Mate, I could do a top 50! I love megaliths, if I go anywhere and find out there is some mysterious ancient stone monument nearby, I practically orgasm
And now you've set me off. Here are my top ten megalithic monuments of the world
10. Newgrange, Ireland 9. Avebury, England 8. Carnac, France 7. Castlerigg, England 6. Uragh, Ireland 5. Callanish, Scotland 4. Ggantija, Malta 3. Brodgar, Orkney 2. Stonehenge, England 1. Gobekli Tepe, Turkey
Moronic Governments of all flavours still insist exercise = weight loss. Rubbish.
The secret to losing weight is very simple, eat fewer calories. Yet we seem to gloss over this.
If you ate a Big Mac every day for a lifetime you'd never get fat, not enough calories. You would have all sorts of issues but it's not what people eat, it is the quantity.
I’m not sure about that.
Mathematically you are correct, but calories from protein seem to be less fattening than calories from carbs and sugar.
Fasting seems to speeds up overall calorie burn.
And frequent exercise is highly correlated with weight loss.
Thirty minutes of exercise a day is not going to put you into a caloric deficit on average. Not when the average person is something like 500+ calories over their caloric maintenance.
Halving one meal a day would go much further to cutting weight than exercise.
I am fully in support of exercise - but it is not a weight loss strategy on its own.
If people are on average 500+ calories above maintenance level then shouldn't they keep getting fatter and fatter until they explode?
The more weight you gain, the more calories you need to maintain it, so at some point the two line up. But people that keep eating do keep getting larger and larger and larger, so yes.
Obviously, the heavier you are, the more energy it takes to drag yourself around, and therefore the maintenance calorie level rises.
But you wrote "the average person is something like 500+ calories over their caloric maintenance".
And I stand by that, the average person is something like 500 calories over. Every year obesity gets worse which would support that statement.
Calories in/calories out. Eating absolutely loads while doing mad exercise is one of life's great pleasures.
Otherwise, sleep enough so you don't crave sugar rush to bear tiredness. Drink water to keep stomach full, and carb up before you do your weekly shop (makes crisps look much less appetising).
Well said.
I've been bulking for the last year or so - just finished - and have put on about 15KG of muscle. It's been a pleasurable experience being able to eat lots.
15kg of MUSCLE...are you sure? How many PEDs have you been taking....your pee must be like the colour of a rusty pipe.
About 0.25kg a week, you can gain about 0.5kg in early training (which I am in).
Yes I am pretty sure. We can round it down to 10kg if you'd like but I am still as lean as I was because I've bulked so slowly.
There are some clear signs that the wheels are starting to come off for Putin. When you get pundits on Russian state TV’s main show calling for the Kremlin to end the investigation and some of the oligarchs starting to break ranks (look at Vladimir Potanin’s comments on the proposal to seize foreign owned assets), there is something clearly happening.
There are some clear signs that the wheels are starting to come off for Putin. When you get pundits on Russian state TV’s main show calling for the Kremlin to end the investigation and some of the oligarchs starting to break ranks (look at Vladimir Potanin’s comments on the proposal to seize foreign owned assets), there is something clearly happening.
There are some clear signs that the wheels are starting to come off for Putin. When you get pundits on Russian state TV’s main show calling for the Kremlin to end the investigation and some of the oligarchs starting to break ranks (look at Vladimir Potanin’s comments on the proposal to seize foreign owned assets), there is something clearly happening.
There are some clear signs that the wheels are starting to come off for Putin. When you get pundits on Russian state TV’s main show calling for the Kremlin to end the investigation and some of the oligarchs starting to break ranks (look at Vladimir Potanin’s comments on the proposal to seize foreign owned assets), there is something clearly happening.
"Chernihiv is now assessed to be isolated, joining Mariupol in that regard.
The front of the long-stalled Russian military convoy north of Kyiv has made incremental progress, moving from about 20 km outside the city center to 15 km away. Another advance on Kyiv is now 40 km to the east of the city, the senior U.S. defense official says.
U.S. has made weapons deliveries to the Ukrainians within the last 24 hours, with more planned within the day. Plan is to get them “as much and as fast as we can, for as long as we can.” No transfer has been interrupted by the Russians – “yet,” the senior defense official says."
Worth pointing out that the Russian advance is as far as Irpin, and they started at Hostomel, so it's not exactly virgin ground being fought over.
There are some clear signs that the wheels are starting to come off for Putin. When you get pundits on Russian state TV’s main show calling for the Kremlin to end the investigation and some of the oligarchs starting to break ranks (look at Vladimir Potanin’s comments on the proposal to seize foreign owned assets), there is something clearly happening.
Yep. The clock is ticking for Putin now. The Russian army being defeated by Ukraine is a humiliation that cannot be ignored, and looks increasingly likely.
