Highgate

As is natural in these situations, attention is fading as the war enters its third year and support for funding will invariably take a hit. The same will probably happen with the Palestine/Israel situation. The average person isnt directly affected despite the injustices and the desire to help fades.
Now is the Navalny situation being milked by the media? maybe.
But it’s also a pretty big international story in a country that’s currently occupying another, ahead of the Russian “election”, so some dedication to it is justified.

I think it's right to ask those questions. Navalny clearly seems to have been involved with the far right groups when he was younger and said some extremely racist and homophobic things. That's an undeniable fact. Whether he still held those views now is another question. The fact that he hasn't openly disavowed those earlier statements or apologized is obviously problematic.  It's fair to say he wasn't another Boris Nemtsov. 
On the other hand compared to Putin, everyone seems like a good option.  Navalny's 15 point manifesto released from prison last year certainly makes for refreshing reading when you compare it to the current regime. 
https://www.dupuyinstitute.org/blog/2023/02/20/alexey-navalnys-15-point-tweet/
In it he emphasized that the invasion of Ukraine is a war crime and talks about ending the war and reimbursing Ukraine for the damage caused. He also wanted Russia to be a democratic Republic with open fair elections that established friendly relations with it's European neighbours. 
He does mention social justice, but we are left wondering if he meant social justice for 'everyone'.  Maybe he really did...who knows. 
Either way, I think it's impossible not to be impressed with his commitment to opposing Putin. Knowing that Putin would probably have him killed or at best banished to a Siberian prison and yet returning to Russia regardless was an amazing act of defiance. 

I think it's right to ask those questions. Navalny clearly seems to have been involved with the far right groups when he was younger and said some extremely racist and homophobic things. That's an undeniable fact. Whether he still held those views now is another question. The fact that he hasn't openly disavowed those earlier statements or apologized is obviously problematic.  It's fair to say he wasn't another Boris Nemtsov. 
On the other hand compared to Putin, everyone seems like a good option.  Navalny's 15 point manifesto released from prison last year certainly makes for refreshing reading when you compare it to the current regime. 
https://www.dupuyinstitute.org/blog/2023/02/20/alexey-navalnys-15-point-tweet/
In it he emphasized that the invasion of Ukraine is a war crime and talks about ending the war and reimbursing Ukraine for the damage caused. He also wanted Russia to be a democratic Republic with open fair elections that established friendly relations with it's European neighbours. 
He does mention social justice, but we are left wondering if he meant social justice for 'everyone'.  Maybe he really did...who knows. 
Either way, I think it's impossible not to be impressed with his commitment to opposing Putin. Knowing that Putin would probably have him killed or at best banished to a Siberian prison and yet returning to Russia regardless was an amazing act of defiance. 

I think it's right to ask those questions. Navalny clearly seems to have been involved with the far right groups when he was younger and said some extremely racist and homophobic things. That's an undeniable fact. Whether he still held those views now is another question. The fact that he hasn't openly disavowed those earlier statements or apologized is obviously problematic.  It's fair to say he wasn't another Boris Nemtsov. 
On the other hand compared to Putin, everyone seems like a good option.  Navalny's 15 point manifesto released from prison last year certainly makes for refreshing reading when you compare it to the current regime. 
https://www.dupuyinstitute.org/blog/2023/02/20/alexey-navalnys-15-point-tweet/
In it he emphasized that the invasion of Ukraine is a war crime and talks about ending the war and reimbursing Ukraine for the damage caused. He also wanted Russia to be a democratic Republic with open fair elections that established friendly relations with it's European neighbours. 
He does mention social justice, but we are left wondering if he meant social justice for 'everyone'.  Maybe he really did...who knows. 
Either way, I think it's impossible not to be impressed with his commitment to opposing Putin. Knowing that Putin would probably have him killed or at best banished to a Siberian prison and yet returning to Russia regardless was an amazing act of defiance. 

Here I agree 100%.  I think I've even said on this thread that I don't ever believe conscription is justified, even in a situation such as Ukraine finds itself in now. It should always be up to the individual to volunteer for war and it should never be compulsory in my opinion. However, I admire those with the courage to join up when their country has been invaded.
Hypothetically what would happen if no one when came when the politicians declared war?  Well that would be marvelous and in this case it would mean that Russia wouldn't have invaded Ukraine in the first place and all would be well, as Russians would simply have ignored Putin's 'special military operation'.  Ukrainians didn't have this luxury though...because if their soldiers and volunteers hadn't turned up Ukraine would now be part of the Russian state.
 
