Conjuring Putin's "Victory" out of thin air: a masterclass

Further to last week's post, Trump and Putin: making up war aims on the fly, I had intended to offer my own suggestions for an "Absolute Victory26" framing within which Putin can declare successful completion of his inane war, and call everyone back home for tea, medals, and of course a proper Victory Parade with real tanks, as opposed to the demeaning Dad's Army spectacle they are reduced to this year. 

In the meantime, something much better than my own poor efforts has emerged: a professional Kremlin strategy document [1] entitled "After Victory" on how to allow L'il Volodya his glorious day on the parade rostrum any time he cares to call it quits.  What, in bullet-points, are the declarations Russia will make that, they'll claim, add up to absolute victory?  It's referred to in the doc as "The Image of Victory" which pretty much captures what these PR men are up to.  And it meets my test of "essentially in the bag already", i.e. could be delivered tomorrow, if desired. 

I'll summarise here the proposed approach, which is quite evidently the work of some genuinely strategic thinkers:  

• 'De-Nazification' has been achieved by the deaths of so many Ukrainian soldiers [2]
• Putin has thwarted the West's plans to expand and prolong the conflict
• Victory has been achieved over a much stronger opponent than Ukraine - the "collective West"
• No longer will the West provocatively test Russia's strength
• The EU has been dealt a major economic blow
• There are territorial conquests; seizure of natural resources; a land route to the Crimea and the coast of the Sea of Azov (new holiday resorts!); and the acquisition of millions of new Russian-speaking fellow citizens
• A 'humanitarian catastrophe' was prevented in the Donbas: Russia has protected its own
• The Russian army is now 'the most combat-ready in the whole world' and has withstood confrontation with '50 countries'
• Thanks to sanctions, Russian industry has developed new capabilities and markets
• All this without general mobilisation!

Plus some conditional stuff relating to what a deal with the west might look like in terms of a final territorial settlement and sanctions lifted. [3] 

It wouldn't be hard to dispute and/or mock some of these if taken at face value - not quite the capture of Kyiv, or the expulsion of Zelensky, or, errrr, unconditional surrender, eh?  And this from the heirs of the conquerors of the Wehrmacht at Berlin '45 ...  

But that's not the point.  In its own right this is serious stuff: I can only applaud the competence of these strategising Kremlin PR-merchants.  They should be offering their services to Trump.  For a fat fee.  A 'Deal', wouldn't you think?

ND

________________

[1] One always needs to ask "are we be played here?" - of course - but this one doesn't have that feel to it at all.  There might be one subtlety: the doc is a signal to the West: "see, we have an off-ramp - so let's get round that table and we'll find a way to call it quits".  Maybe.

[2] Recall that de-Nazification of the whole body politic was one of only two stated war aims at the outset: so, silent here on regime change, of course.  The other was, ahem, de-militarisation of Ukraine ...  

[3] They assume Russia gets Donbas + existing gains in the south (parts of Kherson & Zaporizhia), but relinquishes gains in the north (around Kharkiv and Sumy): and that US sanctions are lifted but not EU

Today's elections: a small prediction

A subject we've touched on before is the stupidity of Starmer thinking that giving votes to 16- and 17-year olds will boost Labour's prospects.  Must have seemed a good idea when Team Starmer were plotting back in 2021-2, but the rise of Green and Turquoise tik-tok populism must surely have given them pause, even before we mention Andrew Tate and 'Amelia'.

But of course in Scotland and Wales, teens do indeed get the vote.

I'm betting Team Starmer will be analysing the demographics of today's voting patterns very, very carefully before proceeding with this particular manifesto promise. 

(And indeed Team Successor, if Starmer really is for the chop.  Though it it's to be the gurning Miliband, he really fancies himself on titk-tok.  For some reason.) 

ND

Polanski riding for a well-deserved fall

Whenever "Tommy Robinson" appears in the meejah it is customary to add "whose real name is Stephen Yaxley-Lennon".  But somehow it never seems necessary to add "real name David Paulden" to mentions of that remarkable political chameleon and all-round showman "Zack Polanski".

Part of this is to do with the meejah's unfailing instinct to be ultra-hesitant when contemplating a hatchet job on a new, rising political star who might one day hold the reins of power; and who even in the shorter term might not be willing to grant interviews etc if they are treated unkindly.  Well, Zach certainly qualified for this auto-deference all through his meteoric rise to prominence last year.  So of course did Kier Starmer, on an industrial scale, all through 2022-24.  Even Farage still gets a bit of auto-deference, and there's nothing new-fangled about him - just his remarkable lead in the polls.