How extensive the Navalny protests are this weekend will be vert interesting.
This seemed eminently avoidable for Jacinda. The utter cock up with omicron there: trying useless restrictions like vaxports that have failed everywhere and leaning on extreme isolation rules was just stupid. Overall NZ has had an excellent pandemic but recency bias has probably done for her.
There are some clear signs that the wheels are starting to come off for Putin. When you get pundits on Russian state TV’s main show calling for the Kremlin to end the investigation and some of the oligarchs starting to break ranks (look at Vladimir Potanin’s comments on the proposal to seize foreign owned assets), there is something clearly happening.
Damn, not investigation, I meant invasion
You know there is an "edit" button?
Yup when I’m on the PC but can’t seem to find it when on the mobile.
Mate, I could do a top 50! I love megaliths, if I go anywhere and find out there is some mysterious ancient stone monument nearby, I practically orgasm
And now you've set me off. Here are my top ten megalithic monuments of the world
10. Newgrange, Ireland 9. Avebury, England 8. Carnac, France 7. Castlerigg, England 6. Uragh, Ireland 5. Callanish, Scotland 4. Ggantija, Malta 3. Brodgar, Orkney 2. Stonehenge, England 1. Gobekli Tepe, Turkey
And I have seen them all
This might be mis-remembered nonsense: On Orkney there are two standing stones with holes in them, miles apart.
If you line them both up it directs you down the entrance tunnel to Maes Howe. Which is also aligned with the setting sun on the solstice, bathing the chamber in light.
It doesn't work any more as the axis of the earth had shifted since then.
There are some clear signs that the wheels are starting to come off for Putin. When you get pundits on Russian state TV’s main show calling for the Kremlin to end the investigation and some of the oligarchs starting to break ranks (look at Vladimir Potanin’s comments on the proposal to seize foreign owned assets), there is something clearly happening.
Yep. The clock is ticking for Putin now. The Russian army being defeated by Ukraine is a humiliation that cannot be ignored, and looks increasingly likely.
How extensive the Navalny protests are this weekend will be vert interesting.
Indeed. I would be amazed if a large chunk of the ruling class is not thinking that, if they get rid of Putin and call off the invasion while blaming him for the decision, they might be able to wrangle themselves out of this. If Putin stays, so do the sanctions.
There are some clear signs that the wheels are starting to come off for Putin. When you get pundits on Russian state TV’s main show calling for the Kremlin to end the investigation and some of the oligarchs starting to break ranks (look at Vladimir Potanin’s comments on the proposal to seize foreign owned assets), there is something clearly happening.
Yep. The clock is ticking for Putin now. The Russian army being defeated by Ukraine is a humiliation that cannot be ignored, and looks increasingly likely.
How extensive the Navalny protests are this weekend will be vert interesting.
Indeed. I would be amazed if a large chunk of the ruling class is not thinking that, if they get rid of Putin and call off the invasion while blaming him for the decision, they might be able to wrangle themselves out of this. If Putin stays, so do the sanctions.
The danger for them is that Navalny is very anti-corruption, but also quite the nationalist.
I think there will be few of the ruling class In the post Putin government.
I know it isn't important. But the inability of Leeds, Burnley, Watford and Norwich to pick up a single point lately has cheered me up a little. We've a lot of games in hand now. Although that will probably only serve to make our goal difference worse. 11/2 about an EFC relegation seems value. I'm on at eights. Which seems monstrous considering who we have left to play.
Mate, I could do a top 50! I love megaliths, if I go anywhere and find out there is some mysterious ancient stone monument nearby, I practically orgasm
And now you've set me off. Here are my top ten megalithic monuments of the world
10. Newgrange, Ireland 9. Avebury, England 8. Carnac, France 7. Castlerigg, England 6. Uragh, Ireland 5. Callanish, Scotland 4. Ggantija, Malta 3. Brodgar, Orkney 2. Stonehenge, England 1. Gobekli Tepe, Turkey
And I have seen them all
One of my favourite sites in the UK is Pentre Ifan - a dolmen rather than a stone circle. Hidden away in Pembrokeshire countryside not far from the source of the Bluestones of Stonehenge and a world away from Wiltshire.
A remnant, yes, but somehow still a fantastical structure.
Mate, I could do a top 50! I love megaliths, if I go anywhere and find out there is some mysterious ancient stone monument nearby, I practically orgasm
And now you've set me off. Here are my top ten megalithic monuments of the world
10. Newgrange, Ireland 9. Avebury, England 8. Carnac, France 7. Castlerigg, England 6. Uragh, Ireland 5. Callanish, Scotland 4. Ggantija, Malta 3. Brodgar, Orkney 2. Stonehenge, England 1. Gobekli Tepe, Turkey
And I have seen them all
This might be mis-remembered nonsense: On Orkney there are two standing stones with holes in them, miles apart.