 

And it's a very good book, a genuine diatribe from a man who had the experience to know exactly what he was talking about. But you have to remember the sort of wars he was involved in. The great arm-wrestle between European Imperial powers that was WWI, the American-Philippine War, the Banana Wars in central America where the US was involved in 'nation building' that suited their economic interests, and so on.  He died before Japan attacked the US in WWII. Having read his book I really don't think he would have suggested that the US not fight back against the Japanese in 1941. 
It's true that war is a racket and it is promoted by business interests and their sponsored politicians for their own profit. But it is also true that war is sometimes justified. Just like it was justified to wage war against Germany and Japan in WWII, or it was justified for countless colonized nations fighting against their colonial oppressors throughout history, or right now, for Ukrainians to fight against an invading Russia in a war started by a man who doesn't believe that Ukraine has the right to exist. Putin is genuinely an existential threat for the Ukrainian nation.
These are not mutually exclusive concepts, they can both be true at the same time. Just because there will always people who will profit from war doesn't mean that nations have to, or should, surrender when invaded by an aggressive neighbour. 
 

And it's a very good book, a genuine diatribe from a man who had the experience to know exactly what he was talking about. But you have to remember the sort of wars he was involved in. The great arm-wrestle between European Imperial powers that was WWI, the American-Philippine War, the Banana Wars in central America where the US was involved in 'nation building' that suited their economic interests, and so on.  He died before Japan attacked the US in WWII. Having read his book I really don't think he would have suggested that the US not fight back against the Japanese in 1941. 
It's true that war is a racket and it is promoted by business interests and their sponsored politicians for their own profit. But it is also true that war is sometimes justified. Just like it was justified to wage war against Germany and Japan in WWII, or it was justified for countless colonized nations fighting against their colonial oppressors throughout history, or right now, for Ukrainians to fight against an invading Russia in a war started by a man who doesn't believe that Ukraine has the right to exist. Putin is genuinely an existential threat for the Ukrainian nation.
These are not mutually exclusive concepts, they can both be true at the same time. Just because there will always people who will profit from war doesn't mean that nations have to, or should, surrender when invaded by an aggressive neighbour. 
 

Look at what happened in Iran when women decided they'd had enough of the regime's oppression of their sex. That's what happens when only one side has guns. Look at Tiannemen Square, the Prague Spring, Hungary 1956, the Paris Commune, the Peterloo Massacre.....the examples are endless. It's exactly what will happen if Ukraine runs out of the means to defend itself. Only one man is responsible for starting that war and for all the death and destruction that has followed and is yet to come, and that is Vladimir Putin.

Here I agree 100%.  I think I've even said on this thread that I don't ever believe conscription is justified, even in a situation such as Ukraine finds itself in now. It should always be up to the individual to volunteer for war and it should never be compulsory in my opinion. However, I admire those with the courage to join up when their country has been invaded.
Hypothetically what would happen if no one when came when the politicians declared war?  Well that would be marvelous and in this case it would mean that Russia wouldn't have invaded Ukraine in the first place and all would be well, as Russians would simply have ignored Putin's 'special military operation'.  Ukrainians didn't have this luxury though...because if their soldiers and volunteers hadn't turned up Ukraine would now be part of the Russian state.
 
 

And it's a very good book, a genuine diatribe from a man who had the experience to know exactly what he was talking about. But you have to remember the sort of wars he was involved in. The great arm-wrestle between European Imperial powers that was WWI, the American-Philippine War, the Banana Wars in central America where the US was involved in 'nation building' that suited their economic interests, and so on.  He died before Japan attacked the US in WWII. Having read his book I really don't think he would have suggested that the US not fight back against the Japanese in 1941. 
It's true that war is a racket and it is promoted by business interests and their sponsored politicians for their own profit. But it is also true that war is sometimes justified. Just like it was justified to wage war against Germany and Japan in WWII, or it was justified for countless colonized nations fighting against their colonial oppressors throughout history, or right now, for Ukrainians to fight against an invading Russia in a war started by a man who doesn't believe that Ukraine has the right to exist. Putin is genuinely an existential threat for the Ukrainian nation.
These are not mutually exclusive concepts, they can both be true at the same time. Just because there will always people who will profit from war doesn't mean that nations have to, or should, surrender when invaded by an aggressive neighbour. 
 

