A Tragedy Of Bad Actors

When I woke up this morning my plan was to write the most visceral and probably rude article about Trump’s recent actions. I may still be rude because I believe he has demonstrated a complete lack of decency and, indeed, could be regarded as responsible for a good proportion of the Ukrainian people who died, were injured and lost homes and property as a result of Russian strikes over the last few days. A combination of limited intelligence and interference with crucial military internet software, which he will be found to have authorised, meant that Ukraine’s defences were less effective and they were forced to put some attack plans on hold too.

I am still frustrated and angry as the world appears to have no control whatsoever against Trump. Despite some voices being raised in objection to his change of mind to purchase Russian oil and his action in going against previously agreed sanctions and, in particular, breaking promises regarding provision of technical and intelligence support for Ukraine in a way that can only actually hurt innocent people and dismay anyone who believes in fairness or decency, these voices seem quiet or little reported. There has been shock, dismay, sadness but I see little anger or complaint. And where are the demonstrators? So noisy, violent and rude when complaining about Israel. So quiet and seemingly accepting all the bad things happening in Ukraine.

Without in any way condoning Trump’s actions I do begin to see how he must be viewing the future. Putting aside the ridiculous claims to being able to end the war in 24 hours or whatever, he does believe that only a deal will bring about peace. He cares not about who may live in some part or another of Ukraine and probably thinks that they wouldn’t be too bothered being a part of Russia as opposed to Ukraine if all were peaceful and both countries were being run in a modern and efficient way that produced a sound economy and reasonable standard of living.

Trump, and a group of advisors around him, have a view of a future where Ukraine and Russia are successful economies with which the USA can trade. I doubt they are particularly bothered as to who lives where. Here follows what journalist Owen Matthews describes in the Telegraph as the plan Trump’s people have been proposing:

A “four-pillar” plan was discussed by Trump envoys Jared Kushner and Steve Witkoff with top Ukrainian representatives and reported by the Washington Post.

Key to the peace deal is the idea that Putin would not just end his war but also sign up to a new economic and security architecture for Russia, Ukraine and Europe that would restore stability to the region and prevent future conflict from flaring up again.

The first pillar of the deal would be finding ways to finance Ukraine’s reconstruction, from rebuilding the devastated areas of the country to providing benefits for families of dead and wounded soldiers and restoring the shattered economy.

The second component would be to provide security guarantees for Ukraine in the form of a pledge from the US and European nations that they would respond militarily if Russia attacked again – but, crucially, would not include NATO membership.

The third pillar would be the economic reintegration of Russia, Ukraine and Europe through an energy deal that would include reopening pipelines carrying Russian oil and gas to Europe, with Ukraine and Russia splitting the profits.

The last and most tricky part of the deal focuses on how exactly to partition Ukraine and on the status of the Russian-occupied territories. According to the Washington Post, the Miami deal envisions partition along the current line of control, with some mutual territorial swaps to rationalize the new border.

Apart from this last element, I don’t think anyone can disagree with such a plan, with strong guarantees that not only will Ukraine get rebuilt but any future invasion would be properly defended, albeit not by NATO.

Yet how can you tell someone that they must now live under the control of a government which has, to all intents and purposes, been trying to kill them for the last 4½ years? Whilst many people will have fled when Russian troops took control of areas of Ukraine, many more will remain and suffered under officials who try to take their land and property and force their children to learn a different version of history if, indeed, they are not taken away to some distant village. Worse, men who remained will have been obliged to fight against Ukrainian troops. So while I accept that there will always be a number of people who prefer to be Russian and welcomed the change and will be content with such a deal, there will be a vast number to whom this must be quite wrong.

Ukraine’s government will have great difficulty in passing any legislation which effectively gives away land or people. Indeed, I don’t see this happening at all. The only acceptable outcome would be one where areas which have become under Russian control become areas managed by some independent authority for a period during which fair elections can be run to determine the wishes of the residents of those areas. Where a genuine majority wish to live as part of Russia then so be it. Perhaps some assistance could be provided to those who then wish to leave as part of the rebuilding framework.

I would, of course, include Crimea in this arrangement. That is where everything went wrong in the first place, with so little actual action taken in 2014 by the world at large.

If it were possible to get Russia to agree to leave control of the areas it claims to have taken to some independent body, on which I guess they could be represented, then I see a route to peace for the long term.

This aspect, however, seems to be missing in the plan. Trump sees only the plan and what appears a good result. That may well be why he just wants that to happen and cannot understand why anyone should do anything to prevent it starting. He might have chosen to back Ukraine big-time but he will have recognised that Putin cannot be seen to lose. Losing, for Putin, is not an option. He would, despite his current power and influence, also lose key support in the Kremlin and be despatched, probably in a box or, if alive, quietly to some distant residence. So he chose to back Putin and expects Ukraine simply to buckle under the pressure they will soon find themselves under, from both the weather and increasingly lethal bombardment.

It almost certainly does not occur to Trump that the Ukrainian people will not give in. They will endure whatever is thrown at them. Their numbers may dwindle as many more will have to escape the turmoil and damaged towns and we may see a much larger area of the country come under Russian control in years to come but they will always resist and one day, when neither Trump nor Putin are around to decide policy, new and hopefully more decent people with more realistic minds will make that final part of the plan workable.

So, yes, I am appalled at Trump and can only express my sheer disappointment at leaders across the free world and how they have really done little more than talked, wrung their hands, said how much they ‘stand by Ukraine’ and said very little indeed for fear of whatever action Trump might take if they show disagreement. President Zelensky called Trump weak. I am not so sure about that. It is just about every other leader who should be supporting Ukraine who is being weak. Trump is just mistaken, has bet on the wrong horse but cannot now change.

The world will remain a chaotic and quite sad place until both Trump and Putin have left the stage.

Trump's bull in the Ukraine china shop

 Is there no-one in America who can argue effectively with Donald Trump? He appears to be totally out of control and able to do whatever he pleases and all that appears to happen is that a few voices mumble to themselves or, if there is an objection, it is the sort of objection that people make only when they're amongst friends in a closed room.

Trump's latest ridiculous outcry is to suggest that Zelensky should be replaced as Ukraine's president. His reason? The price of diesel. Well, that's not the real reason. The real reason is that Trump is becoming pretty unpopular and a lot of that unpopularity is due to the massive rise in diesel prices. Trump claims this is due to Ukraine's destruction of many oil depots and refineries in Russia. He seems not to want anyone to consider that Iran closing the Strait of Hormuz may have had anything to do with that. Something, incidentally, that Trump's actions in bombing the hell out of Iran may have had something to do with.

It is almost laughable how stupid Trump can be, or, as I suspect he is not that stupid, how gullible he must think the world at large must be, especially after we neither see, hear nor read anything by way of a rejection of his statement and suggestion.