If you line them both up it directs you down the entrance tunnel to Maes Howe. Which is also aligned with the setting sun on the solstice, bathing the chamber in light.
It doesn't work any more as the axis of the earth had shifted since then.
I can well believe it. The Orcadian megaliths are amazing
One of the many many surprises of the wonderful Stonehenge exhibition at the British Museum (which I may have menshed) was discovering just how interlinked these worlds were. Skara Brae, Stonehenge, northwest France, Germany, Denmark, even Greece - they exchanged ideas, objects, memes, motifs - as they travelled easily around Europe. They wore gold hats and wolf-teeth dresses and they had fabulous mythology. And they inhabited a wholly unspoiled world, perhaps devoid of guilt
I wonder if they were happier than us. Possibly they were
There are some clear signs that the wheels are starting to come off for Putin. When you get pundits on Russian state TV’s main show calling for the Kremlin to end the investigation and some of the oligarchs starting to break ranks (look at Vladimir Potanin’s comments on the proposal to seize foreign owned assets), there is something clearly happening.
Yep. The clock is ticking for Putin now. The Russian army being defeated by Ukraine is a humiliation that cannot be ignored, and looks increasingly likely.
How extensive the Navalny protests are this weekend will be vert interesting.
The UK and western media (mainstream and social) is so relentlessly anti-Putin I do wonder if they are largely telling themselves what they want to believe rather than what is is really happening in Ukraine and Russia. It's one thing to acknowledge stiff Ukrainian resistance in the first two weeks of the conflict but to declare Russia on the brink of defeat or Putin about to lose power is a pretty big leap I just don't see any real evidence for.
There are some clear signs that the wheels are starting to come off for Putin. When you get pundits on Russian state TV’s main show calling for the Kremlin to end the investigation and some of the oligarchs starting to break ranks (look at Vladimir Potanin’s comments on the proposal to seize foreign owned assets), there is something clearly happening.
Damn, not investigation, I meant invasion
You know there is an "edit" button?
Yup when I’m on the PC but can’t seem to find it when on the mobile.
You need to tick desktop site in the 3 dot menu top right
Given Melenchon is even more pro Putin than Le Pen and wants to pull France out of NATO (Le Pen has at least shredded pictures of her meeting Putin and opposed the invasion) I doubt it makes any difference at all to the likelihood of Le Pen being Macron's opponent in the runoff.
The latest poll has Macron getting a boost from the situation on 30%, Le Pen still second on 18%, Pecresse third on 12% and Melenchon and Zemmour tied 4th on 11%.
As this is a betting site, and you don’t wish to mislead us, “ Given Melenchon is even more pro Putin than Le Pen and wants to pull France out of NATO” share with us this evidence you have seen from this campaign. I looked around for this and couldn’t find it.
The problem is that Mélenchon is a Corbyn lookalike who is just as compromised as Le Pen when it comes to his stance vis a vis Putin. Hollande has just said that Mélenchon may be a “useful vote”, in that he’s the front runner amongst the fissiparous left, but he weren’t be a “useful president”! He’s plateauing in recent polls.
I’m calling you out on this, Blurp. to call the ardent Nationalist Melenchon Corbynite is to call Corbyn an ardent Nationalist. Le Pen and Melenchon sit on the opposite side of the table from Corbyn. Anti immigration. Anti EU. Close borders, look after our own with early retirement etc. you need to take a closer look and rethink your response.
Once it gets underway this French election is not as it seems - Macrons policy positions are a declaration of war on what the French Electorate want right now.
That’s a good find HY! 🙂 have you got TASS on speed dial. I didn’t actually go looking for quote from TASS, the Russian news agency, I thought maybe people would disbelieve it on here, can we be sure he did actually say that, even if it was just what we wanted to hear, can we trust TASS, I checked BBC and French press for same thing.
The next bit, "I would first and foremost like to restore our military sovereignty. France, who has nuclear deterrent forces, should be independent and should not depend on the US in terms of arms production," Melenchon added. That makes him sound very much the French Nationalist? That line might actually be popular with a lot of the French electorate? Especially post AUKUS double dealing? It doesn’t prove Melenchon is pro Putin because De Gaulle was not Pro Kremlin when he took France out NATO. France only rejoined NATO in 2009, when de gaule took them out they were out 44 years, so it’s not such a wild proposition for the French electorate out NATO as for UK? Especially with this Ukraine situation playing in this French election. “"Why do we have to protect Ukraine’s borders?" Melenchon said. As it turned out, we didn’t, as last evening on PB showed we are watching Putin place Ukraine borders where he wants, without UK and France defending them, leaving Melenchon position very little different than the UK governments now, and probably just a tad more honest and straight speaking about it ☹️
All I’m saying is, as political bettors, we shouldn’t view French election as though it was English. The fact they have been out NATO those 44 years recently shows they are different, far more independent minded and nationalist than the English. And a lot of very local factors could play a part in French election this year, I’ll give you one example, there’s a lot of clear yellow between Macron on one side and the Yellowjacket candidates Melenchon and Le Pen regarding credit crunch, pension age, unfair tax system.