Here I agree 100%.  I think I've even said on this thread that I don't ever believe conscription is justified, even in a situation such as Ukraine finds itself in now. It should always be up to the individual to volunteer for war and it should never be compulsory in my opinion. However, I admire those with the courage to join up when their country has been invaded.
Hypothetically what would happen if no one when came when the politicians declared war?  Well that would be marvelous and in this case it would mean that Russia wouldn't have invaded Ukraine in the first place and all would be well, as Russians would simply have ignored Putin's 'special military operation'.  Ukrainians didn't have this luxury though...because if their soldiers and volunteers hadn't turned up Ukraine would now be part of the Russian state.
 
 

The UN will be toothless so long as there is a veto.

And it's a very good book, a genuine diatribe from a man who had the experience to know exactly what he was talking about. But you have to remember the sort of wars he was involved in. The great arm-wrestle between European Imperial powers that was WWI, the American-Philippine War, the Banana Wars in central America where the US was involved in 'nation building' that suited their economic interests, and so on.  He died before Japan attacked the US in WWII. Having read his book I really don't think he would have suggested that the US not fight back against the Japanese in 1941. 
It's true that war is a racket and it is promoted by business interests and their sponsored politicians for their own profit. But it is also true that war is sometimes justified. Just like it was justified to wage war against Germany and Japan in WWII, or it was justified for countless colonized nations fighting against their colonial oppressors throughout history, or right now, for Ukrainians to fight against an invading Russia in a war started by a man who doesn't believe that Ukraine has the right to exist. Putin is genuinely an existential threat for the Ukrainian nation.
These are not mutually exclusive concepts, they can both be true at the same time. Just because there will always people who will profit from war doesn't mean that nations have to, or should, surrender when invaded by an aggressive neighbour. 
 

Indeed. In this particular war, one side can go home and live happily ever after, whenever they choose. 
The other side are home and are fighting for their right to exist.

And yet since 1969, think of all that we have achieved in terms of automated exploration of the solar system and beyond. We've explored the outer planets and their moons, sent vehicles to Mars, launched numerous telescopes, including one orbiting the Sun 1.5 million kilometres from Earth, we've even landed a probe on a comet. All magnificent technological achievements that required plenty of money and dedication. We've learned much about the universe, discovered thousands of exoplanets...and so on.  All using the increased technological capabilities that you've spoken of. I see no evidence that humanity will turn against the endeavour of exploring our universe from Earth, or with spacecraft/telescopes sent into space...and that's a good thing. I don't see at all, this rapidly closing window of interest in scientific exploration that you are speaking of.  What I do see is an unnecessary rush towards missions that we are not yet ready for and aren't particularly necessary at this time. 
The mission to the moon in the 60s was, as I'm sure you well know, as much about making a political statement as it was about achieving a stepping stone in making humans a multi-planetary species. It was a great success but once it was achieved there was simply less appetite for the pushing humans further... there wasn't much to gain by going back to the moon over and over again. So why bother?
Yes computers have advanced in the intervening decades....but humans haven't...we are still just as vulnerable and unsuited to space as we were in 1969.  Maybe that's the reason spaceflight hasn't taken off (excuse the pun) since the moon landings...whereas unmanned space exploration has been going from strength to strength. 

As eloquent and amiable off the pitch as he is robust and energetic on it. Probably our most important signing of Warne’s stewardship. I really hope we can make his deal permanent.

Really like this lad. Humble, eloquent, appreciative, super hard-working and an absolute beast on the pitch. We need to make him feel as welcome as we can, which in fairness, I think we are are. 

You both make such good points. I’m so torn.
Unless you really buy into the necessity of humans being a multi planetary species, and I’m not sure that I do, the only reason to go to mars is to say we did it. Then I can see us not doing it again for generations. There’s not really anything we can do that robots can’t, so why risk human lives. 

I think it's depressing that there appears to be quite a few people, all around the world, who think that a regime that still operates Penal Colonies and whose main political opponents tend to die either violently or in suspicious circumstances, offers a model for a New World Order.