If I were an American I would be embarrassed by the man claiming to represent my country. As it happens I have been embarrassed to be represented by a string of rather ineffective Prime Ministers here in the UK for some time but, however bad some of their policies have been, most of what they have said about Russia and Ukraine has been broadly in line with reality. Russia was completely wrong to invade Ukraine in February 2022 and broke any concept of international law in doing so. Their troops and troop commanders then proceeded to break every moral code, every thread of decency whether embedded in law or not, in how they have acted since, be that in the treatment of residents in towns and villages occupied or in the clearly deliberate destruction of civilian houses, killing children and workers trying to rescue people in the 'double-tap' firing of a second missile shortly after a first has caused damage. Russian troops controlling 'first person view' drones deliberately seek out and kill people who represent no threat, unarmed market workers, travellers on a bus or a train. These are evil actions, encouraged by commanders on the ground but also supported by whoever instructs them from above and, whilst it is generally held that Putin has little real knowledge of what is actually happening on the ground in Ukraine, responsibility must lie with him for everything that has happened.

Trump will respond to say that Ukraine should have agreed to give up part of their territory way back at the start and that would have saved all the lives lost since then. It is an easy argument to make and, in a sense, difficult to refute. Could it be something like 'turning the other cheek' as the Bible tells us we should do? Someone breaks into your house and starts stealing stuff or smashing up valuable possessions. What are you supposed to do? Let them help themselves? No-one gets hurt and you can claim on your insurance for the financial loss. There is a hurt though, and a loss. An emotional hurt, sadness and loss of some things that money cannot replace. It is also simply 'wrong' and 'evil' to a greater or lesser extent. Somehow something has to be done to make this 'right' and 'good' needs to triumph over that 'evil'. At some point we have to abandon that business of 'turning the other cheek' and make a stand which has to be a physical stop on the aggressor, or the threat of sufficient force to make the aggressor decide not to try to break in in the first place. Once he has, though, he has to be stopped.

Russia has not attacked a country that is a member of NATO. That is almost certainly because any attack on a member country is regarded as an attack on all and therefore there is an obligation that all members work together to defend the aggressor. Even without America, NATO is very much more powerful than the Russian Federation. So Russia would lose and NATO would win. It could get extremely messy and even involve an exchange of nuclear weapons but whatever happened to be left of NATO members' nations would be greater than the remains of the opposition. So Russia would be highly unlikely to make such a move. Ukraine, of course, was not a member of NATO and so Russia was able to march in in an attempt to control territory. There are, however, international agreements and laws declaring that this sort of action is unacceptable. Unfortunately, there is no force to insist that nations behave. There cannot be an International Army, obviously, so when one nation decides it will ignore the conventions of the majority there seems to be nothing anyone can do.

Take yourself back to the house being broken into again. You are standing in the street and see this happen. You recognise that you may not be strong enough to stop the guys doing the damage but there are other people in the street who could get together and control them - show sufficient force that the aggressor has to stop. The group may decide not to attempt to apprehend the aggressor but they have done enough to rescue the situation and prevent any harm or loss.

Trump was that guy on the street. But he did not look for friends to help. He made friends with the aggressor, maybe hoping to persuade him to stop, if I am being generous, but probably hoping that he could make a deal to let him keep a bit of the plunder and taking a bit for himself in the process. Unfortunately, despite his offer of friendship, the aggressor carries on and causes even more damage. The bloke in the house, however, starts to fight the aggressor and finds a way to weaken his supply of energy. There are some other guys in the street looking on. They're not sure what to do but agree that weakening the aggressor's supply of energy makes sense and could lead to his having to give up on his action. It would end much more quickly if they were all to go in and kick out the aggressor but they don't seem to fancy risking getting hurt themselves. There's also that Trump fellow in there who was supposed to be on their side but is now confusing everyone. Trump also doesn't like to see the energy cut off as that would mean his new found friend loses and he gets nothing for all his trouble. So he tells the bloke in the house just to give up and let someone else take charge.

That someone would, of course, be expected to walk away from the house and leave it to the aggressor and Trump to dispose of as they please.

There is a problem. Any new president needs to be elected by the Ukrainian people. Whilst they may have to accept the loss of Zelensky at a poll or by resignation at some point, they are not about to elect someone who is likely to agree to give away part of their country. Trump misreads the near total commitment of the Ukrainian people to their country. They have fought too hard, too long and lost too many friends and family to give in now.

Unless a group of nations, like the Joint Expeditionary Force perhaps, can make a brave move to help defend Ukraine in the very near future, this war will continue until Trump has left the scene. Trump claimed he could stop this war in a matter of days after taking office in 2024. I am beginning to take the view that it was Trump who actually started it, by making it clear to Putin and Kim Jong Un that he would be happy to do business with them both and offered them an open door back into the international world from which they had been banished.

Nothing Changes. We All Lose.

 I read recently that those odd US businessmen who visited Putin recently have said that the war would be over if Zelensky merely agreed to cede territory that Russia regard as now under their control. At first reading you have to say that the idea of everyone who is alive now being vulnerable only to death by natural causes, and being relieved of the stress of diving for cover every few hours and not wondering whether their apartment block will be the next one that collapses, has some merit. So Ukraine gets a little bit smaller but could then get on with the job of rebuilding its towns and, with closer partnership with all the many countries supporting the nation, could most probably flourish to such an extent that the smaller area produces far more product and develops hugely through many mutually beneficial trade agreements. Those who don't want to live in the 'lost' areas escape to the 'free' Ukraine and the degree to which they can prosper and live freely might mitigate somewhat against losing their homes and land and whatever else has to be left behind.

It almost seems like a reverse of the fall of the Berlin Wall. In the future, there could be Eastern Ukraine and Western Ukraine. The difference is that there needn't be a wall and people ought to be free to move between the new countries as they please, as one assumes both areas would be within the Schengen Area. I suspect that there will be few from the Western side wishing to spend a great deal of time in the East, with the Soviet system being re-established, education teaching children a rather different world to the one that actually exists and, with continuing sanctions or requirements for Russia to pay for all the damage it has done, the economy east of the border won't be that great either.

With something like the International Courts of Justice demanding to jail many of Russia's politicians and military leaders there may not be that many people of substance left to run Russia never mind its newly acquired few square kilometres but I suppose there will always be someone in that vast country who can be appointed to do this or that job. Whether they can do so with any degree of competence is another question but who would we be to care what happens to any part of whatever is then 'Russia' after all the hurt and damage and sheer evil actions sustained by their Kremlin leaders and supported by their pathetic public media channel personnel for what will be nearly five years?