But all these happy honeymoons come to an end.  Starmer was rapidly turned on with a combination of fury and glee by even the 'left/liberal' meejah: they knew they'd been duped, and he wasn't long in office before he presented them with plenty of pretext.    

And surely, "Polanski" has it coming soon - even when the Greens do well this week.

Because he's quite clearly a ... real piece of work, as well as being as slippery as a greased eel.  The Economist recently did a neat, gentle, but highly pointed mini-hatchet job on his being an "ego-surfing" social media narcissist-obsessive, and extremely thin-skinned and vengeful with it.  Have a read - there's lots going on beneath the surface there.  Clearly plenty in the meejah have got his number and are just waiting.

And there have been other straws in the wind.  A while back he did a podcast with the Rest is Politics team where they bounced him with a totally legitimate question on which economists guide his thinking on financial policy.  Clearly caught out, he blustered ineffectually - pretty damning for the leader of a would-be major party.  Afterwards, Rory Stewart let it be known that in the post-interview wrap-up, "Polanski" rounded on them and said (my recollection here) something to the effect of "Hey, why didn't you tell me you were going to ask that?  You know I'm just a showman: I'd have boned up on it it you'd told me".  

Is anyone surprised?

And for all his breezy hyper-adroitness on the stump, he's relentlessly digging holes for himself, presumably based on that thin-skinned egoism which seems to come with a strong aversion for being seen to back down.  He's lied about, but not totally resiled from, his "bust-boosting hypnotism" past.  And note the "not happy about unarmed coppers kicking murderous knifeman" episode of last week: he's crafted a clever-clever faux-apology but is clearly intending to maintain and even pursue the substance of his intervention.  

I think we know which of his constituencies he reckons this is a dog-whistle for (with May 7 just around the corner): but he ain't gonna get far with this line of sectarian adventurism before some hefty pushback. 

Have a care with the wording of any BTL contributions.  I'll let you know if this post gets taken down! 

ND

Trump and Putin: making up war aims on the fly

You don't need to be a second Clausewitz to know that wars of choice should have well-defined goals before even the planning gets underway, let alone the execution[1].  In saying this, nobody is advocating total inflexibility thereafter; but to launch a war without proper goals at the outset is just buccaneering adventurism.

It's a commonplace observation that Trump hasn't a clue what he's doing in the Middle East, beyond representing a vague, atavistic American fixation with Iran, and harbouring a ludicrously and dangerously false equation between Venezuela 2026 and Iran 2026.  To the extent he sometimes feels the urge to state one or more war aims, he's issued so many over the hours, days and weeks that it merely goes to reinforce his brainlessness.  (To its credit, the intelligentsia in the USA is gradually shaking off its paralysis of 2025 and is ready to call him out in scathing detail -  see this from the estimable Ryan Evans.)  Already we can offer his Iranian adventure as a perfect illustration of the principle given above: and we haven't remotely seen the full downside potential yet.

But there's another perfect illustration bubbling away somewhere north of Iran, where Putin still conducts his own ill-conceived war on Ukraine.

At the very outset, he articulated two war aims, plus a long list of gripes and grievances.  They were: (A) to "de-Nazify" Ukraine's body politic; and (B) to "demilitarise Ukraine".  In the same announcement he declared he had no territorial claims on Ukraine (sic), although it's fair to note that at the same time he was asserting that Luhansk and Donetsk were independent countries.  And of course he assumed that after his lightning war, there would be a puppet regime in Kyiv, Belarus-style, that would render territorial conquest irrelevant.

[In the runup to the "special military operation" (which was "defensive, in aid of Luhansk and Donetsk"), he had of course demanded that NATO and the EU shun Ukraine, and that the former must withdraw to pre-accession borders.  But those were hardly war aims: he hoped they'd fall into his lap at the negotiating table when Ukraine was, errr, defeated.]

Given A and B above, manifestly he has completely and utterly failed even by his own lights; and everyone in Russia knows it.  There has been no regime change in Kyiv, whatever childish political label he wants to attach to it.  And demilitarisation?  Pound for pound, Ukraine now has the best army in the world, a thriving defence industry, world-leading expertise in drone warfare, etc etc; and is reducing a vastly larger force to ruinously costly advances through unimportant hamlets at snail's pace.   Oh yes, and on the other side of the front line it is degrading Russia's mighty energy industry to a material degree; periodically grounding its civil air movements; blocking its ports; sinking its ships; and (in conjunction with sanctions) hobbling its economy.   

Here's where it gets interesting for the theme of this post.  Reports from fairly reliable Russian sources suggest Putin is under tremendous internal political pressure to find an off-ramp before the economy nosedives.  Those oligarchs still have some sway, if they conduct themselves cautiously.  One major thrust of this exercise[2] is to come up with some - wait for it - War Aims, such as can plausibly be declared duly accomplished.  Then it's "home for tea and medals" as we say in the British Army.