De Gaulle didn't leave NATO - he opted the French military out of the integrated command structure, but France remained a part of NATO.
Not as the headlines on Google search tells it. Joined 49, left 66, rejoined 2009
It's still wrong though. :-)
They were part of the integrated planning for WWIII all through those years, paying into the various common funds, providing tons of staff at NATO headquarters etc etc.
EDIT: One thing about NATO that seems to get missed is that it is a very variable geometry alliance - there are some minima requirements to be a member, but after that then nature of the relationship a country has with NATO is quite flexible.
I felt there was more mileage and much for me to learn in what you were saying, so I copied it across.
So, if you “opt out the integrated command structure for a variable geometric relationship” are you still obliged to go to aid of an attacked member? That would be a definition whether you were actually in it or not, like the Malmesbury versus the internet argument about France out for 44 years or still actually in?
In fact where you went on to say
“One thing about NATO that seems to get missed is that it is a very variable geometry alliance - there are some minima requirements to be a member, but after that then nature of the relationship a country has with NATO is quite flexible.”
How much flexibility is there today in being able to pick and choose and opt out a conflict?
There are some clear signs that the wheels are starting to come off for Putin. When you get pundits on Russian state TV’s main show calling for the Kremlin to end the investigation and some of the oligarchs starting to break ranks (look at Vladimir Potanin’s comments on the proposal to seize foreign owned assets), there is something clearly happening.
Yep. The clock is ticking for Putin now. The Russian army being defeated by Ukraine is a humiliation that cannot be ignored, and looks increasingly likely.
How extensive the Navalny protests are this weekend will be vert interesting.
Indeed. I would be amazed if a large chunk of the ruling class is not thinking that, if they get rid of Putin and call off the invasion while blaming him for the decision, they might be able to wrangle themselves out of this. If Putin stays, so do the sanctions.
The danger for them is that Navalny is very anti-corruption, but also quite the nationalist.
I think there will be few of the ruling class In the post Putin government.
My latest in a long line of shit WWII takes is that Navalny is a kind of Russian von Stauffenberg (Long live our sacred Germany and all that). It would certainly be interesting to see how willing he would be to withdraw from Putin's version of Russian nationalism.
There are some clear signs that the wheels are starting to come off for Putin. When you get pundits on Russian state TV’s main show calling for the Kremlin to end the investigation and some of the oligarchs starting to break ranks (look at Vladimir Potanin’s comments on the proposal to seize foreign owned assets), there is something clearly happening.
Yep. The clock is ticking for Putin now. The Russian army being defeated by Ukraine is a humiliation that cannot be ignored, and looks increasingly likely.
How extensive the Navalny protests are this weekend will be vert interesting.
The UK and western media (mainstream and social) is so relentlessly anti-Putin I do wonder if they are largely telling themselves what they want to believe rather than what is is really happening in Ukraine and Russia. It's one thing to acknowledge stiff Ukrainian resistance in the first two weeks of the conflict but to declare Russia on the brink of defeat or Putin about to lose power is a pretty big leap I just don't see any real evidence for.
The problem for Putin isn't so much he's about to lose it's that he can't win. Even if he takes all the cities in Ukrainian cities in Central and Eastern Ukraine (which he probably will), he will have to have a very expensive permanent occupation and even then it will be tentative control that will evaporate as soon as he pares back troops. Meanwhile his economy is collapsing to pay for it.
There are some clear signs that the wheels are starting to come off for Putin. When you get pundits on Russian state TV’s main show calling for the Kremlin to end the investigation and some of the oligarchs starting to break ranks (look at Vladimir Potanin’s comments on the proposal to seize foreign owned assets), there is something clearly happening.
Yep. The clock is ticking for Putin now. The Russian army being defeated by Ukraine is a humiliation that cannot be ignored, and looks increasingly likely.
How extensive the Navalny protests are this weekend will be vert interesting.
The UK and western media (mainstream and social) is so relentlessly anti-Putin I do wonder if they are largely telling themselves what they want to believe rather than what is is really happening in Ukraine and Russia. It's one thing to acknowledge stiff Ukrainian resistance in the first two weeks of the conflict but to declare Russia on the brink of defeat or Putin about to lose power is a pretty big leap I just don't see any real evidence for.