This concept of saying "OK, you keep what you've taken." is not something I find easy to consider. It seems to allow the bully to win. Yes, there will be demands for massive reparations which may or may not ever materialise but the basic concept is just wrong. No-one should gain from evil acts. Hundreds of thousands of Ukrainian people have lost lives, family, friends, bits of their bodies, homes, businesses, health and homes. Every single loss has been the direct cause of an instruction from some Russian political or military leader. Every single one. Those losses were sustained in attempting to prevent the bully that is Russia taking control of any of Ukraine's territory. That is territory that was agreed to represent, within internationally agreed borders, an independent nation entitled Ukraine. Russia has basically said that they didn't like that agreement and so decided to change the border by force. They started with Crimea in 2014 and, with more or less no resistance offered by anyone, took the view that they might as well take back some more in 2022. Again, the world at large didn't really kick up much of a fuss and let Russia get away with it, taking the view that there was no point trying to stop them anyway as it would all be over and the whole of Ukraine subsumed within an enlarged Russian border in a matter of a week or two.

You know the rest. Ukraine fought back and we now have this almost static front 'line' where all that seems to happen each day is that about 1500 Russian soldiers die as they keep getting sent to drive forward and are instantly killed by drones or rifle bullets if they do happen to get close to any Ukrainian troops. Away from the front line, the war comprises massive attacks by Russian missiles and drones on Ukraine's infrastructure and also housing and shopping complexes every day, slowly destroying towns almost everywhere, and attacks by Ukraine on Russia's fuel and military production centres and whatever defence facilities they can find. Whereas Russia deliberately targets houses and people, Ukraine targets facilities. They miss occasionally and Russian civilians do suffer but the numbers are few.

So how can we really now expect any Ukraine citizen to accept the loss of part of their nation? Even those who have no connection with the areas that might be lost cannot just let it go. Certainly those with homes there, or family or business connections cannot, other than the few who genuinely do prefer to be Russian than Ukrainian. You will no doubt soon see some surveys or poll results which attempt to demonstrate how 90% of those questioned in the areas to be controlled by Russia will say how happy they are to be under Russian control. That will be shown to us time and again as proof not only of the sense in those areas becoming part of Russia but also as justification for the 'special military operation' in the first place!

So basically, ceding any territory, and I include Crimea, is simply wrong as a concept. It may, though, have to be right as a way to preserve the rest of Ukraine and the lives of a great many people who have declared themselves willing to fight for every last inch of territory. I write this with some difficulty. I know it is wrong in so many ways. I had hoped at the outset - and posed as a solution then - that an area to the east could be specified as within the control of some international body. I can see now that that was a hopeless idea. Since taking control Russian authorities have introduced huge changes in what people are taught at school, insisted that only Russian is spoken and demanded that residents fight for Russia against Ukraine. They have created a totally different way of life and a quite perverse record of history in the process, effectively brain-washing children over the last few years and no 'international body' would have been able to satisfy the aims of both sides as they are so far apart in reality. There could have been no agreement as to how the areas would be run, how business would be conducted or the areas developed. It was a non-starter then and remains so now.

I believe that what has now happened, and to a large extent we in the West have allowed this to come about, is that Russian authorities have taken control and very rapidly made everyone who resides there obey their rules and regulations. No-one has any choice in the matter. They have to speak Russian, work for Russia and fight for Russia too. They also have to vote for Russia and, in the absence of any political party being allowed to promote anything other than the official Soviet line, they can only therefore effectively vote to support all that is being done to them and their old nation. These people need to have an option to leave and one would hope that, despite all the brain-washing, there will be substantial numbers who will be prepared to leave, even though it means losing a home and current livelihood. So any agreement between Russia and Ukraine must allow for people living in the areas currently under Russian control to leave if they wish.

I don't like the idea of giving away their homes, farms, businesses. I don't like the idea of giving Russia anything by way of land or people's homes or businesses. At this moment, however, they do have it. The worst part, in my opinion, is how they are treating the people in those areas. It is estimated that 50,000 children have disappeared from these areas into other parts of Russia. Those people who have not been able to escape are in a dreadful situation - having to go along with the demands of those who now control their lives. Ending the war and leaving these people stuck in those regions merely makes permanent their fate, and effectively disowns all the children. So it cannot be ended thus. Those who live in the areas to be given up must be allowed to leave and no deal can be made unless the children are brought back. Those children will already have had up to four years of Russian propaganda in schools and in whoever's home they were transported to. One hopes that the substitute parents were kind but they would have had many more years of misdirection, bias and downright lies in all that they have learned in their schools and on their TV and media that they will have been of little comfort to any child missing his or her real home.

Here lies the question, therefore. Will Putin accept both that residents of the areas concerned may leave and that all children taken be returned (other than such few whose parents may wish to stay)?

If he agrees then I have to say that I feel Ukraine has to accept this as the best deal they will get at this time. They should then make maximum use of the support that will be available to them from all corners of the globe to make their nation economically and militarily strong. Indeed, I would go so far as to say they should not rule out, in whispered conversation in private, regaining any land lost as and when the opportunity arises. This could well be a practical possibility or, at the very least, an opening of discussions with more reasonable replacements in power in a later Russia which make the sacrifices of land less painful than they will have been.

If he does not agree then the war continues and Putin will not get a better deal either. Both countries will continue to lose. 

All the talk now is about threats to countries in Europe, the possibility that Russia could cut vital communication and network cables and cripple much of the UK's business activity and cause huge problems in day-to-day transactions and transport. Other commentators take the view that Putin is single-mindedly focussed on re-establishing the USSR and that Ukraine would be merely the first step. Then there are those who talk of Russians creating an 'accident' that tests NATO's determination to do anything to defend its member countries with anything other than a shaking of the fist, some dismissed embassy staff and strong words.

Without any deal now, all of the above could well happen and then we all lose. Ukraine's amazing people will carry on fighting, whether as an organised military or smart undercover operations, probably both and they will ensure that Russia really never wins either.

The more I think about this, though, the more I have to be convinced that Putin will never agree to the freedom of those in the occupied zones (and definitely not Crimea!) nor will he lift a finger to help return any children. So nothing changes. Nothing changes for a long time yet.

Chances

Based on the latest data from the United Nations Human Rights Monitoring Mission in Ukraine (OHCHR) and UK safety statistics, the estimated actual annual risk of a Ukrainian civilian being killed by enemy action is roughly 1 in 3,000 to 1 in 4,000. That is remarkably comparable to the overall annual risk of a British citizen dying from any preventable accident in the UK (such as a fatal fall or accidental poisoning).