What, then, do we imagine his newly-forged war aims will be?  It's a serious question, notwithstanding  that sarcastic suggestions come quickly to mind.  

We'll take both kinds BTL - let's see what we can come up with to help L'il Volodya with Project "Absolute Victory26".

ND 

________________

[1] Long-time readers will know I often laud George HW Bush (Bush Snr) for his adherence to this principle when setting out to evict Saddam from Kuwait, 1990-91.  More on that conflict by following the 'Kuwait' and 'Saddam' tags on that post.

[2] Another is to keep plugging away at Trump, trying to persuade him that utter Ukrainian defeat is just around the corner, so why not tell Zelensky to surrender?  Yeah, right.  I have a feeling the moment for this gambit has passed.

Implausible property development - update

By way of light relief: readers may recall the saga of the seemingly brainless two-house development in Croydon - a pair of very large, pricey properties, awkwardly situated and with no garages - that were taking ages to shift.  

Well, more than a year on from my first report, one of them has sold!  To whom, is not at all clear to the passer-by.  There's a black SUV on the drive (where else?) at all hours, and no signs of human life.  It rather looks as though dust will be continuing to settle in at least six out of the seven bedrooms.

With the other house still firmly unsold (and even dustier), at least our current solo SUV driver has an easy(ish) time of it on the communal driveway.  And of course, buyer #1 has picked the house less hemmed-in.  For the sake of the developer (or whoever still owns the second one) we must look forward to when a couple of large families with corresponding car fleets are in residence, hopefully reaching a satisfactory motoring modus vivendi on this rather limited patch.

ND   

Mandygate: rumbles on and on, getting louder

And there was Team Starmer getting cocky about how well their man was doing, seeing off Streeting and Rayner and Trump, basking in the glow of "wartime leader" etc - or whatever they thought was the case - and positioning himself confidently to see off the May elections fall-out.  

The 3-hour period of utter, and highly uncharacteristic radio silence, after the Guardian story broke[1] and before the barefaced denial was issued yesterday evening, must have been a great time to have a bug planted in the (Chinese) coffee machine in No.10.

They must have been lining up Olly Robbins as the fall-guy - and negotiating his deal.  That's not just some middle-management scapegoat, that's Very Big Indeed.  A serious human sacrifice to appease the gods of Starmerdoom.  Wonder what's in his "early retirement package"?  

And - will it be enough?

Interesting to see, in retrospect, just how craftily the earlier Starmer statement was drafted[2].  Did lawyer Starmer - who must, surely, have been told how crucial it was to stick precisely to the script - not know why it was worded the way it was?  Is that what we're to believe?  Well, flat denial is his only option; so flat denial it must be. 

And it's being reported he know about this on Tuesday.  48 hours is a very long time not to come clean: time enough for the leaker (see below) to get to the Guardian, and for the Graun itself to go through the very significant editorial operation that would be needed before dropping something like this.  The whole thing explains why No.10 was already said to be planning to prorogue Parliament early this session - no more PMQs this side of May.  And "it's understood Lammy didn't find out until Thursday" - hahah!  He's obviously (a) completely out of the loop; and (b) as disloyal as all Hell.  (OK, I suppose we all guessed that anyway.)

My immediate thought is: how does this play for La Romeo?[3]   Is it the making of her, because [perhaps] she wasn't involved when Fondlebum was set on - but now knows exactly where those bodies are buried?  You can just hear her opening words in that panicky all-hands meeting:

"Now listen: before we can figure a way out of this, you all need to tell me exactly what happened.   All of it.  Everything!"

ND

______________________

[1]  Hats off to the Guardian, BTW: they've put themselves into the nuclear fallout zone.  Their source must be truly excellent - and still out there, hoho.

[2] “The vetting process was undertaken by UK Security Vetting on behalf of the FCDO and concluded with DV clearance being granted by the FCDO.”  

[3] I say this because she may well be the last person standing after this is finished.  Even then, she's not in the clear:  evidently there's that heavy-duty Deep Throat operator somewhere in Whitehall, for the Guardian to get this leak: and she has a shedload of enemies ... [BTL on that link]

Explanatory note to the previous post

Hi C@W readers - you'll may have tried to open the previous post and found a warning, courtesy of our kindly blog platform hosts.  It's safe to click through - we're not advertising anything lewd! 

But some bot, somewhere, has auto-identified the topic as worthy of, err, deflecting readership away from.  The warning came up about 60 seconds after I posted.

