Wow - full marks to her for doing something that significant.

I think many in the UK also thing Boris is a useless buffoon, but sadly none of his party have had the balls to kick him out yet (possibly due to a shortage of alternatives that would do better than the already very low bar he has set).

Remember how the Telegraph started doing their Russia supplement about 15 years ago while Boris was a columnist there? They were being paid £400k a year by Russia for that. At the same time, a certain Mr Johnson's salary rose from £25k a year to over £200k a year. And then Boris waved through Evgeny Lebedev's entry into the Lords declaring that there was no security risk, despite the fact that Lebedev's father was not just a crony of Putin but a senior KGB officer. Do you think that Boris could have done that without the support of his party?

The Tories aren't removing Boris because they've taken the same Russian money. They took it to support Brexit; they took it to ignore the sale of London's skyline to the oligarchs; most of all, they took it to fill the party coffers and to line their own pockets. And now they have allowed the likes of Abramovitch and Deripaska to bypass the worst effects of sanctioning. Some other oligarchs weren't even added to the list.

Getting rid of Boris will achieve nothing. We need to get rid of them all.

We need a revolution.

Time for guillotines in the streets, French-style...

The concept is nice, but History shows that when heads begin to roll it's hard to make the movement stop...

Stewart Lee on Boris...

[1]https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/mar/13/putin-tied-boris-johnson-up-in-his-own-trousers

Icon: if only it were a joke

[1] https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/mar/13/putin-tied-boris-johnson-up-in-his-own-trousers

The Tories aren't removing Boris because they've taken the same Russian money. They took it to support Brexit

I will remind you that it was Tory government policy prior to the referendum to be against Brexit. That's why every household in the land received a pamphlet advising them to vote remain. Instead, the public chose leave, by a clear margin, in one of the largest democratic exercises in British history.

So that kind of blows a hole in your theory doesn't it? What's next, Putin hacked the brains of everyone to vote leave? All on a GDP less than that of Italy. What a criminal mastermind!

"I will remind you that it was Tory government policy prior to the referendum to be against Brexit."

I would say it was the 'old' Tory Government policy. Most of those MPs have been ousted from any position of power and replaced by 'Boris friendly' yes men / women, who will bow down to whatever he says.

I've never voted Tory in my life, but even I would admit that they used to have some good MPs. The current lot are a shower of shite and deeply mired in Russian money and influence.

'What's next, Putin hacked the brains of everyone to vote leave?'

Not saying everyone*, but the funny thing is that all the real rabid Brexiteers I know (you know the sort) ferociously claim "Russia never told me how to vote!", but then proceed to share provably fake propaganda that is known to have originated from one of the Russian 'fake news' factories. And looking back at their timeline since before the Brexit vote, it's just post after post of the stuff. They can't seem to understand that all the Russian produced propaganda they share and deeply believe is Russia telling them how to vote and is Putin hacking their brain (in a roundabout way).

*I'll add the usual caveat, because Brexitists seem so snowflakey about it if I don't: Yes, not everyone fell for the propaganda and some people had valid reasons to vote leave (still waiting to hear one though).

That's a really lovely anti tory rant, but the Russians have more influence with the more looney left part of Labour and the Greens (with their defacto energy policy of opposing everything practical other than Russian gas for energy production which has been somewhat successful here, and wildly successful in Germany) than they have been with the Conservatives.

If the Tories were being influenced by Russian money then i'd suggest that right now the Russians would be wanting their money back, since the Tory policy of training and equipping Ukraine's army since 2014 has resulted in Ukraine having the western anti tank missiles that are currently blowing the turrets of Russian tanks into low orbit, and the anti aircraft equipment scattering Russian aircraft across Ukrainian fields.

