Panto_Villan

What do I google to see this? MaliTalk?

There's no need to cover their tracks. They'd pay them like any other part-time employee / advisory firm, except the pay rates are likely to be rather high (although I don't think many MPs would be earning anything near £1m for consultancy work). Financial auditors aren't there to assess value, they're just there to ensure the accounts are accurate so shareholders can assess value. If you say you've paid them £1m and bank statements confirm you've paid them £1m, the auditors would be satisfied - unless the amount you are paying them is so ludicrous it threatens the financial health of the business. Shareholders would have the right to object, at least in theory. But I'm not even sure this consultancy work would have to be split out from the rest of the wage bill so they might not be aware of the amounts involved. But they'd be entitled to ask those sorts of questions at the Annual General Meeting, etc. That said, what Hislop said is true - these companies aren't paying politicians money for nothing. If the company doesn't feel like it's getting good value from the payments then the people responsible will usually just stop paying it without any external influence being required.

I really need to bow out of this thread for a bit. However I'm interested why you think Russia is bound to be locked into an eternally antagonistic relationship with America in the future? Why do their interests have to oppose one another? I personally agree with Blandy that the root of the issue is that Russia is failing because of Putin's corruption and cronyism, and there's actually no reason why a democratic and well-governed Russia could not be a law-abiding part of the global world order in the same way that countries like Japan or Germany that were once opposed to the US now are. That's not in the interests of the current ruling class though, unfortunately. It's not like even wealthy developed countries like Britain and France are above posturing at one another with warships over things like fishing rights, so I'm not saying everyone has to hold hands and be happy forever. But I really don't think it has to be "us and them" to anywhere near the extent it currently is.

Yeah, agreed. That wasn't a particularly helpful comment from Biden! I was talking about the article I'd linked previously on Russian air and missile superiority which was outlining why the war might be over almost as soon as it begins, and why things like anti-tank missiles and such aren't necessarily going to help Ukraine at all. It might provide a counterpoint to your view that the Ukraine is just as hard to invade as any other major country. I agree there's a chance Russia gets bogged down in Ukraine, but I can only see it happening in an insurgency after Russian wins. A war would be over relatively quickly one way or another; either the Russians steamroller Ukraine or they back off if it looks like they're not going to win (having inflicted massive damage on Ukraine). I fully agree it wouldn't be logical for Putin to do it, but he might well do it anyway. I just don't think you appreciate the gulf in scale between Norway and Russia in terms of gas production. Norway produces 5.7trn cubic feet of gas per year and has reserves of 72trn. Russia produces 22.7trn cubic feet per year and has reserves of 1,700trn. Russia actually only exports 7.2trn cubic feet per year but that's the largest export number in the world - Norway would have to go up to 13trn feet per year to make up the shortfall, which means they'd burn through all their reserves in about 5 years. I just don't see how you think the maths works. Even laying aside the amount of capital expenditure required to double to amount of gas wells you have.

Everything you say about Putin is correct there, but I think when most people here talk about Russia it’s just shorthand for Putin. The two are inseparable right now, as you say yourself. However, I actually think the West has been pretty clear about what we’re doing. We’ve already said we won’t fight him for Ukraine, but we’ll impose severe economic costs if he attacks it and beef up the NATO forces on his borders going forward. Meanwhile we’ve been offering talks so he can easily take a step back from war without looking weak, letting him claim another diplomatic victory over the West. Really it’s Putin that needs to decide whether he’s going to play or fold.

Yeah. So my phrase “Trojan horse” was intended to communicate Putin’s view rather than the political sentiments of the people on the ground. I don’t disagree too much with you overall, but a few points I’d make - I think pro-EU (but not pro-NATO) sentiment was higher than you think from the early 2000s onwards. Maybe less so in the Donbas, but I think overall support for EU affiliation was approaching 50%. Support for both NATO and the EU is obviously much higher post 2014 in the face of Russian aggression though, and I don’t think there’s much pro-Russian sentiment left outside the Donbas even if there used to be. Unfortunately for him, Putin has managed to unify Ukraine. Secondly, I think you’re being a little optimistic about what Russia is after. As part of the ongoing negotiations they were offered a 30 year guarantee that Ukraine would not join NATO, but they weren’t interested. Similarly I think Putin is interested in the Donbas primarily because of the political leverage it gives him, not because he cares about the territory itself (hence why Crimea was annexed but the Donbas was not). That’s not to say there’s not a lot of genuine pro-Russian sentiment there, just that I don’t think Russia would be happy to settle for control over that region if they “lose” the rest of the Ukraine. FWIW I don’t think Putin actually will launch a full-scale invasion. I think he’s aware it’ll be costly and ultimately counterproductive and he can just squeeze some diplomatic concessions or annex the Donbas and take the easy victory. But I think he certainly would like to!