If I find from the stats that nobody is reading the post, I'll experiment with a defused version of the title, to see if that gets it past the censors for wider access.

And later I may post on this whole episode!

ND

UPDATE: have reposted under a different title, and trashed the original post which was getting no traffic.

Starmer is getting cocky

A while back I suggested Team Starmer had decided to tough it out: and I'm now utterly convinced of it.  Among several straws in the wind is a flying wooden beam: he's boasting about taking us back into the single market by stealth!  This is not a man who reckons he's done for at the end of May: quite the opposite, he visibly exudes the same kind of calm faux-authority over the heads of his pygmy-challengers that he did back in 2020, when he was obviously going to win the Labour leadership 'race'. [1] 

Given the fallout amongst the ranks of his former advisers, we must presumably look to Miliband for Team Starmer's current level of brazen confidence; some kind of bargain that runs: you do what I tell you, and if you're still here in June - which you will be - you'll make me Chancellor. [2]  Ominously, Miliband knows exactly what he'd like to do with the role.

It doesn't hurt that, even in the midst of endless and ongoing tactical miss-steps[3], Team Starmer have lighted upon a phrase to use in connection with Iran, which they clearly the believe to be highly felicitous:  I won't be dragged into this war!   

The bottom line is: he currently looks confident, which is 90% of the battle when it's just 330-odd fractious and frightened parliamentary sheep you need to get in line - with the Streetings and Rayners of this world left looking pretty sheep-ish themselves.  Yep, Team Starmer have convinced themselves they are going to see the post-May period out, and in some comfort.

And those May elections?  Is Reform really going to sweep the board, as sone thought inevitable not so many weeks ago?  Well, maybe, but I doubt it.  In my manor, they are a complete rabble, feuding like crazy amongst themselves.  If by some strange twist of the electoral arithmetic they were to get the mayoralty and/or the council, they'd not have a clue what to do with it: and in the meltdown-process of colourful infighting and manifest incompetence thereafter, they would lose any hope of a decent result come the next GE.  Is this representative of Reform across the country as a whole?  I'm guessing so.

One might imagine that Greens, equally full of chancers and losers, are just that little bit less likely to blow things completely by way of fratricide in any council where they get power in May.  We haven't had Peak Green yet; though I'll hazard a guess we've had Peak Reform.  Meanwhile, Starmer struts confidently around his confected B-list gigs here and around the world, and the media portray him in exactly the way Team Starmer have scripted for them.  His nerve, his brazen shamelessness, is holding. 

ND

__________________

[1] Who remembers Long-Bailey or Nandy now?

[2] Though I still maintain that, the longer he hangs in there, Miliband stands a chance of the leadership for himself

[3]  E.g.

• "You can't use our bases ...
• ... oh, actually, yes you can"
• Chagos
• HMS Dragon
• RFA Lyme Bay
• "I need to talk to my team"

... etc etc - and that's just the last few weeks.  Then there was Mandelson, the by-election, ...

Asymmetric warfare: another mighty US fail

In keeping with our readiness to slate pathetic Russian military & strategic performance in Ukraine, once again we must even-handedly slate the current US debacle.

Which started (as is widely commented) with a complete absence of anything that could honestly be described as a strategy - just large-scale deployment of powerful forces that may fairly be described as tactically accomplished.  But (as, again, we all know) tactics without strategy is just empty waste of effort - and life.

And materiel!   I'm not going to open a laundry list here, but take it from me, US losses of important kit have been very significant, betraying a complete and utter failure of US doctrinal development for the drone era.

By stark contrast, Iran has clearly been developing - and executing - very appropriate plans for making the very best of its conventionally much, much weaker hand.  It's as impressive in its own way as Ukraine's efforts (- with equivalent lack of guarantees of ultimate success).

We may only hope that the risible, contemptuous (and contemptible) triumphalism of Hegseth & Trump doesn't prevent the US military & strategic community from quietly learning lessons seriously, thinking very hard, and doing the right things, urgently and in depth.  Sadly, we know from the ridiculous UK aircraft carrier debacle (thanks, Gordon), when you've been set on to spend all your money on crazy WW2-type projects like that, and the new 'Trump Class Battleships", such mega-distractions seriously weigh on the ability to do anything else.

On the plus side: we do know that Ukraine has comprehensively figured out this very traditional asymmetric warfare problem, both in theory and in deeply impressive practice: Taiwan may yet have time (though not much) to do likewise: and even the UK + Europe might be positioned to do something intelligent.

But will we?  One unhappy perspective on this might be that Miliband's (and other nations') NZ obsession is the new national distraction that hinders our efforts.  Not a lot of time for this to be set on track.  As Russian subs patrol our cables, pipelines and offshore energy facilities, the analogy with 1938 is very uncomfortable.

