Did you actually listen to the speech? The point wasn't anti-French at all. He was listing other nations with publically owned companies within the British energy market to build the argument for Britain to have one.
View attachment 15167
FFS don't make it that bloody obvious you massaged the figures Putin.
Door to door Russian soldiers asking for votes and one vote per household. Yeh of course it wasn't bloody decided in Moscow.
That one and the "secret" paragraph 7 in Putin's decree on mobilization - keep my mind all the last week
Because the BBC will always be an esbtablishment voice you have to change who the establisment is. The only way to clean it up is to clear out the Tories. The press will smear any Labour leader if it can and that's the game we have today and it's the game we'll have 20 years from now.
Some of this is valid. The SNP are the same up here. They have to be painfully bland in an incredibly partisan and hostile media landscape. So that is probably why Keir is being so incredibly unionist, silent on Israel and generally not saying boo to a goose (I'm surprised and encouraged he found the stones to mention nationalisation of railways and energy).
He also mentioned Sweden and Chinese Communist Government in the same section. The previous section was about how Britain should lead the way in Green technologies. He was also speaking about being 100% green (includes nuclear which will be a contention for some) by 2030. The announced the big part of having a publically owned company to drive that vision forward.
I'd be fine with nuclear if it was temporary. It's certainly not ideal, but we need immediate action. Hypothetically if Britain did hit 100% including nuclear by 2030 it could then start to phase out nuclear after.
Apart from Nuclear what other firepower can they deploy?
I'm fine with it as well, I'd want us the phase out but it's better than fossil. Let's get off those then plan for the next steps after that.
And some iodine tablets?
I was under the impression they potentially had larger missile capacity (non-nuclear) which hasn't been used
They've used plenty of thermobarics if that's what you're thinking of?
One thought is that simply sending them in as cannon fodder, and then letting them surrender after a week will simply tie up Ukrainian troops and resources capturing them, processing them, transporting them under guard, them treating their wounds, feeding, clothing and housing them.
alwaysfreshnews.com
www.ukrdailyupdate.com
"Between September 25th and 27th, Russia repeatedly attacked Petropavlivka (4) and suffered horrific casualties. Many hundreds died, and hundreds more were wounded. If you look at the casualty counts posted by Ukraine's MOD, you will see over 500 killed listed each of the past few days. These suicide attacks explain those losses. Russia attacked without armored vehicles or heavy equipment, with little artillery support and little air support. The air support was hindered by Ukraine's air defense, which shot down at least three jets and an attack helicopter immediately leading up to and during these Russian attacks."