Yes, I don't buy this "Putin is now definitely losing" stuff
The Russian Army is clearly struggling, but Russian armies have struggled before, and won out in the end, as we all know
And Putin has plenty of cards to play, most of them barbaric, but he won't mind that
There are some clear signs that the wheels are starting to come off for Putin. When you get pundits on Russian state TV’s main show calling for the Kremlin to end the investigation and some of the oligarchs starting to break ranks (look at Vladimir Potanin’s comments on the proposal to seize foreign owned assets), there is something clearly happening.
Yep. The clock is ticking for Putin now. The Russian army being defeated by Ukraine is a humiliation that cannot be ignored, and looks increasingly likely.
How extensive the Navalny protests are this weekend will be vert interesting.
The UK and western media (mainstream and social) is so relentlessly anti-Putin I do wonder if they are largely telling themselves what they want to believe rather than what is is really happening in Ukraine and Russia. It's one thing to acknowledge stiff Ukrainian resistance in the first two weeks of the conflict but to declare Russia on the brink of defeat or Putin about to lose power is a pretty big leap I just don't see any real evidence for.
True. But on the other hand, I doubt we would see any evidence of Putin's fall until the very last minute.
There are some clear signs that the wheels are starting to come off for Putin. When you get pundits on Russian state TV’s main show calling for the Kremlin to end the investigation and some of the oligarchs starting to break ranks (look at Vladimir Potanin’s comments on the proposal to seize foreign owned assets), there is something clearly happening.
Mate, I could do a top 50! I love megaliths, if I go anywhere and find out there is some mysterious ancient stone monument nearby, I practically orgasm
And now you've set me off. Here are my top ten megalithic monuments of the world
10. Newgrange, Ireland 9. Avebury, England 8. Carnac, France 7. Castlerigg, England 6. Uragh, Ireland 5. Callanish, Scotland 4. Ggantija, Malta 3. Brodgar, Orkney 2. Stonehenge, England 1. Gobekli Tepe, Turkey
And I have seen them all
This might be mis-remembered nonsense: On Orkney there are two standing stones with holes in them, miles apart.
If you line them both up it directs you down the entrance tunnel to Maes Howe. Which is also aligned with the setting sun on the solstice, bathing the chamber in light.
It doesn't work any more as the axis of the earth had shifted since then.
Mate, I could do a top 50! I love megaliths, if I go anywhere and find out there is some mysterious ancient stone monument nearby, I practically orgasm
And now you've set me off. Here are my top ten megalithic monuments of the world
10. Newgrange, Ireland 9. Avebury, England 8. Carnac, France 7. Castlerigg, England 6. Uragh, Ireland 5. Callanish, Scotland 4. Ggantija, Malta 3. Brodgar, Orkney 2. Stonehenge, England 1. Gobekli Tepe, Turkey
And I have seen them all
This might be mis-remembered nonsense: On Orkney there are two standing stones with holes in them, miles apart.
If you line them both up it directs you down the entrance tunnel to Maes Howe. Which is also aligned with the setting sun on the solstice, bathing the chamber in light.
It doesn't work any more as the axis of the earth had shifted since then.
I can well believe it. The Orcadian megaliths are amazing
One of the many many surprises of the wonderful Stonehenge exhibition at the British Museum (which I may have menshed) was discovering just how interlinked these worlds were. Skara Brae, Stonehenge, northwest France, Germany, Denmark, even Greece - they exchanged ideas, objects, memes, motifs - as they travelled easily around Europe. They wore gold hats and wolf-teeth dresses and they had fabulous mythology. And they inhabited a wholly unspoiled world, perhaps devoid of guilt
I wonder if they were happier than us. Possibly they were
Some people reckon a chap called Yahweh came from Judea to England to ask the Druid’s a question. “Hello Druid, son of Druid” [it may not have gone exactly like this, but similar] “can you tell me sir, before Piscean age there was no North Star, so how did your ancient builders accurately know where North was?”
Mate, I could do a top 50! I love megaliths, if I go anywhere and find out there is some mysterious ancient stone monument nearby, I practically orgasm
And now you've set me off. Here are my top ten megalithic monuments of the world
10. Newgrange, Ireland 9. Avebury, England 8. Carnac, France 7. Castlerigg, England 6. Uragh, Ireland 5. Callanish, Scotland 4. Ggantija, Malta 3. Brodgar, Orkney 2. Stonehenge, England 1. Gobekli Tepe, Turkey
And I have seen them all
This might be mis-remembered nonsense: On Orkney there are two standing stones with holes in them, miles apart.