ND

The subliminal impact of $4 gasoline

As is well known, the USA as a nation is addicted to motoring.  The "summer driving season" is a major phenomenon in the oil industry, when many Americans think nothing of driving thousands of vacation road-miles.

And various points along the price curve have mythical status.  It used to be considered that "3 dollar gas" was something no President's reputation could survive: a simple metric for consumer inflation as it is felt in the pocketbook.  More recently, "3 dollar gas" has become a semi-ironic [1] nostalgic look into the rear-view mirror: hey Bud, remember when we used to worry about $3?!   [2]

But $4 is now a reality.  I suspect that simple number alone could be a subliminal factor in dishing Trump amongst his regular base of support.

ND

________________

[1]  To the extent Americans do irony 

[2] To be fair, it was known to hit $6 - in California.  But that state, like NYC, is often thought of as not really America.

AI: crashing and burning foreseen, in plain view

Munching our popcorn (while we still have fuel to heat it up) & waiting for Trump to crash and burn ...

We've discussed before the AI bubble, its seemingly inevitable forthcoming bursting, and the system-crashing potential it might hold.  Well here's something to give anyone pause:

Source:  CHARTR / date from Bloomberg

It's pretty remarkable to me that Uber needed such a long runway - surely its only major assets are software?  Tesla looks pretty outstanding value & commercial discipline[1] by comparison - and Musk was shooting for the moon, with serious hardware involved, as well as software.  

But why am I gazing at the foothills?  Because then we step back and look at the mammoth on the mountain, and  - wow!  What type of revenues do they "forecast" - and persuade investors of - to make that even vaguely sane?  And OpenAI isn't alone out there.  What kind of economy can afford their products on the necessary scale?

Sometimes you have to look at something - a bullion price spike, a US president - and just tell yourself the obvious conclusion is the correct one.  That Is Insane.

And the US economy[2] has been wagered on this?  Hello China - the rest of the century belongs to you.

ND

PS: for something more edifying on AI, try this:

__________________

[1] One would need to interrogate that tapering-off of the black bars: was it Tesla that bought X?  Had greenie car buyers lost faith in Musk even before 2025 and his rogue DOGE behaviour?  

[2] And I'm the one that has said, many times: in the long run, never bet against the US economy ...

Who said this ..? Weekend reading

Two quotations for you, long and short.  Who said these things?

1.  ... a future where the Middle East is defined by commerce, not chaos; where it exports technology, not terrorism; and where people of different nations, religions, and creeds are building cities together, not bombing each other out of existence.  We don’t want that.... The gleaming marvels of Riyadh and Abu Dhabi were not created by the so-called nation-builders, neocons or liberal nonprofits like those who spent trillions and trillions of dollars failing to develop Kabul, Baghdad, so many other cities. Instead, the birth of a modern Middle East has been brought by the people of the region themselves, the people that are right here, the people that have lived here all their lives - developing your own sovereign countries, pursuing your own unique visions, and charting your own destinies in your own way ... the so-called nation-builders wrecked far more nations than they built, and the interventionalists were intervening in complex societies that they did not even understand themselves. They told you how to do it, but they had no idea how to do it themselves ... it’s something only you could do.   

2.  Despite employing some of the best and brightest analysts in the world, the advice given by the US State Department over the last fifty years could comfortably have been outperformed by a parrot that had been trained to repeat the phrase 'Don't start a war'. 

The first, of course, is Trump.  One could give many more quotations from that speech:  "my greatest hope is to be a peacemaker and to be a unifier. I don’t like war  /  my greatest hope is to be a peacemaker and a unifier  /  far too many American presidents have been afflicted with the notion that it’s our job to look into the souls of foreign leaders and use US policy to dispense justice for their sins" etc etc, and feel like applauding it.

Ho hum.  Trump talks a lot, and even the scripted speeches like the one above incorporate the usual mendacious, vainglorious narcissism which makes one glad one isn't a US military cadet, forced to listen to him and realise he's the Commander in Chief.  Here are a couple, if you have the time: the first, from May last year, is actually the source of 1. above but this other, from November, is truly embarrassing and has virtually no redeeming features whatever.  The judgmental decline had really set in by then, and it's only linked to here by way of illustration of how bad things are.

Yes, the prescient parrot of quote #2 has been well and truly stuffed.  (It's from a writer called Dan Davies in The Unaccountability Machine.)

ND 

Negotiating with Iran? Waters always muddy there

So are there any substantive negotiations taking place, as Trump avers?  Or "talks"?  Or even "talks about talks"?  Well something, probably: but there's very good reason to be genuinely confused rather than just plain disbelieving.