The end result of that injection of training and equipment is that the Russians have already lost their little Ukrainian adventure; almost three weeks on they haven't yet taken their day one objectives and their day one objectives were basically "capture the president and with a gun to his head force him to sign an unconditional surrender" which won't do much now even if he manages it, since there are now a heck of a lot of people who want Russians dead for bombing their home who have been issued with arms and ammunition capable of blowing top of the line Russian tanks into orbit who don't have a home to go back to, and may not choose to surrender even if told to.

This leaves no victory conditions for Russia. Putin can't admit that, because to do so is to admit that he's failed totally and be deposed. This leaves him busily shoving his army into a meatgrinder where the best possible outcome is a [1]Phyrric victory followed by an insurgency that he can't win. And his ability to win even a Phyrric victory is looking dubious since he's now having to have large units of troops behind his army shooting deserters, and he's been reduced to importing gunmen from Africa to make up his pretty horrific losses.

So yes, if that's what Russian influence looks like, then i'd suggest that somebody in that Russian department is getting fired, probably by firing squad rather than by P45.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pyrrhic_victory

The UK's help has been quite extensive, especially in the supply of things that go "bang" specifically the NLAW and other anti tank and aircraft devices which we have trained the Ukrainian locals to use over the last 7 years. While it would be nice to feel good about supplying shelter to the refugees, that is probably best supplied by countries closer to them, and we stick to helping them get Putin and his cronies out.

Sure but there are a LOT of refugees. Reckon we could do our bit there too. If I had a bigger house I'd gladly take people in, will be looking for ways to welcome and support them in my community if and when they arrive.

As 'Is it turned on' pointed out, the UK has been providing assistance to Ukraine since Putin annexed the Crimea.

The performance of the Ukrainian army has significantly improved since 2014, and while that must mostly be credited to the Ukr army itself, it's benefited from British Army training teams, with similarly training provided to the Ukr navy from the Royal Navy. I suspect many of us remember the occasion last year when a Royal Navy ship carried out a freedom of navigation exercise along an internationally established shipping route from Odessa (? Ukraine, anyway), much to the impotent fury of Putin, who had already in effect (and illegally) tried to blockade Ukrainian's eastern ports in the Sea of Azov.. Meanwhile, I understand that Germany for example increased its dependence on Russian fossil fuels after the annexation of Crimea.

The UK was one of the leading nations warning that the Russian 'exercise' was a prelude to invasion, and one of the nations that reacted before the invasion to supply Ukraine with defensive weaponry (having to do so by flying around German airspace, because the German insisted on the bureaucracy being followed, which would have imposed a two week delay to the supply; Germany also blocked Lithuania from exporting artillery systems that originated from Germany going to Ukraine prior to the war starting).

Since the invasion, the UK has continued to supply equipment to Ukraine, and for the most part has been amongst the most vigorous in applying sanctions.

The UK could and I agree should be doing more to support the refugees, but the inadequate response strikes more of standard UK Civil Service inertia than anything deeper.

It does rather seem that some people just want to pick on the things the UK has done poorly to attack the UK or the government, without acknowledge what the UK got right (and other nations, particularly in Europe, got wrong).

> While it would be nice to feel good about supplying shelter to the refugees, that is probably best supplied by countries closer to them

I disagree, but even if I didn't - your point would only really be valid if we as a nation explicitly said that.

Rather than

- putting a little paper notice up in Calais

- lying about whether there's an office in Calais

- saying that we're taking refugees but they have to pass all the visa stuff (and pay the fees!) first.

- Complaining that the Irish have taken refugees in the way we should be, and that it might pose a security risk

So, even if your suggestion that other countries are better placed to help them were correct, the way that the Government have handled it has been woefully inadequate.

Taking in refugees doesn't really hamper our ability to supply boomsticks either, so it's not like one actually distracts from the other anyway.

I think the problem is the sheer number of refugees, from this and other crises. So Poland's taken in 1m+ so far. That's a lot of beds needed for any kind of decent standard of living, especially after trying to accomodate several million Syrian, Afghan & refugees from other conflicts. Or just a general lack of affordable housing.