The same people whom Navalny fearlessly criticized, namely Putin and the Russian government. The same people who weren't able to shut him up even when he was in jail. He published a 15 point plan for Russia's future from jail last year, a plan that included recognizing Ukraine's borders. That's got to have annoyed Putin. Better to make sure he doesn't do that sort of thing again. There is also the general motive of demonstrating what happens to critics of Putin in todays Russia. Crush and silence all vocal opponents...that's the motive.
The prison sentence was basically a death sentence anyway...who knows if Putin gave the order for this to happen now, but his death was surely always the plan. 

And yet since 1969, think of all that we have achieved in terms of automated exploration of the solar system and beyond. We've explored the outer planets and their moons, sent vehicles to Mars, launched numerous telescopes, including one orbiting the Sun 1.5 million kilometres from Earth, we've even landed a probe on a comet. All magnificent technological achievements that required plenty of money and dedication. We've learned much about the universe, discovered thousands of exoplanets...and so on.  All using the increased technological capabilities that you've spoken of. I see no evidence that humanity will turn against the endeavour of exploring our universe from Earth, or with spacecraft/telescopes sent into space...and that's a good thing. I don't see at all, this rapidly closing window of interest in scientific exploration that you are speaking of.  What I do see is an unnecessary rush towards missions that we are not yet ready for and aren't particularly necessary at this time. 
The mission to the moon in the 60s was, as I'm sure you well know, as much about making a political statement as it was about achieving a stepping stone in making humans a multi-planetary species. It was a great success but once it was achieved there was simply less appetite for the pushing humans further... there wasn't much to gain by going back to the moon over and over again. So why bother?
Yes computers have advanced in the intervening decades....but humans haven't...we are still just as vulnerable and unsuited to space as we were in 1969.  Maybe that's the reason spaceflight hasn't taken off (excuse the pun) since the moon landings...whereas unmanned space exploration has been going from strength to strength. 

And yet since 1969, think of all that we have achieved in terms of automated exploration of the solar system and beyond. We've explored the outer planets and their moons, sent vehicles to Mars, launched numerous telescopes, including one orbiting the Sun 1.5 million kilometres from Earth, we've even landed a probe on a comet. All magnificent technological achievements that required plenty of money and dedication. We've learned much about the universe, discovered thousands of exoplanets...and so on.  All using the increased technological capabilities that you've spoken of. I see no evidence that humanity will turn against the endeavour of exploring our universe from Earth, or with spacecraft/telescopes sent into space...and that's a good thing. I don't see at all, this rapidly closing window of interest in scientific exploration that you are speaking of.  What I do see is an unnecessary rush towards missions that we are not yet ready for and aren't particularly necessary at this time. 
The mission to the moon in the 60s was, as I'm sure you well know, as much about making a political statement as it was about achieving a stepping stone in making humans a multi-planetary species. It was a great success but once it was achieved there was simply less appetite for the pushing humans further... there wasn't much to gain by going back to the moon over and over again. So why bother?
Yes computers have advanced in the intervening decades....but humans haven't...we are still just as vulnerable and unsuited to space as we were in 1969.  Maybe that's the reason spaceflight hasn't taken off (excuse the pun) since the moon landings...whereas unmanned space exploration has been going from strength to strength. 

Kremlin critic Bill Browder says three reasons behind timing of Navalny 'murder'
One of the many questions that surround Alexi Navalny's death is why it happened now, almost three years after he returned to Russia.
Author and financier Bill Browder said there were three reasons for the timing.
Firstly, Vladimir Putin wanted to eliminate a political opponent.
Secondly, he wanted to show Russians that if you oppose Mr Putin you will face death.
And thirdly, it sent a message to those sitting at the Munich Security Conference, where world leaders meet to discuss defence issues, that Mr Putin can "cross every red line and get away with it".
Bill Browder
"To watch somebody who I knew, who I respected, who I worked with, murdered in the light of day was a huge shock to the system," said Mr Browder.
"Let's not mince words here - he was murdered, he didn't die, he was murdered at the hands of Vladimir Putin."

That poisoning with a nerve agent in 2020 came pretty close.
You want a reason? Because he can, because his invasion of Ukraine has set him so firmly against the West that, internationally, he knows it won't make a jot of difference to what friends and foes think of him. Most of the BRICS countries are run by people who would love to do what he's just done to his biggest opponent.