If you line them both up it directs you down the entrance tunnel to Maes Howe. Which is also aligned with the setting sun on the solstice, bathing the chamber in light.
It doesn't work any more as the axis of the earth had shifted since then.
I can well believe it. The Orcadian megaliths are amazing
One of the many many surprises of the wonderful Stonehenge exhibition at the British Museum (which I may have menshed) was discovering just how interlinked these worlds were. Skara Brae, Stonehenge, northwest France, Germany, Denmark, even Greece - they exchanged ideas, objects, memes, motifs - as they travelled easily around Europe. They wore gold hats and wolf-teeth dresses and they had fabulous mythology. And they inhabited a wholly unspoiled world, perhaps devoid of guilt
I wonder if they were happier than us. Possibly they were
From about an hour ago: Yes, good guess! My favourite stone circle is Castlerigg. It's pretty perfect. Everything I want a stone circle to be. And oh, my, the views! I saw my only ever unexplained phenomenon there. I saw a chap dowsing. He gave his dowsing rods to and American tourist who expressed an interest - had never heard of it before - and the look of wonder on the American who got exactly the same result was a joy to behold. You never get Castlerigg to yourself though - though the other people enjoying it are part of its charm But when I was at Mitchell's Fold it was like I was the only soul left on earth.
I love the ancientness of stone circles. But I also love the places where the ancients chose to site them. They feel significant. You can see why they were chosen.
But I wonder if there is something inherently satisfying about stones in a circle. There is a rather nice stone circle on top of Old Pale Heights in Delamere Forest in Cheshire. It dates back to, ooh, about 2,000. It still manages to be quite satisfying.
EDIT: Just seen your list. I love Stonehenge - for pure stoniness, you can't beat it. But they're particularly difficult to get a good feel for. The most satisfying view of Stonehenge I have ever had was driving past on the A303(?) with the low sun lighting them up. I wasn't even looking for them. But if I could go back to one in the south west, it would be Avebury. They somehow feel more impressively ancient. I think it is the way they are so tied in with the village - like humas have been here for a long, long time. I've also seen Callanish, in a foul Hebridean rainstorm under a low grey sky. Atmospheric, but not one to come away feeling good about. The one on your list I really want to see is Brodgar.
I'd also give a polite thumbs up to the Nine Ladies in Derbyshire and the Rollright Stones in Oxfordshire. Sensible, pleasant, unthreatening megaliths suitable for introducing to a maiden aunt.
Corrupt and fucking useless. The current version has the picture blanked out in best Stalinist style.
These posts are embarrassing, even without the photo mess-up.
It’s the FCO, not fucking Buzzfeed
Well also never mind the embarrassment, let's not ignore the substantive point that this blokes son has been appointed to the UK legislature for sucking the cock and balls of services rendered to a former Chancellor of the exchequer and the current prime minister, and nobody seems to mind, or even have the bad taste to mention the fact
Sucking probably the other way round come to think of it
Given Melenchon is even more pro Putin than Le Pen and wants to pull France out of NATO (Le Pen has at least shredded pictures of her meeting Putin and opposed the invasion) I doubt it makes any difference at all to the likelihood of Le Pen being Macron's opponent in the runoff.
The latest poll has Macron getting a boost from the situation on 30%, Le Pen still second on 18%, Pecresse third on 12% and Melenchon and Zemmour tied 4th on 11%.
As this is a betting site, and you don’t wish to mislead us, “ Given Melenchon is even more pro Putin than Le Pen and wants to pull France out of NATO” share with us this evidence you have seen from this campaign. I looked around for this and couldn’t find it.
The problem is that Mélenchon is a Corbyn lookalike who is just as compromised as Le Pen when it comes to his stance vis a vis Putin. Hollande has just said that Mélenchon may be a “useful vote”, in that he’s the front runner amongst the fissiparous left, but he weren’t be a “useful president”! He’s plateauing in recent polls.
I’m calling you out on this, Blurp. to call the ardent Nationalist Melenchon Corbynite is to call Corbyn an ardent Nationalist. Le Pen and Melenchon sit on the opposite side of the table from Corbyn. Anti immigration. Anti EU. Close borders, look after our own with early retirement etc. you need to take a closer look and rethink your response.
Once it gets underway this French election is not as it seems - Macrons policy positions are a declaration of war on what the French Electorate want right now.
That’s a good find HY! 🙂 have you got TASS on speed dial. I didn’t actually go looking for quote from TASS, the Russian news agency, I thought maybe people would disbelieve it on here, can we be sure he did actually say that, even if it was just what we wanted to hear, can we trust TASS, I checked BBC and French press for same thing.