Here's a first-hand story.

Back in the mists of time, when dinosaurs (Saddam, Khomeini etc) roamed the earth, I was working for a US oil company.  Then, as now, there was an American embargo on selling stuff to Iran; but the Iranians needed specialised oil products that they were unable - strange though this may sound - to produce locally themselves: and somehow we had State Department approval to sell it to them.  But it had to be done very discreetly.

Negotiations commenced, in London and Hamburg, with no American staff members involved.  There were several difficult issues to resolve, so it wasn't a simple horse-trade on price; and the whole thing was quite drawn-out.  We had an OK working relationship with our Iranian opposite numbers.

Then one day another Iranian turned up unannounced at our London offices and sought a meeting: he knew all our names & telephone extensions.  We hastily convened, and he laid out on the table all the paperwork relating to the deal, announcing that we would be dealing with him from now on.  Being somewhat taken aback, we were entirely non-committal and progressed nothing beyond making a few notes.  Upon his departure we called our previous contacts, who told us to have nothing to do with this individual, and that the whole episode was "a mistake" and should be forgotten.

We could only conclude there were competing middle-men in play and that in this murky world, copies of the paperwork could be procured for a price.  The complicated deal eventually came to completion after several more weeks.

But not without another remarkable episode.  With a particularly knotty issue being thrashed out, one of our interlocutors suddenly leaned forward and said in agitated tones:  you must concede this point to me, otherwise my family will be arrested!

I have been in many a difficult & protracted negotiation, including with Russians and Chinese counterparties.  But this is not a gambit I have met, before or since.  I have to tell you that we politely ignored his personal anxieties (genuine or otherwise) and proceeded with getting to the ultimate handshake by more conventional horse-trading.

Yes, customs & practices in that part of the world are, well, a bit different (I could tell you other stories about dealing with Arab counterparties - and Russians** & Chinese, too.)  For all his vaunted "New York real-estate expertise" Steve Witless-Dummkopf doesn't look to me like the kind of person who'd be much good at figuring out what's really going on.  Heaven help us all.

ND

_________________

** The critical trap with Russians is their readiness to fall silent in meetings for very sustained periods of time - the record in my experience was something like 45-50 minutes: a tactic designed to make the other side's nerve crack & offer just any concession they can think of to break the apparently awful deadlock.  Well, if that's all you are made of, it'll work every time.  But 'silence implies nothing' is the operative axiom.  Oh, and never get stuck with a firm homebound airline booking (which most people do, just to get out of the miserable surroundings).  They'll back you up against it every time. 

TACO Trump signals he's had enough

Such has been the volatility of events in the Gulf, commentators have had very little of substance to offer beyond the macro comments that Trump has been dancing to Netanyahu's tune, that the mullahs' regime has a lot of intrinsic resilience & indeed strength in many dimension, and that the Gulf states need to come up with a new business plan.  OK, we can all conjure up lurid worst-case scenarios.  But what does it mean for mortgages and prices at the pump?  Etc etc.  

This uncertainty manifests itself in endless commentariat hedging (e.g. HMG, BBC) but also in outright hysteria.  The very dubious Fatih Birol of the IEA has delivered himself of the view that the current situation is like the first two oil crises (1973-4 & 1979) plus 2022, all rolled up into one.  Well, no, it isn't - yet.  Like, not even remotely.  I worry when people like him have influence on world affairs (if indeed he does).

Back, then, to Trumpety-Trump.  His demeaning and very public flailing and railing over the past week clearly signals he doesn't like how things have turned out, one little bit.  (Why wasn't I told Iran wasn't like Venezuela?)  So now we know that a combination of negative market sentiment and negative MAGA sentiment marks the limits of his manic confidence.  That's a comfortably low threshold for him recognising a need to sober up.  One might have feared his personal pride, running up against the brick wall of Iranian intransigence, would result in a ratchet effect all the way up to a small nuke.  We need our leaders to have some kind of restraints.

On the downside (and speaking of small nukes), we're left with the enduring problem of Netanyahu, who might very well find himself owning the broken vase in a short while from now.  Now there's a man who doesn't sober up just because the Dow Jones slips a few points and the neighbours are banging on the walls.

On the plus, we have a lot more realistic input on the thorny issue of what air defence needs to look like in the late 2020's, coupled with a pressing need for the west's armaments industry to gear up for several years of serious production.  We might also escape the nightmare of Iran becoming a failed state, which would make the Syrian and Afghan exodus of the last decade look like a picnic outing.

What it all means for NATO / Cuba / the mid-terms / Taiwan / Russia-Ukraine / Starmer etc etc etc ... time will tell. 