So my dear friend presently in Zhytomyr is as likely to survive the next month or so as I am. With the way that Russia is throwing whatever missiles it can find, usually donated by North Korea these days, at all and sundry in Ukraine, I cannot decide whether to be a little relieved that her chances of returning to Britain are similar to those for me to welcome her back or somewhat concerned that the risk of my having a fatal accident of some sort is not considerably lower!

After all, she is supposed to take shelter in a basement or some safe place every evening - or more frequently of late, with attacks happening in day time most weeks. She doesn't do so, so I guess her odds of departing this mortal coil are reduced a bit but then I am not the most careful of drivers and have been known to mix up vegetable and meat chopping boards and not look closely at 'eat by' dates so I reckon we're still evenly balanced.

The big difference is that my side of the see-saw is in a pleasantly quiet village in a pleasantly quiet county in England and, whilst my articles have no doubt upset many people, I am not aware of any imminent likelihood of a cruise missile arriving through my roof or a drone chasing me as I walk to the Post Office to post a Corgi Toy to a collector in another pleasantly quiet village in another pleasantly quiet county somewhere. My friend's side is surrounded by the remnants of buildings and the sunlight is often hazy through the smoke and dust thrown up by the last explosion. Whilst she has not, to the best of my knowledge, written any articles that would offend anyone, she does live with the imminent likelihood of a cruise missile coming through a window or being chased around a shopping centre car park by a drone. So far she has been one of the 2999 (or 3999 if we're being optimistic) who are expected not to die this year. That may not be quite the right way to express the implication of my original statistic but you'll get the idea.

You see there are things happening in Ukraine that almost defy credibility, if it were not for the videos and many independent reports of them. A young lad was cycling along a country road from a village to a farm where he had a job looking after some animals rescued from a nearby zoo that had been destroyed by missiles. A Russian drone operator was flying a drone along the road. It was one of those FPV (first person view) types where a spool of glass fibre thread allows the operator to see what is in front of the drone. That can be useful and helps determine the best time to release the explosive or just slam the drone into your target, and, for 'target' one would think that would mean munitions factory, armed military personnel, someone or something engaged in the war. The operator in this instance clearly decided that this young chap represented such a threat that he detonated the bomb under the drone about six inches from the lad's face as he attempted to get off his bike and head for some bushes. Prior to that he had stopped his bike and just stared at the drone, seemingly having no idea what it was as the expression on his face was not fear, but more wonder. I guess the news of the war and its weaponry doesn't reach everyone in Ukraine.

On another occasion a chubby market trader was setting up his vegetable stall in a town. It would have been hard to interpret this man's actions as anything other than wanting to display some vegetables on a table and his vehicle was a white van not a tank or SUV in khaki. Some FPV operator, however, decided that he would end his vegetable selling days with a large detonation after chasing the poor fellow around his van and table for a few minutes. As it happened, this was our fat friend's lucky day and he was shielded from the explosion by his van but he was nonetheless injured by flying drone and van debris.

A taxi on the outskirts of another town, a bus, a train carrying only civilians, nowhere near any military bases any of them, have all been hit by what is now a daily exercise for Russian drone operators with nothing better to do, or perhaps they are instructed to practice on people who cannot fight back. Whatever the case, every single death is simply murder. There will be records of who do what, one of the strange benefits of the Communist Party's insistence on keeping detailed accounts of their personnel and their activities, together with the footage forever embedded in some internet folder somewhere that will be discovered in years to come. There will then be a chance to prosecute and punish everyone responsible for this ghastly business which now has the title 'Drone Safari'.

I have to ask how it can be possible that a Russian operator can simply act as if he is playing a computer game. It will appear very much like that, his view being a laptop screen and controls a steering device or possibly just keys on the keyboard. That young farmhand may have died when someone pressed Delete. Or spacebar for the bus, Enter for the taxi etc. I guess I have answered my own question; they do simply see it as a game. With life expectancy for any of their colleagues on the front line in action averaging a mere 30 minutes it is such a privilege to be safely tucked away from the action that these boys will do whatever they are told and show no hesitation for there will be plenty more very keen to replace them. It will be those who give the orders that will face the most severe consequences of these dreadful actions but every operator will face a Court one day, if an angry mob doesn't find him first.

This war has entered a strange and worrying phase. Most of Russia's missile are getting through, not necessarily to a specific target but hitting something, usually those huge apartment blocks or shopping centres now. They're killing hundreds of civilians, normal people going about their lives as best they can, children and the elderly alike. Just as many schools and nurseries have been destroyed as have factories. This is almost inhuman and very difficult to envisage until you get into the mindset of those ordering the attacks. Destroy as much as you can and maybe that will cause some splintering of Ukrainian public resolve to carry on, especially if this winter is as hard as the last. 

This tactic will not work in Ukraine but it may influence people in countries who are currently attempting to support Ukraine. We have already seen the almost complete depletion of American support, although that has been largely due to Trump's extraordinary reluctance to criticise anything Putin does and can anyone even contemplate a reason why he declares Kim Jong Un as a friend? There is something very wrong going on in America and it is so strange that Trump wildly denounces Iran and all that that nation stands for and yet does not call out anything that Russia or, for that matter, the awful North Korean leader does. I cannot in all honesty blame the country for there really is a case of 'forgive them for they know not what they do'. I doubt any North Korean other than the few in high Pyongyang society have a clue as to what is going on in the war, nor for that matter whether the Earth is flat or not. It is Kim Jung Un who is solely responsible for the madness that is North Korea and Putin can play him easily and no-one seems to care how many troops die.

The rest of the world can do itself a favour and basically ignore USA for the time being. Provided we can still access some useful intelligence we do not need them any more and should be better off without them - unless, of course, there is a serious attack on a NATO country which even Trump will not be able to pretend doesn't mean anything. But that is another matter I return to in a moment. For now I look at what can be done to bring this war to an end. America will not help that happen. No other country is likely to do much as things stand, as they have stood for four and a half years. Ukraine and Russia will be the two nations who will end this war, but not as we might have predicted.

Ukraine will continue to take the destruction it cannot avoid but find a way to protect sufficient infrastructure to survive through to Spring. Their actions in attacking the places where missiles are kept, the factories where they are made, the suppliers of the parts they need to make them and also to cause trouble across the country in unreliable oil and fuel supplies, all of these are being very successful and, interestingly, very few attacks are being intercepted by Russian defence systems. We will see more and more of this action. It will not, in itself, stop Russia's attacks and the likely expansion of troops and equipment with conscription and more help from North Korea will replace a lot of lost personnel and weapons for a while. 

No territory, however, is likely to be lost or gained over the next year. Except, perhaps, Crimea. and that holds a key to how things might unfold. It is conceivable that Russia will lose any realistic control of the region. They are not really in charge of anything there now in any real sense of the word. That, if maintained, could be the straw that breaks Putin's back of restraint. Or it may be some other devastating event to which he has no option but to respond. He thumps the table and thunders at those around him and demands revenge - and Russia takes a chance.