The next bit, "I would first and foremost like to restore our military sovereignty. France, who has nuclear deterrent forces, should be independent and should not depend on the US in terms of arms production," Melenchon added. That makes him sound very much the French Nationalist? That line might actually be popular with a lot of the French electorate? Especially post AUKUS double dealing? It doesn’t prove Melenchon is pro Putin because De Gaulle was not Pro Kremlin when he took France out NATO. France only rejoined NATO in 2009, when de gaule took them out they were out 44 years, so it’s not such a wild proposition for the French electorate out NATO as for UK? Especially with this Ukraine situation playing in this French election. “"Why do we have to protect Ukraine’s borders?" Melenchon said. As it turned out, we didn’t, as last evening on PB showed we are watching Putin place Ukraine borders where he wants, without UK and France defending them, leaving Melenchon position very little different than the UK governments now, and probably just a tad more honest and straight speaking about it ☹️
All I’m saying is, as political bettors, we shouldn’t view French election as though it was English. The fact they have been out NATO those 44 years recently shows they are different, far more independent minded and nationalist than the English. And a lot of very local factors could play a part in French election this year, I’ll give you one example, there’s a lot of clear yellow between Macron on one side and the Yellowjacket candidates Melenchon and Le Pen regarding credit crunch, pension age, unfair tax system.
De Gaulle didn't leave NATO - he opted the French military out of the integrated command structure, but France remained a part of NATO.
Not as the headlines on Google search tells it. Joined 49, left 66, rejoined 2009
It's still wrong though. :-)
They were part of the integrated planning for WWIII all through those years, paying into the various common funds, providing tons of staff at NATO headquarters etc etc.
EDIT: One thing about NATO that seems to get missed is that it is a very variable geometry alliance - there are some minima requirements to be a member, but after that then nature of the relationship a country has with NATO is quite flexible.
I felt there was more mileage and much for me to learn in what you were saying, so I copied it across.
So, if you “opt out the integrated command structure for a variable geometric relationship” are you still obliged to go to aid of an attacked member? That would be a definition whether you were actually in it or not, like the Malmesbury versus the internet argument about France out for 44 years or still actually in?
In fact where you went on to say
“One thing about NATO that seems to get missed is that it is a very variable geometry alliance - there are some minima requirements to be a member, but after that then nature of the relationship a country has with NATO is quite flexible.”
How much flexibility is there today in being able to pick and choose and opt out a conflict?
- Greece and Turkey have been at each other's throats for many years, arguing over Cyprus. Complete with invasions, fighting etc. Without dragging the other NATO members in. With Turkey and Greece in SHAPE, all the while...
- While there is a requirement to go to the aid of members who are attacked "in area*", there is no legally binding definition of what that "aid" should be. So you could send a letter deploring the attack, in theory.
- The 2% minimum spend on defence is a recommendation, without any force/legal basis/or penalties, apart from being neighbourly
*There is special provision to exclude colonial territories - hence the Falklands was "out of area" for NATO.
The constant talking up that Putin will use Chemical weapons, can we be hopeful this is laying down a red line for NATO involvement? UK and US preparing the way with this “he is planning to use chemical weapons he always does” line, to tell NATO enough is enough, now we go in. If not, why are they saying it before proof it has happened? If anything it just alarms more Ukrainians not to stay and fight?
There are some clear signs that the wheels are starting to come off for Putin. When you get pundits on Russian state TV’s main show calling for the Kremlin to end the investigation and some of the oligarchs starting to break ranks (look at Vladimir Potanin’s comments on the proposal to seize foreign owned assets), there is something clearly happening.
Yep. The clock is ticking for Putin now. The Russian army being defeated by Ukraine is a humiliation that cannot be ignored, and looks increasingly likely.
How extensive the Navalny protests are this weekend will be vert interesting.
The UK and western media (mainstream and social) is so relentlessly anti-Putin I do wonder if they are largely telling themselves what they want to believe rather than what is is really happening in Ukraine and Russia. It's one thing to acknowledge stiff Ukrainian resistance in the first two weeks of the conflict but to declare Russia on the brink of defeat or Putin about to lose power is a pretty big leap I just don't see any real evidence for.
The US is saying that Chernihiv, another sizable city of nearly 300k, has been encircled. The Ukrainians haven't been able to lift the siege of Mariupol, despite the desperate need to do so.
The Ukrainians are doing very well, inflicting heavy damage on the Russian army and air force, but they're heavily outnumbered, don't have enough forces to cover every front, and so lack the ability to launch a major counter-offensive.
They're going to have to continue to inflict disproportionate losses for a long time to turn the tide.
There are some clear signs that the wheels are starting to come off for Putin. When you get pundits on Russian state TV’s main show calling for the Kremlin to end the investigation and some of the oligarchs starting to break ranks (look at Vladimir Potanin’s comments on the proposal to seize foreign owned assets), there is something clearly happening.