It's one of those wicked problems. Build tent city refugee camps, or fill church halls, town halls, leisure centres with cots and hope it's temporary. Allow family reunion for refugees lucky enough to have support, but you still have to deal with those that don't. And those probably need the most help. Then longer term, how many refugees might be willing or able to return, once the shooting stops.

The sheer number is exactly why the UK should do its bit. Not the reason it shouldn't.

While I appreciate the sentiment and very much understand where it's coming from, you're in a country with a stretched infrastructure, there's limited food, shelter and utilities and you don't speak the language. This is essentially well intentioned disaster tourism, which I recognise because I've done the same in the past.

Unless you're bringing in food, medicine, shelter, you're able to bring people out that want to leave or you're trained to patch up people or vehicles, or pick up a gun and know how to use it, it might be best to focus on what you can do best from outside the country rather than getting in everyone's way. In other conflicts I would add raising public awareness to that list, but the Ukranians have that base extremely well covered.

I will make of her this: big heart, but rather... irrational. Consider this: the cost of travel / stay / no skills considered for their usefulness _before_ travel, what do you get? Like some lads from the UK, young and old, asked by reporters at pl-ukr border: do you have any military combat experience? Some do (great!), but others, with a stupid smile: 'ehm.. none'. Now, I get the feeling, I felt the same urge to 'do something', but then I ran a short and bleeding obvious self-assessment: weapons experience: none (and a leftie, a 'bonus' on top!). General army/combat experience: none. Driving skills: none (yeah, that youtube t72 6-min crash course is great, bu come on). Medical: none. Super-ninja skills: none. Etc. So, instead of spending hundreds of quid to fly there and get in the way, I donated at least that much to a few super-urgent causes to send medical stuff over the border, buy 2nd hand ambulances, etc., and did some other stuff related to my line of work. And yeah, I've also politely asked my MP to gently push his Tory decision-wankers re. UK entry rules for refugees, because UK stand has been a disgrace since 24th Feb, and remains a disgrace.

p.s. I'm not being smug, just saying a sort of assessment instead of just going out there would be more... productive. Refugees will need places to stay, schooling, it's women with kids after all, some of this requires gov-level decision-making (see Tory decision-wankers), but some can be grass-roots, like asking your school hey, did you think how you might pre-empty the point, when (or IF) 30 kids with no English need your schooling, etc.

Uh, I don't think that's something that happens in Ukraine, I think that's something that happens on Earth.

Very interesting

It's interesting to have a report without the propaganda, it's rare these days.

The Mig-29 thing seems to be [1]a little bit more complicated than how it's stated in the article.

An additional question: why does UK refuse that Ukrainian refugees enter the country to join their family already there?

[1] https://www.yahoo.com/news/poland-transfers-mig-fighters-u-192255421.html

British MPs have asked the Home Secretary that question, and the response is waffling and mumbling about security and rules.

Funny how none of that seemed to stop people bringing in sacks of dirty money, bottles of Novichok, polonium teabags etc.

I reckon the best thing we could do is to send Priti Patel in undercover to help the Russian Army with its logistics.

How can someone have such a total lack of self awareness to think a trip like this is a good idea?

It’s not an invasion, it’s just legitimate political discourse. Pony boy Putin just wants all Russians, everywhere, to be part of a big, happy, friendly, Mother Russia. Anyone who has a problem with his methods obviously hates motherhood, and Mother Russia, and the Shirtless Brony himself. Not necessarily in that order. Those haters must be crushed, without mercy.

I propose a way to help: send Boris the Clown, possibly with the Queen of Carnage and perhaps one or two more current and former Tory ministers, to assist the Shirtless Brony in his efforts to reunite all Russians everywhere. (With a name like ‘Boris’, the Clown just _has_ to be Russian, doesn’t he?) Who knows what levels of legitimate political discourse the Brony can achieve with their assistance…