They have seen clearly how weak European countries seem to be militarily, individually, and also how poorly they seem to be able to respond in any consorted way to events, how America has belittled many of their leaders and effectively ceased to support them. They can see how outdated NATO and most of the current military programmes seem to be and how they have got away to date with a whole raft of incursions and hacking activity and poisoning people on European and British soil. They haven't done so well themselves on the traditional battlefront, we know, and I guess they know too (even if no-one has told Putin) but they do have a load of tricks up their sleeve and this could be when they decide to play one.

It probably won't be anything nuclear. It's more likely to be a massive disruption of internet or power in one or other European country, Not attributable, of course, to Russia. Maybe a drone, appearing to be a Ukraine drone out of control causes a major detonation in another European city or town. Whatever it is, it will be a little bit more than perhaps was planned, hundreds killed perhaps or a power outage causing flights to crash, something which NATO cannot just sit back an say 'hmm don't do that again' but will be obliged to respond to. The response I cannot actually envisage but it may just have to bring America back into the fold and we'll find ourselves on the edge of war with Russia.

I don't believe we will do more than peer over the edge of that precipice but Ukraine will and we will, by means not necessarily open and above board, assist them to such an extent that Russia has no option but to escalate further and take another chance. Once more they'll attempt the 'wasn't me' excuse with Putin playing a morose Bart Simpson. Again it will only inflame more the West and, finally, NATO does declare that most European nations and the USA are at war with Russia. Trump is left pretty much silent and events are now out of his control, remember that Iran is probably still in a mess and he's lost whatever power he had in the Senate.

Putin has no choice but to escalate further and throws everything at Kyiv and other parts of Ukraine, still carefully deliberately not hitting anyone or anything in NATO. Kim Jung Un, however, is not so reticent. He fires a massive nuclear missile at Ukraine. NATO intercept it but manage only to divert it and it lands on Rostov-on-Don.

There the story ends.

A Big Distraction

There really is a great deal going in the world these days. And I don't mean the sort of deal that Trump talks about - they seldom seem to come to much from what I can see anyway. I simply mean that there is a lot of news of rather a lot of importance.

I have written before with some frustration about how people in Russia don't get to see or hear what is happening just a few hundred kilometres away across their border with Ukraine. Well, now I think it must be difficult for anyone in Russia to ignore what is happening in their own towns. 

 At least 78 regions have introduced rationing or limits on fuel sales, with some stations in heavily affected areas entirely suspending fuel sales to private customers. Crimea has been hit particularly hard, forcing local occupation authorities to declare a state of emergency, ban fuel sales to private individuals, and limit fuel access. This has been the direct result of Ukraine drone attacks on a range of targets associated with fuel refinery and distribution. There have been attacks across a vast area of the huge land mass that is Russia and these seem to have been very effective indeed. As well as long queues at petrol stations where fuel may be available, there have been many private videos posted of the large clouds of black smoke rising to the sky and, in some places, descriptions of the 'black rain' descending afterwards as the oil contained in the clouds returns to Earth. Whilst not everyone may have seen the explosions, I am sure almost everyone will know about the shortage of fuel and the impact that this has started to have on product deliveries to stores.

There is even an app that is proving popular, ostensibly indicating to motorists where there should be fuel available. However, a number of other 'users' have joined and used the reporting facility to advise others that there is fuel at stations where there is none! So the reliability of the data is decidedly questionable and it has been causing no small amount of confusion and anger amongst those trying to find fuel. As well as films of 3 kilometre queues in some places there are now videos of men fighting each other and a great deal of hoarding also seems to be going on by those fortunate enough to find supplies.

Crimea has been particularly affected and the longest queue there has actually been of cars carrying people desperate to get away from the region. Of course, many have not made it very far as their fuel runs out just idling. Some push their cars in an attempt to stay in line but it is highly probable that they will find no more fuel available even if they do get away.

The Kremlin-controlled media admits to there being a problem, and blames Ukraine 'terrorist' action but, four years and nearly 150 days after a 'special military operation' I suspect that even the dimmest of Russians will be wondering how it has come to this? The fact is that it must be dawning on the population in those areas most affected, if not at large, that their government isn't doing terribly well at running their country and appears to be having trouble resisting attacks now from the country they assumed would be brought back under the communist banner within a short period. 

It is interesting to note that in retaliation, Russia lunched a massive attack on Kyiv on Wednesday night. Their missiles and drones demolished no factories or power stations, no weapons facilities or military sites. Just several multi-storey apartment blocks, a nursery and parts of two hospitals as well as a few hundred individual homes and shops. And a passenger train carriage. The death toll is around 30 as I write but there will be many more as rubble is carefully removed from the heaps into which blocks fell. Thousands will have suffered injuries and most will be the elderly and infirm unable to reach the safety of a basement in time. Ukraine's targets were precise and, according to independent sources, no personnel were killed, although there may be casualties from subsequent explosions.

The difference is that whoever fired the Russian missiles deliberately aimed them at domestic buildings, places where there would be civilians, not military personnel or some weapons factory. Their tactic of firing a second missile at the same place a little later in order to kill those responding to the first and attempting to rescue people will, I am sure, be a major factor in the prosecution of many Russian military personnel for war crimes in time to come.

I am not going to claim that Ukraine targets were totally clear of civilians but if there had been a significant number then we would certainly have heard about it and the important point is that Ukraine is trying to kill Russia's economy not its people.

What will Russian people do with this new knowledge? I fear they will not be able to do much at all, as any dissent is likely to be reported by someone and that never ends well for the person concerned. At some point, though, there will be much more dissent and that may be more difficult to quell. I am thinking about the impact of what is likely to be mobilisation by Russia in coming months, with all men and, who knows, women too, being required to serve and go to war or, as they will probably be informed, 'assist with the completion of the special military operation'. I doubt that anyone will tell the people being handed their new uniforms and boots that the life expectancy of a Russian trooper on the front line during an assault is 20-35 minutes. Or that around 1300 Russian soldiers are killed every day. The enhanced wages that they are given to go to the front will be taken by the many very corrupt local commanders in exchange for a promise that they can stay behind. Sometimes they are even fleeced of all their wages in some deal with a senior officer to keep them back but they still get sent or shot if they complain. Reports from the many prisoners who have been prepared to speak to reporters visiting jails in Ukraine make terrifying reading and the behaviour of so many middle-ranking commanders or officers is extraordinary and not just highly unprofessional but downright criminal.

One hardly need ask why there has been no advance in any area of Ukraine in the last year. And yet still Russians troops and Ukraine children die (or disappear from the occupied territories).