Finally, it seems Trump won't be going on the planned trip to Beijing in the immediate future.  Given that in all probability he'd have been induced to give away more of the family silver to the Chinese, that's a good thing.  Let's hope he never goes there again.

ND 

Assisted dying

A really difficult issue this, touching on the deepest aspects of what it is to be human.  I certainly don't want to go out screaming or panicking, but I'm not at all sure that's where we are right now in most cases.  Let me explain.

I have been present at the deaths of all four of mine and Mrs D's parents.  One of them (at 88) was completely out of it already.  Of the others, all in their 90s, two positively wanted to go and the third was taciturn on the subject, but didn't seem overly fretful.  All were quite ill.

Here's the thing.  At the end, they all went "peacefully" with a legful of morphine (in case you don't know, UK "palliative care" includes having a morphine-cocktail[1] pump strapped to your thigh) - administered by a senior nursing Sister and, (since the pump is authorised by a doctor) evidently approved a few days earlier by a doctor. 

These four were in three different establishments: two hospitals and a nursing home (private, but which is qualified to administer end-of-life treatment in house[2]).  It was, quite obviously, the standard procedure, or "pathway" as everything in the NHS is termed these days.  I don't know if it's universal across the whole service.

This seems to me to be humane, and pretty satisfactory for very many circumstances.  I might even say: that's how I want to go.  It almost seems like the old system of legend, where at some point a doctor would "take a view" and quietly do whatever he did.

What would happen, though, if it all becomes formalised - two doctors, a panel, lawyers or whatever?  You might argue that formality is necessary for cases where people are not already on their deathbeds, but are Definitely Doomed under whatever are the definitions of an assisted dying law (MND and other ghastly cases); and declare that Now is the Time.  But what about the poor old person who at present can be eased out humanely at the end by Sister, as in my family's experiences, and for whom a big loop through paperwork and multiple sign-offs is not going to be remotely possible?  Will the duty doctor be obliged to refuse the morphine because it's just not allowed any more?   

I haven't listened to the Parliamentary proceedings: but does anyone in debate dare to mention the rather satisfactory (IMHO) status quo?  None of us fancy MND - but which of us wants to be deprived of the morphine at the end?

All very difficult.  What do we realistic grown-ups think?

ND 

UPDATE  I forgot to add: the morphine pump is an 'and/or' with that other traditional expedient - allowing pneumonia to set in ("the old man's friend"), which is well-nigh inevitable when the antibiotics are withheld from a very sick / old person.  I am never clear whether this badly distorts reported health statistics, if some vast proportion of deaths are attributed to pneumonia.  Do they in practice just always read past the first line of the list of 'causes' on the certificate, and focus the top one of the co-morbidities listed below?

________________

[1] There's more than just morphine involved: there is tranquiliser, plus choking and vomiting suppressants.

[2] Which is why one of my Aged Ps chose that particular home, having had their fill of NHS corridors.

Borthwick in ... France, this time

There's only one way for England to play in Paris this weekend - like the Barbarians.  A few beers the night before, and lots afterwards.

ND

Trump screws up as bigly as Putin

From the outset of Putin's crassly conceived invasion of Ukraine, this blog has consistently criticised the sheer military and strategic incompetence of it.  We can hardly forbear to do the same for Trump.

The Donald's theory of victory appears to be this:

• prolonged, well-telegraphed buildup of forces
• decapitate[1] the leadership
• tell Iran to install new leader acceptable to Trump
• new leader to hand over lots of oil via some splendid "deal"
• walk away after a couple of weeks, handsomely in profit
• not crow too openly about having tweaked Xi's nose
• approach the mid-term elections as the Man Who Brought The Mullahs To Heel

In short, the 'Venezuela' gambit, attempted on a country that only a complete moron would mistake for Venezuela[2].  Another lightning "deal": it's the only trick he knows.  Not a breath of strategy worthy of the name.  Not a braincell in evidence.  Tariffs all over again, with actual explosions.

We needn't dwell on how the reality is best described as Netanyahu coopting[3] the military might of the USA to make real Bibi's longstanding wet dream: it's how the whole world openly discusses it including, belatedly, 99% of the American public, which until now had been either (a) hoping Trump might somehow work out for the best (Maga Republicans) or (b) not daring to oppose Trump openly, for fear of some vaguely defined domestic retribution (Democrats plus liberal elites of all colours[4]).

If you want to lose sleep seriously this weekend, have a read of this.  Small-boat crossings on the increase?  We haven't seen a tenth of it.

ND

_____________

[1] Well, tag along with Netanyahu's decapitation plan & pretend to be in control - read this, too.

