not played particularly well since the Man City game and were fortunate to get all the points vs Arsenal and needed a senseless red at Brentford to get anything at all. We’re still in it when you look at the table, but I’m not seeing anything in our recent performances that suggests we can win the title. We need to turn things around quickly or even top 4/5 is going to be a distant hope in a couple of months.

Am I being stupid or are they all in order except the keeper?

Yeah. I guess that’s my point - this sort of arrangement can lead to the organisation making sub-optimal decisions. Ratcliffe is never going to put more money in if he only owns 25% of United, even if it’s clearly what the club needs. But yeah, you’re right, the Glazers will have done perfectly well out of this arrangement. I wonder what’s in it for Ratcliffe? Maybe he balked at paying £5-6bn for the whole company but is happy to chuck less than 10% of his wealth at running his favourite football team? I guess it’s not like he needs more money, so he might not care too much if him being successful at it would make the Glazers far more money than him.

Sure, but what happens if the football decision is that United need to invest more money - are the majority owners happy with their money being committed by the minority owners? And at some point the chickens will come home to roost if they get the footballing decisions wrong. If Ratcliffe turns out to have the football intelligence of Boehly then the value of the Glazers’ asset is at risk of dropping significantly. I mean the £1.2bn that’s being handed over (or whatever) is probably enough to make them take the risk, but still. Seems weird.

Honestly don’t care Is their set up one minority owner who has a larger stake than the others, or two major owners where the one with the much smaller stake is in charge? Because I assume the first happens somewhat often, but the second scenario seems a bit nuts to me.

It’s certainly not unique to Villa fans or football fans in general, but people do seem to go out of their way to find reasons to hate other managers / players. I’m sure if Emery had had any success at Arsenal we’d have a thread full of people sneering at him for some reason or other.

I just don’t understand the structure of the new United deal. Why would someone buy 25% of a club, but also have control over the football operations? Seems to leave both Ratcliffe and the Glazers in a weird position.

Fair play to him. I don’t want him back here but I’m happy to see any talented youngster discarded by a top club get their career back on track - it must be really disheartening to know you’re probably done at the very highest level, so I think it needs a certain mental strength (or love for the game) to not end up in a career spiral.

Nah. If he wanted money he’d just have run down his contract and left. I was amazed he didn’t do that given he had admirers among the top 4.

His children look sad. It’s probably because he pointed at them earlier. The monster.