How about the Norwegian PM literally saying their increased production can’t replace Russian gas? https://mobile.reuters.com/article/amp/idUSL8N2TZ2QF Did you even read the article I linked, btw? Do you disagree with it in some way? You seem to be the only person I’ve encountered who is convinced that Ukraine can win a war against Russia. You’ve provided no evidence for it, you’ve just repeated that claim over and over but I’ve not seen a single credible source saying it’s possible.

US and Norweigan gas can't replace Russian gas. That's why gas prices are so stupidly high in the UK at the moment, and they'd be a lot higher (or there'd be rationing) if Russia turned off the taps. Not that that's hugely relevant to the discussion imo; I think Russia would get hit with heavy sanctions if they attacked Ukraine despite it. You seem awfully blase about going to war. People fear Russia because they have a strong military. It's not world-beating, but it is strong. The UK is the strongest military power in Europe alongside France but only has 160,000 troops total. Even if their hardware is as inferior to ours as you seem to think it is, fighting Russia would involve large numbers of casualties on both sides. The average Brit or American or Frenchman doesn't want to spend billions and see thousands of soldiers come home in bodybags just to keep Ukraine free. A war between two countries with strong military forces is something you should fear and avoid where possible, even if you know you'd win. And that's leaving aside the non-zero chance that it ends in a nuclear confrontation, which could easily spiral into all-out nuclear war. The Russian military isn't a joke, by the way. Here's an article you might want to read that outlines the power difference between the Russians and the Ukrainians. It actually specifically addresses the "next Afghanistan" assumption you're making.

I actually disagree with this. Ultimately the dispute is about Ukraine heading in the direction of being a democracy and EU member. The two provinces were intended to be a trojan horse to destabilise Ukraine - which is why Putin was pushing for a federal Ukraine in the Minsk ceasefire deal, where the provinces would have a say in how Ukraine has been run - but that has failed because Ukraine has basically just walled them off so Putin currently has little leverage over politics in the rest of Ukraine. That's why I think there's scope for the invasion being about more than just annexing those territories. If Putin thinks the costs are acceptable (FWIW I don't think he will) then he'll be trying his best to bring Ukraine back into Russian orbit by bringing down the government or installing a puppet regime, or just damaging the country's infrastructure severely in order to make a point about the costs of trying to break away from Russia.

I think NATO was being honest when they said they wouldn’t intervene militarily in Ukraine. Even if there’s mass unarmed civilian casualties, the alternative is a war with Russia and there’s no appetite for that over Ukraine. A war with Russia is a whole different ball game to the war with ISIL for many reasons. There’s plenty more to pick apart in your reply (why would Russian jets need to fly over NATO territory when Ukraine is right next to Russia?) but that seems to be the crux of it. You think NATO is going to intervene in Ukraine and I don’t. I think the evidence pretty strongly supports my position rather than yours, but I’ve said my piece and if you’re not convinced then you’re not convinced. I think any further debate would just be retreading the same ground.

None of the NATO members will "be next". Putin isn't going to attack NATO because as you've said yourself, he'll lose. They don't need to intervene, they'll just shore up their defences in response to any aggression in Ukraine to make it even more clear that attacking them would be a bad idea. Beyond that, I'm not sure what you're arguing. If you don't think the ex-Soviet states will attack Russia, why can't Putin use his full military force against Ukraine? You think NATO countries are going to start shooting at Russian jets over Ukraine or Russian troops moving towards the conflict zone through their own territories? That'd be lunacy for any country that doesn't want to get drawn into the war. Ukraine is going to have to deal with the entire Russian military machine if they choose to launch a full-scale invasion, and they'd lose. Everything else is largely irrelevent to any conflict that might arise in the next two weeks. Training is a long term thing. A few anti-tank missiles is hardly going to tip the balance, even if the sort of Russian tanks that would be used to spearhead an invasion were actually vulnerable to Javelins and the like (and they're not). Ukraine barely has an air force, has inferior armoured vehicles, and they're outnumbered. Of course they're in better shape than they were in 2014 but that doesn't mean they're capable of stopping a Russian invasion.

Yes, but once again you’re conflating Ukraine with NATO and the EU. He’s threatening to invade Ukraine, and the Russian military forces are vastly stronger than the Ukrainian ones (although Ukraine isn’t a pushover). There’s absolutely no way NATO is getting involved in a war in Ukraine in any military capacity. The big players have already ruled it out, so are you really suggesting the Baltic nations etc are going to attack Russia by themselves?

Yup. That’s why a country like France wasn’t obliged to take part in the US-led war in Iraq, for example.