And the world looks on, wrings its hands, says how much they support a peaceful solution, an end to fighting or words of similar practically meaningless expression. 

One wonders whether it may actually be Russian people who finally end this? Could there be such a horror at men and women being forced to fight, replacing the 1300 a day being lost and becoming some of those 1300 themselves sooner or later, could that fear outbid in their minds the fear of being carted off by police for resisting mobilisation? Might many make a run for it? Interestingly, many border crossing points are being closed around Russia and not just those with Finland or places like that but with other previous Soviet States. This has to be an indication that some new mobilisation, requiring people to join the battle, is on the cards.

To date losses appear to have been of troops garnered to a great extent from regions far away from Moscow and St Petersburg society, from villages to the east and prisons, of course, and those with debts where the offer to repay whatever they owe was attractive at first. Then there have been the many North Korean and a few thousand from Africa recruited who probably had no idea what they were letting themselves in for. These losses, whilst extraordinary in their vastness - I repeat, 1300 every day! - do seem not to have registered in any meaningful way with the general public there. They must be evident to many who have access to news from abroad and some journalists but I can imagine that it is so bad that they know the trouble they would be in for even whispering those numbers.

One has to ask, though, whether the mothers of intelligent and economically useful sons from Moscow, St Petersburg, Rostov-on-Don, and many other modern centres where new recruits will have to be drawn from, taking young men away from their jobs in banks and commerce, offices and schools, will be as complacent as those who have lost a million, and counting, from other more rural or distant parts of Russian society? It seems to have been easy to ignore whatever unease may have been expressed in the distant regions. I suspect the new recruits' parents to be more vocal and better organised in their questions to authority.

With that in mind I have a feeling that the Kremlin will take some action to divert attention and perhaps help to justify the mobilisation planned. This could be an incursion of troops or a weapon landing in a NATO country - officially expressed by the Kremlin as an 'error', perhaps, or 'unauthorised movement' by some commander, or variations on such a theme - but serious enough to make the West feel they have to respond somehow. The Kremlin are basically, therefore, proposing to test just how organised, how determined, we are to defend an ally. Our likely response will, I fear, be to talk a lot and have several meetings but, in the end, let whoever or whatever crossed a border go back and hope out loud that it doesn't happen again, no doubt with an 'or else' added for good measure without any definition of what that 'else' might be.

There is a chance, though, that there is a more aggressive stance taken and a skirmish takes places and the Russian troops and machinery are captured and prevented from leaving. This may seem to be verging on an escalation of the Ukraine conflict into something more global as NATO v Russia but I suspect, again, that it will not proceed far and all will go quiet with troops and machinery begrudgingly returned.

More likely could be an attack on some military infrastructure in the West, or damage to internet connectivity or power supplies that cannot specifically be proven to have been under the orders of the Kremlin. Russia may claim it was a rogue element or, of course, the classic 'Ukrainian supporters trying to make it appear that Russia was responsible'. This sort of event is so difficult to deal with because it is so difficult to know who really was responsible and, therefore, how to respond. A response is needed, though, and that's what the Kremlin need to see so they can continue to plan the game and, like the best chess players, look ahead many stages.

We are in for some troubling times. Whilst Ukraine's exceptional success in what they describe as 'long range sanctions' against Russia deserves praise and it has certainly lifted the morale of the public and their troops, as well as tending to show that those countries backing Ukraine are backing a winner, Putin still makes all the decisions and, in his view, all Russia has to do is carry on bombing and destroying Ukraine and eventually there will be nothing left for even a successful army to fight for.

So those new recruits will be needed. I do worry that Belarus is somehow badgered into making an attack from the north and that Ukraine will find that their limited forces are terribly split. They may well decide that they have to give Belarus the same treatment as they've been giving Russia in order to attempt to discourage further development along those lines. That would almost certainly bring the Belarus public out on the streets as they are by no means supportive of Lukashenko and I wonder to what extent the Belarussian police will really wish to quell disturbance and discontent.

Indeed, it is the police in Russia too that I would, if I were working in any resistance movement, wish to infiltrate and try to turn. If one could diminish the threat that they pose to members of the public and we see a few people starting to get away with speaking out then more dissent would be encouraged for sure. That, in turn, could be a very good way to end this war, as there would be far too many problems then with society within its borders for the Kremlin to ignore and attention would have to be given to some solution that does not turn one Russian against another Russian.

That could, again, be where the Big Distraction comes in to play and Lithuania finds its border fences broken and a few hundred Russian troops marching across fields while drones take out local defences.

All in all, a few totally unpredictable months lie ahead. I predict a riot.

A Sorry State

 I had just started to admire Kemi Badenoch and the efforts she has made to make the Conservative Party more like the party I have voted for since 1969 when I first joined as a Young Conservative. I first typed 'supported' instead of 'voted for' in the previous sentence then realised that I really did not support them very much during the COVID restriction days nor, especially, in the Woke Years which, in some ways, are still continuing but at least announcements by Kemi have led me to believe that she wishes to undo as much of what went wrong as best she can. I guess I didn't support anyone. Reform sounded as though they were saying what I wanted to hear but I am afraid that I have not been very impressed with Reform of late and one has to ignore Restore, however much they may seem to echo some views I hold. So I had been pleased with the Conservatives efforts - until now.

It seems that they are claiming a lot of credit for the introduction by Labour of restrictions on young people's access to a range of social media. The proposals look dreadful to me and it is particularly annoying and frustrating to see the Conservatives not only backing most of them but also, as I said, claiming that they wouldn't have been introduced if they had not pushed Labour to do so more quickly.

Now one may have doubts about the influence of the Conservative Opposition in Parliament these days and I suspect their support or pressure has made no difference whatsoever. Sir Keir Starmer wishes to be seen doing something which he has been told a good majority of parents want, and to have something to his name after all the bad publicity and general failure of his government that he's had to put up with. The fact remains that the Conservatives are tying themselves to this new policy and my criticism of the government has to apply similarly to the party I was hoping I could continue to support.

This new regulation will just happen - as it appears that the government can introduce the restrictions without having to have a new law passed or even debated in parliament by virtue of very loose drafting of the Online Safety Bill. It is just like all the woke stuff got enabled as legal restrictions largely through interpretation of paragraphs in the various diversity, equality and similar legislation. 

It all says to me that we do not have the degree of brainpower or even common sense that used to be available in Parliament. The chance for a second Chamber to examine and question dubious drafts has also been dramatically diminished by the removal of umpteen peers over the years too. The recent removal of hereditary peers brought about the loss of some good brains and people with no particular axe to grind but who could see where a set of laws being proposed may be flawed or misinterpreted - or, at the very least, ask questions about the intent and impact.