[2] Funnily enough, the Venezuela gambit was working quite well, and Cuba was being lined up for a "quick deal" too, which could have played very nicely for the mid-terms[5].  Not any more.

[3] Did I say "coopting"?  How about "hijacking and expending"?  All Hesgeth's blather about "effectively unlimited magazine depth" was always, even a week ago, absolute nonsense.  Stocks are already being drawn down from US forces in S.Korea.  Taiwan looks increasingly like a lost cause, and S.Korea will presumably be readying its own nuclear programme.  Indeed, probably the only reason L'il Kim doesn't chance his arm right now is the recognition that DJT is capable of anything. 

[4] It was really noticeable how The US Establishment (media, judiciary, academia, NGOs, think tanks, institutes etc - even those that are essentially on the right) - initially went completely silent after November '24, and withheld much-needed criticism all through last year.  Presumably they all feared for their funding (or worse) - and rightly so in many cases.  That winter of silence has been thawing of late.

[5] The Dems had better not be complacent in their approach to the mid-terms: conventional wisdom of the "don't worry, it'll all be over soon" kind has been the downfall of many a lazy politician.  The whole of the British left thought that about Thatcher in 1981.  And we must be very cautious before assuming the US military will "refuse to obey illegal orders", as some spineless Dems have been urging.

Steve Borthwick in Italy

He won't thank me for recalling this, but Steve Borthwick's past dealings in Italy do not encourage optimism for this afternoon.  In his (brief) period as England captain many years ago, his team performed miserably in Rome, ekeing out a slender win against an Italian side a lot less impressive than today's.  But in a deeply unconvincing post-match interview he lavished praise on England's "great performance".

He was shown the door shortly after, by Martin Johnson (IIRC), a man who knew what a great performance was.

I've never been convinced by Borthwick, his "technical knowledge" and that winning season at Leicester notwithstanding.   This afternoon looks ominously like Italy's great chance to register their first ever Victory against England.

ND

Iran, and two men's revealing speeches

First, the utterly unspeakable Hesgeth, who should by rights be languishing in a gaol somewhere for his outrageous breach of security in running that insecure and actually compromised Signal chat last summer.  There he is, mouthing off in ways scarcely befitting an unrestrained junior under-boss of a New York crime family, just before the capo decided he's heard enough ill-judged, unseemly braggadocio.  (The Mafia idiom comes readily to mind in so many of Team Trump's doings.)   And the empty boasting about the "effectively unlimited" magazine depth of US forces - it's clearly untrue, and who thinks it's clever?  Xi will be at risk of splitting his sides. 

Then, there's Starmer's performance when announcing that Trump may use UK bases "for strictly defensive strikes".  Just look at the body language, from a man who, like a real political pro, can normally hold it together quite well when he's delivering absolute, calculating lies.  His voice was shaky; he looked ill with worry; he wouldn't take questions.  A shockingly unconvincing performance, in logic and delivery.  

The sequence of events for this hollow man is obvious:

1. Lose by-election due to Moslem vote going Green
2. Half a dozen Cabinet ministers see their futures dwindling 
3. Hasty strategy meeting (i): must start heavy-duty pandering to 'the community'
4. Trump off on another rogue mission of Netanyahu's devising, wants to rope in the UK: no!  Channel Harold Wilson / Vietnam!  Make it clear we're on the side of (peaceful) Moslems!
5. Trump lets it be known bigly that this is the Wrong Answer: reminds Starmer the RAF is already heavily engaged in the region; and that he'll do whatever he pleases anyway; but that "disloyal optics" are not permitted
6. Hasty strategy meeting (ii): "jolly helpful" that an itty bitty Shahed has landed somewhere in the Akrotiri region, and that RAF is been providing top-cover for Jordan (& Turkey?) anyway. Defensive defensive defensive!  New statement.  Grip podium.  Square circle.  Pander to both sides - & try to be convincing.  Come on man, you can do it!

Then, hasty strategy meeting (iii).  Ramp up on those other pandering-plans.  Where are we with the new Blasphemy law?  Hurry that up.  And are we doing enough "blend and extend" to ensure the Grooming Gangs inquiry focuses on London, and child abuse in general?  We need to do more: get Khan on the phone again, and those Anti Social Media campaigners.

Gah.  It's so transparent.  But, I tell you - he intends to tough it all out.

ND

A great weekend for this p***k to resign quietly

On any other news day, this would have been another nail in Starmer's coffin.  That Special Relationship, eh?

By their friends shall ye know them

All in all, Starmer will be pretty pleased not to have been the wall-to-wall weekend headlines.  Heavy price for the Middle East to pay, though, just to spare these b******s blushes.

ND