I think you’re seriously underestimating Russia’a military forces there. The fact you’re referring to their army as “small and underfunded” kinda gives your prejudices away - Russia has the fifth largest army in the world (1m active duty personnel and 2m reservists) and it’s not underfunded at all these days. Nobody seriously thinks Ukraine can protect itself against a full-scale Russian invasion, the question is whether Putin wants to pay what that would cost him. Beating an insurgency on the other side of the world is very different to fighting a conventional war against a neighbour. America couldn’t win a war in Afghanistan but that doesn’t mean their military forces are small or underfunded either.

I generally find the Economist is quite good at explaining the potential outcomes in a 5-10 minute read when situations like these arise. I've pasted their recent article on what the likely military options for Russia are as I think it's quite informative.

That seems a bizarre claim, frankly. Russia was more involved in the events of 2014 than the US was, but neither of them actually overthrew the government. Russia has been gunning hard for Ukraine ever since they started negotiating a deal with the EU because Putin refuses to accept the Ukraine could / should be an independent nation outside of Russian orbit, they didn't suddenly only become interested in 2014. During 2013 Russia deliberately damaged the Ukrainian economy by doubling gas prices and blocking Ukrainian imports, then in Nov 2013 the Ukrainian government refused to sign the EU association deal that had been negotiated (kicking off major protests) and in Dec 2013 they signed a deal with Russia to bail them out financially and lower gas prices. In Feb 2014 the government cracked down on the protestors using force and hundreds of people died (at Russian urging, and with potential Russian involvement) and the country nearly fell into civil war, which unsurprisingly caused the government to fall. It seems very difficult to come to the conclusion that it was a US coup or that Russia were the good guys there. What's your timeline / interpretation of the events?

To be honest I'm a little surprised you're posting things like this given you seem a sensible and well-informed poster elsewhere on these forums. You're absolutely correct there won't be a domino effect. But Putin absolutely does want to take the Ukraine. This isn't just conjecture, he literally posted an essay on the topic last year on the Kremlin website. Here's a link to some analysis on the contents by the Guardian with a quote to give you some flavour for what it contains. The US historically did want to get Ukraine into NATO in the 90s but doesn't really care about Russia any more - it's a failing country with a significantly smaller GDP than Italy or even Canada (and I'm not talking per capita here - they're 81st in the world if you look at that). Post 9/11 the US was focused on the middle east, and now they're focused on China. The only relevance they have is that they've invested heavily in their military over the past decade and Putin is going out of his way to cause trouble for the West because it plays to his hard man image. Why do you think America needs to put tactical nukes in Ukraine? They already have overwhelmingly superior conventional military forces and enough strategic nukes to annihilate Russia several times over if it came to it (and Russia could do the same to the US). Russia were the ones that breached the INF missile control treaty, too, so they're the ones with the fancy new missiles rather than the US. It's deeply strange to me that you think the West are the aggressors in this situation - I just don't understand how you've come to that conclusion? The only things giving Putin pause about invading Ukraine are the potential economic sanctions they would face, and the fact that military action might be politically unpopular if lots of Russian soldiers start coming home in bodybags. That could happen quickly if the Ukrainians can inflict enough casualties on the Russians before they are defeated, or afterwards if there is a drawn-out insurgency (which there probably would be).

If it was purely based on footballing ability than yes, I would. But my worry with re-signing Jack would be whether he still had the motivation if he knew his time at the very top had already passed, and how he’d fit into our dressing room when he wasn’t head and shoulders above everyone else and with a manager who wouldn’t take any shit from him. Coutinho seems to have no ego, which is a huge point in his favour imo.

I always liked Buendia and thought he’d come good - he’d performed well in the Pl before and the Norwich fans spoke so highly of him I couldn’t believe he’d flop. I’m really glad we’re finally seeing the player we were hoping for. I always expected him to be good with the ball at his feet but he’s a great header of the ball and a bit of a terrier off it too. Quality player. Norwich fans said his main issue was his temper, and he was prone to getting yellows or even reds. Thankfully he doesn’t seem to have brought that issue with him though, he’s been quite disciplined whenever I’ve seen him!

To be fair, their form would be worse if we’d beaten them

If the Wikipedia shot posted on the previous page is correct, he’s 184cm which is a shade over 6ft?

To be fair, VT says this about literally every commentary team in every match.

Good result but I’d have expected most teams to score at least one from the chances Everton had, so I think the score line flattered us a bit.

That to me is the funny thing - selling older expensive players is fine if you get good replacements. If you balls it up, not so much!

They didn’t have a choice. They bought his replacement before selling him and we all know it’s impossible to have more than one player per position. (I think they wanted to make the squad younger and reduce salary expenditure too.)