MPs themselves, certainly amongst the new Labour intake, seem generally very dim and poorly educated. There may be a degree or two but that means nothing these days, I'm afraid. I write as someone who failed all but one of his class of Luton University students on the grounds of having received little or no evidence that they had any clue as to what they were talking about and who failed to produce any evidence that their submissions, such as they were, even vaguely met the published criteria for even a basic pass, and yet had to watch the person who completed the documentation put every single student down as 'passed' for several units. His explanation was that the statistics would look very bad for our College where we delivered some units as we had only a few courses at degree level and the numbers of failures would compromise our relationship with the university and may even result in no new courses coming our way with the consequent loss of fees, if not reputation. That is all, however, another story. Suffice it to say that I am not impressed in the slightest these days when I see that anyone has a degree. I actually think decent grades at A level are more difficult to achieve.

So, our government at the moment comprises a great number of erstwhile trade union representatives and hopeful idiots, all, of course, supporting the increasing move to socialism across Britain without really understanding what they're doing. The few passionate and genuine socialists do know exactly what they are doing, as do the increasing number of MPs elected by non-Christian communities which, again, is another story.

To return to what I had intended to write about, we now have a government that is committed to stop any child under 17 accessing a range of social media and it gets even crazier as they also propose that there will be a kind of curfew or restriction on the time that those aged under 18 can access sites and media. This is the same government that wants to allow children aged 16 and 17 to vote but does not believe they can manage their own access to social media.

Yes, there may well be a number of children who have been badly affected by what they read or view on a whole load of websites but that is far beyond just social media. There will be, though, a hugely greater proportion of people in that age group who have the sense not to spend time on sites where the bad stuff is published, who can control where they go and how they use their access to sites generally, how they interact with others where that is a feature and, of course, their parents are the people who should have control over what they do, not government.

These are dark days when we allow a government, of very mixed reputation and ability and knowledge themselves, control the freedom of 16 and 17 year olds and, for that matter, I think it is wrong for a government to control what many people at 14 or 15 see or read. This is all a matter for parents. If they do not like what they see their children accessing then they should step in and make such restrictions as suit the circumstances. And one family will not be the same as another family in this respect. A global ban which impacts what a vulnerable child of limited intelligence can access in the same way as for an intelligent and aware child. Parents will know better than a government what is best for their children. If parents simply hold their hands in the air and say they cannot control what their children do and wish to delegate responsibility for the care of their children to the government then we have reached a sorry state and that makes Britain a sorry State indeed.

Government should get out of our lives, not become ever more involved in controlling us. Ministers really do not know what is best. Ministers, at best, will make decisions which correlate best with their ideal version of a state and, in the current government, that is a socialist one. 

This is all very very bad news as I do not see how it can be reversed if the Conservatives also support the regulations, albeit not the socialist aim.

The social media referred to includes Facebook and YouTube! I am not a great fan of Facebook but it strikes me as a popular place where families and friends share pictures and stories of what they're doing. In the main this seems to be what they're eating or trying to impress as many friends as they can with their appearance or latest acquisition or location. I find it pretty tedious nowadays. It seemed an improvement on Friends Reunited in the early 2000s as I recall and, by virtue of the sheer volume of information that was being collected every day across the planet by its huge number of participants, I remember how we were encouraged to promote Facebook as a learning tool in classrooms. The search facility would produce often quite interesting results about a place, for instance, that a normal Ask Jeeves or Yahoo enquiry might miss.

YouTube has become the default place many people go for news these days and newscasts like Ukraine:The Latest or Jacob Rees-Mogg's summaries of the day and several other videos are all that I may see in some evenings. OK, I don't expect young children to enjoy these particular items but this is where many will get their music and even films nowadays. It is also one of the few places where many of us can upload a movie that we have made to share with others or feature on a website. YouTube makes this sort of thing easy. Children at 14 or 15 love making videos and YouTube is a place they can share them. There are others like TikTok that I don't like but I would not ban children from seeing the vast majority of its content. yes, there will be a lot of bad stuff but then anyone scrolling through the channels available on a modern TV will find stuff just as bad and there will be websites galore which friends will tell them about where there will be no restrictions to stop them viewing stuff anyway. What the government prevent them seeing on a few social media sites will very quickly be available somewhere else and we'll be driving many children to worse, much more dodgy places and to do so without telling anyone. 

Parents need to wake up to what their children are looking at. It is parents who need to do all the work in controlling and explaining why they may place blocks on some places. Children used to look at naughty magazines and read pages from books that might be full of activities, explained in detail even parents might be embarrassed to read. Now they look at pictures and videos online. I suspect that the newer stuff is more shocking and debauched but I am afraid we have to accept that they'll see stuff we'd prefer they didn't. Banning them from a few social media accounts will not make any difference. 

Chrome has 'incognito' windows where your location may be hidden and allows adults to pop into sites they would prefer their partners weren't aware of. The facility to disguise who and where you are is vital to anyone in Russia who wishes to read about what is happening in the real world. Not that they still can get very far into that real world but, at least, the virtual private network, as the software is termed, keeps them a little safer from the gaze of their socialist masters. It will become all the more used here and parents may be none the wiser. at least, as things stand, they have some chance of checking where their children have been online but soon this history will be removed by more and more children as they learn how to.

Overall, there is nothing that I can find that is at all good about the new regulations. A dreadful move by a dreadful government and supported by a party I was thinking I might like to vote for again. Now I have no clue what to do at the next election. I will do my best to urge the Conservatives to water down as much of these regulations as possible but fear they will want to retain the social media bans for under 16s. The curfew for 16 and 17 year olds must go, though. I'll accept, I suppose, a commitment to look again at controls should they ever be in a position to change anything and all I can hope is that children make such fools of the government that the ban in its present form is proven impractical if not nonsensical.

What a farce. How little influence do many parents seem to possess these days.

Watching TV and doing nothing.

 I used to watch TV series, sometimes several a week. Although I could record them to watch later, most weeks I would want to watch 'live', to be one of the first to see how a story was developing or, in the case of X Factor or American Idol, to get my reviews and predictions published as early as possible so that I could not be accused of copying what someone else had said. When Lost was in full flight it was, for me, simply an hour that I had to see. That was easy for the first series, maybe a few more, which were broadcast on a channel in the UK called Sky One. You didn't need a satellite dish or a subscription to Sky in order to watch Sky One; it was one of the channels that appeared in a nice long list which you got with something called Freeview on most TVs in the 2000s. Later, however, around 2006 or 7 as I recall, it changed and I was unable to watch Lost on any of my available channels. I needed this fix quite badly, though, being very much addicted to the series and I would write regularly about it and read avidly the reviews each week and the many long and carefully argued dissemination of what may or may not be happening as people like me tried to get into the minds of the writers and make sense of the many twists and turns and small hints and possible Easter eggs each edition presented. To satiate my desperate need I managed to find some recordings that had been uploaded by fans and, through something called P2P software, I was able to watch these. Sometimes the video was a small rectangle surrounded by advertisements in what I presume were Chinese but, over the years, these improved and, although I cannot now remember how, for the last series or two I was able to watch pretty much as I had started on some Freeview channel or watch a recording of an American broadcast a few hours after it had finished. TV tended to rule my evenings, with something entertaining or intellectually challenging appearing live, or as a recording of something only recently aired, available every day.

