Rayvin

It is. I suffer from migraines and rely on dark mode everywhere.

Jermain Defoe. Single-handedly carrying the whole team, no?

Where are you seeing that he is disliked?

What have Labour done in the last week to lose 4%? That cannot possibly be the Saville stuff, are people really that fucking stupid? Although I note the greens took 2% of it so maybe its the fight he picked over the Ukraine as well. Never did understand who that was meant to appeal to since the right wing is pro-Putin anyway.

Based on what we've seen so far, things look really good. I had a few concerns at the start but was fine with him as a stopgap appointment. Now though, I think the positive feeling around the club if he steers us clear of the drop, especially in the manner he's doing it, will make it inevitable that he should continue long term. I think he's an incredibly competent manager.

Do you reckon actual Steve Wraith sits there seething at this guy's comments?

The classiest phrasing for anything that I've seen in a while I don't know if we can beat West Ham but at least it's not the end of the world if we don't. If we somehow get something out of it, it'll be huge.

No but it's a continuation of the Donbass stuff that to be fair Putin has been saying since December (and which may be true for all I know). I'm getting some information out of r/Russia so it's really only random people stating what they're hearing (in Russian). I suppose I can't verify it though - obviously the guardian reported that the US believed such actions and supporting videos were imminent a few days ago but I guess that could just be propaganda too.

What does it stand to lose? I assume they've priced in sanctions to their calculations to invade so I don't see those as a major deterrent. I'll add to this that Russian state media is claiming the Ukraine government is about to start massacring Russians living there, so it feels like the board has been set.

So the war mongering US has apparently decided not to defend Ukraine through combat due to the risk of escalation. I'm really, really struggling to see how anyone can consider the US to be the bad guys in this. Either they've made some manner of play that has spectacularly backfired or they're simply not behaving in the way we are meant to think they will. There is clearly zero appetite for a serious war on the US' side. Ukraine didn't join NATO. Putin is invading because he can, not because he needs to. And Ukraine will fall once again under the control of a country that committed genocidal acts against them in the past.

Here's hoping, I guess.

It doesn't look to me like we're going to respond at all. Sanctions maybe but if we were going to actually get involved you'd think we'd be talking it up. I still think it's very dangerous to let him take over the Ukraine but seemingly Biden disagrees.

It's a mini-league of 4 atm, which is fine as long as we stay at the top of it. I would have preferred Everton to lose and get sucked in properly but I think realistically that was always optimistic.

Fair, it is indeed habit.

Were that possible, and I don't see how it could be since the Ukraine is unlikely to agree to cede the illegal stolen Crimea, would it not have already been done?

I actually went and searched this because it feels like a non issue point, fully expecting your interpretation to be correct, but he's actually said it in a way where you could interpret it the other way too "They're bringing crime, they're bringing drugs, they're rapists, and some, I assume, are good people" Is what he actually said. So yeah, you could interpret 'they're rapists' both ways. That said, the spirit of the sentence was indeed referring to the people immigrating illegally. It's a suspect comment either way though unless he's supporting it with some evidence that I haven't seen. The clear interpretation of what he has said is that the overwhelming majority of them are criminals. Is this the case? I'll also stress that it more or less sets up all Mexican people in the US to be considered drug dealers and rapists until proven otherwise. Which, y'know, isn't great.

It doesn't sound to me like the US is actually going to do anything tbh. Which means appeasement is the name of the game.

Embassies being evacuated in the Ukraine. Invasion sounds closer than ever.

Yes, and that remains shameful.

Could you not also argue that refusing to go to war over Crimea or the shot down plane demonstrated restraint? A reluctance to trigger that war? A line in the sand has to be made somewhere, and if we aren't going to step in for the Ukraine, who do we step in for? If Putin invades it's as close as you can get to a legitimate war IMO. We can hit Russia anyway, and they can hit us. The proximity of the missiles surely isn't relevant at this point. I agree on China's diversity but as I've said a couple of times, they're eradicating a lot of that. Between the tightly controlled misinformation on public news broadcasts and the actual transportation of Han Chinese to various regions throughout the country in order to shore up 'favourable' support, they are actively working towards a singular Chinese mindset and perspective. A singular culture. If the US doesn't resist Putin on Ukraine, how do you see that playing out geopolitically? I feel like you're only looking at the diminishing of the US (which I agree would be a good thing in isolation). My fear is that it becomes a net bad thing with an emboldened Russia and China.

Have I visited China? I lived there for a year about a decade back. Haven't been back since 2015 though. If we fight a war for the Ukraine, is that not justified? In that we'll be helping them defend themselves?

You're fine I agree on the US, genuinely. But I don't think a declining version of itself with two alternates of similar destructive capability is a positive outcome for the world.

So China hasn't invaded Taiwan for the past few decades because it was economically counterproductive, but continues to feel that flying 150 warplanes over Taiwan's airspace, building up military forces in the south of China, and repeating commitments to take it back by force if necessary, are part of this strategy. The logic presumably being that this is done for domestic consumption and that they'll never actually do anything about it. We'll see, but Taiwan itself thinks the invasion will come this decade, 2025 in fact based on the current escalation of Chinese forces. Of course, they're probably just saying whatever the US tells them to say, I assume. You apparently look at China and see just the economic powerhouse it is/can become. You are not seeing the disgraced former imperial power that it considers itself to be. Chinese rhetoric around nationalism is standing up people who insult China and cause it to lose face. Every time China is insulted anywhere in the world, her people are up in arms, boycotting anything to do with the country in question and harassing/attacking foreigners from that country. They view the restoration of China in the global scene as an inevitability, and they will take back everything that was 'historically' theirs along the way. As they did with Tibet. They will also eradicate the varying ethnicities and cultures they claim as part of this, as they've been doing for the past 30 years anyway. I dunno what China did to earn the 'benign' label from some people on the left, I really don't - if the same government was set up over here it would be a far right fascist hellscape. As for "the US as saviour". I stopped buying that in university ffs. Then I spent the next ten years talking like you. Then I spent 5 years watching what the US pulling back from the world stage under Trump, and concluded that we're in a 'better the devil you know' situation. I am under no illusions that the US is a violent and imperialist state. I am also under no illusions that Russia and China would be any better if they could get away with it. And more importantly, I fundamentally do not think that a world in which all 3 exist in this state at the same time, is better than the one we have.

Really good question - I don't know, would probably depend how quickly it happened. I recall most Taiwanese are ok with being conquered when compared to being killed so it's possible that a Chinese invasion will be rapid. If it's over before it starts, the US would likely do nothing. That said, if all of Taiwan's US made defensive weapons made it last more than 24 hours, I think the pre-Trump US goes to bat for Taiwan, probably draws in a few regional players as well - Japan likely remilitarises due to China becoming a real threat rather than a theoretical one. The threat of the US doing -something- is the only reason nothing has happened though - what other explanation could there be? China has vowed to take it back after all.

China is also into cultural genocide, annexing independent countries, mass censorship, and generating a nationalism so fervent in their populace that even the government struggles to keep a lid on it at times. The current Taiwan issue has been going on for a few decades but every single Chinese person I spoke with while living out there was happy for their government to rain hellfire down on the island if it ever declared independence. The only thing stopping it happening IMO is the US. I mean we can't know for sure, but I'm convinced that the Ukraine is a watershed moment for the US as a hegemonic state - assuming Putin actually goes for it.