Now I can watch almost anything I want, whenever I want. But none of it is live. Except Eurovision, I suppose, or the occasional sports event where the play is not worth watching if you have already seen the result. And what do I now watch? News. Some nights that is actually all I watch. Ukraine: The Latest is my first go-to programme in the week, often followed by Jacob Rees-Mogg's remarkably good summaries of some point of interest or debate in the news at the time and then YouTube will offer me the very watchable Madeleine Grant on Quite Right! and a couple of Telegraph journalists dissecting the news of the political day. I would never have imagined, a few years ago, that I would watch YouTube every evening.

With Netflix, Amazon Prime and, of course BBC iPlayer, there is a further abundance of films and series old and new that I could watch but I seldom seem to get round to more than Clarkson's Farm these days. That is mainly due to the news itself being so interesting.

Here in the UK I can only watch the country slide deeper and deeper into debt and, whilst attempting to put a brave face to the outside world, looking increasingly pathetic to anyone who looks closely. I don't think there is anything that the present government has done with which I can agree. So much of the new regulations seem pointless or just a way to tax some people more and make life more difficult for business. So it can be a bit depressing watching the UK news - maybe frustrating is a better word as I tend not to get depressed - but it does make me consider how it might develop. We have Reform who, until recently were surging in the polls and who have, indeed, taken over a lot of local government. It is too early to tell but I am not sure we will see the sort of big changes that they promised. The new councillors will no doubt be discovering that, much as they would like to change this or that, past commitments bind them and 99% of the funds available to them are already committed to one project or another.

I have mentioned before the Makerfield by-Election where Andy Burnham now looks a certain winner. Reform may see quite a drop in support and It will be fascinating to see how that wanes across the next few years. Conservatives may well benefit from that but I can't see them being sufficiently forgiven or attractive as an option for old Labour voters and we will have the most God-awful mess of a result in 2029 or whenever. Watching the demise of Labour, the insecurity of Reform, the preposterousness of the Greens and the serious efforts of the Conservatives to maintain some relevance is quite entertaining at times.

Abroad is almost exciting when I look at Ukraine. Whilst the horrors of civilians very young and very old being killed by Russian strikes every day are dreadful, for every few Ukraine innocents lost it seems that 1000 or more Russian troops are lost. This has been going on for some time now and estimates from reliable sources indicate that about 1,300,000 Russian soldiers have been lost in this war. That is an extraordinary number. I can only assume that the Russian people are not aware of this number or consider it some Western propaganda of some sort. They may become more aware soon as Putin may have to resort to compulsory military service for more young people in Russia in order to maintain troop numbers. If he were to announce this then I think there would be a flight from the country by large numbers of young men and women and this could lead to the lid being blown off the can of secrets that have so far been kept fairly well hidden from the majority. Much as I believe Russians going about their normal day will want to support their home nation, and respect their government and leaders, seeing more of the real facts of the last 4 years or more, realising just how badly their troops have acted in their name, how pointless has been the destruction of so many towns and villages, and areas of production when the dam was destroyed, flooding a huge area of Kherson, not to mention the rape and torture of villagers in places like Bucha and the terrible abduction of what could be 20,000 or more children, seeing all this will have an impact. 

That impact may not be immediate. No-one likes to be told that their leaders are evil, or that really bad things have been done in your nation's name, that most of what you have been told in the media, TV and newspapers, has been lies. It can't be easy to realise that you have been fooled for all this time. No-one wants to admit or acknowledge that but, eventually, as conversations start then there will be areal rise in concern amongst the public. Whether that can lead to any actual change in policy at the top is another matter. Much will depend upon how the police control what people talk about and how loudly they can speak. While someone can be arrested and jailed for speaking out against propaganda, never mind actual government policy, normal people will keep quiet in the streets. Behind the scenes I can imagine discussions but it would take very brave people to make any significant noise. That feeling of uncertainty, guilt even, will spread, though, and eat into that determination that, whatever anyone else says, Russia must be right. Even the vague suggestion that Russia may be wrong, though, could be enough to sow the seeds of doubt into the minds of people who might be able to make a change. The police, the security brigades, business leaders, maybe even some government people, might already have some doubts sometimes but will increasingly begin to see that what they have believed all these years is mostly wrong. That has to lead to some change. 

I worry that some reaction may be violent. If you push someone into a corner they may not just subside into a help and plead for forgiveness. They will, as often or not, lash out and, in some kind of all-or-nothing attempt to get out of the situation, cause even more damage to those around them than they had done before.

So these will be difficult times in Russia. Every Ukraine missile that lands on another oil refinery, military weapons factory or similar carefully-chosen target will carry the message that there is, indeed, a war and that Russia is not winning that war. Up until recently, most Russians could live their lives blissfully unaware that they were themselves in any danger and that anything very bad was being done by forces in their name. They may have wondered why the internet dropped out so much, why some products are scarce and why inflation is increasing but I suppose that's not much different to life in some other places from time to time. Now many must have noticed, or they soon will be very much aware, that, although, unlike Russia, Ukraine is not aiming any missiles at civilians, not every missile lands where it was intended and there will be an apartment block that descends to a pile of rubble one day, or a volcano will appear to have erupted in the High Steet of your local town. That will be difficult to ignore and difficult for the talking heads on your TV to explain.

So all the news about what is happening as I write is fascinating. I worry about predicting anything as to where this all leads. Ukraine will not agree to give away any territory. Putin will not admit that he cannot get more. He has really only one option and that is to get more and more violent. I fear, therefore, that we shall see the firing of the nasty missiles that do seem able to get through Ukraine's defences and that some of these may land on blocks, killing hundreds. It will be inexcusable. Other nations will cry foul. But no-one will do anything. Only Ukraine will act and, sooner or later, they will, either by mistake or in understandable lack of restraint, hit a significant part of a significant city in Russia that Putin has to respond to by going nuclear.

What a disaster that day will be as we watch the mushroom cloud over a city somewhere in Ukraine, and read that 250,000 people were killed instantly.

And still, unbelievably, we will do nothing.