Yep. The clock is ticking for Putin now. The Russian army being defeated by Ukraine is a humiliation that cannot be ignored, and looks increasingly likely.
How extensive the Navalny protests are this weekend will be vert interesting.
Indeed. I would be amazed if a large chunk of the ruling class is not thinking that, if they get rid of Putin and call off the invasion while blaming him for the decision, they might be able to wrangle themselves out of this. If Putin stays, so do the sanctions.
The danger for them is that Navalny is very anti-corruption, but also quite the nationalist.
I think there will be few of the ruling class In the post Putin government.
My latest in a long line of shit WWII takes is that Navalny is a kind of Russian von Stauffenberg (Long live our sacred Germany and all that). It would certainly be interesting to see how willing he would be to withdraw from Putin's version of Russian nationalism.
Stauffenberg, being a Junker, wanted Poland obliterated - as a menace to Prussia.
Hitler didn't just invent his war aims off the cuff. They were the most extreme version of Greater Germany Nationalism that he could find - so there was something in there for everyone.
Mate, I could do a top 50! I love megaliths, if I go anywhere and find out there is some mysterious ancient stone monument nearby, I practically orgasm
And now you've set me off. Here are my top ten megalithic monuments of the world
10. Newgrange, Ireland 9. Avebury, England 8. Carnac, France 7. Castlerigg, England 6. Uragh, Ireland 5. Callanish, Scotland 4. Ggantija, Malta 3. Brodgar, Orkney 2. Stonehenge, England 1. Gobekli Tepe, Turkey
And I have seen them all
This might be mis-remembered nonsense: On Orkney there are two standing stones with holes in them, miles apart.
If you line them both up it directs you down the entrance tunnel to Maes Howe. Which is also aligned with the setting sun on the solstice, bathing the chamber in light.
It doesn't work any more as the axis of the earth had shifted since then.
I can well believe it. The Orcadian megaliths are amazing
One of the many many surprises of the wonderful Stonehenge exhibition at the British Museum (which I may have menshed) was discovering just how interlinked these worlds were. Skara Brae, Stonehenge, northwest France, Germany, Denmark, even Greece - they exchanged ideas, objects, memes, motifs - as they travelled easily around Europe. They wore gold hats and wolf-teeth dresses and they had fabulous mythology. And they inhabited a wholly unspoiled world, perhaps devoid of guilt
I wonder if they were happier than us. Possibly they were
Some people reckon a chap called Yahweh came from Judea to England to ask the Druid’s a question. “Hello Druid, son of Druid” [it may not have gone exactly like this, but similar] “can you tell me sir, before Piscean age there was no North Star, so how did your ancient builders accurately know where North was?”
Have you come across the answer to that Leon?
Not difficult. You wait for sunrise, on any non cloudy day of the year. You put a peg between you, and sunrise. You do the same at sunset. You halve the angle between the 2, and that is north. Or south. North stars are secondary in that you only know they *are* the north star by doing this exercise
There are some clear signs that the wheels are starting to come off for Putin. When you get pundits on Russian state TV’s main show calling for the Kremlin to end the investigation and some of the oligarchs starting to break ranks (look at Vladimir Potanin’s comments on the proposal to seize foreign owned assets), there is something clearly happening.
Russian censorship is very curious - sometimes it clamps down on trivial things that you'd think they'd shrug off. Sometimes something substantial like this gets ignored, and nobody really knows if there's a policy change or just a censor in a good mood. Sometimes there's possibly some kite-flying - let someone go off piste and see how people react.
In normal times you can get away with a fair amount, hence the existence of liberal radio stations and press that were recently shut down, and rather than mass imprisonment of dissidents they seem to pick on a few prominent dissidents like Navalny as a warning to everyone else: there don't seem to be huge numbers of people locked up for long periods. But the lack of certainty is what kills serious open debate - if you're a regular critic then sooner or later you will get arrested.
My impression, though, is that the military think they're gradually winning the war by successive encirclement, so we won't see a coup any time soon, but we could see something civilian.
Mate, I could do a top 50! I love megaliths, if I go anywhere and find out there is some mysterious ancient stone monument nearby, I practically orgasm
And now you've set me off. Here are my top ten megalithic monuments of the world
10. Newgrange, Ireland 9. Avebury, England 8. Carnac, France 7. Castlerigg, England 6. Uragh, Ireland 5. Callanish, Scotland 4. Ggantija, Malta 3. Brodgar, Orkney 2. Stonehenge, England 1. Gobekli Tepe, Turkey
And I have seen them all
This might be mis-remembered nonsense: On Orkney there are two standing stones with holes in them, miles apart.
If you line them both up it directs you down the entrance tunnel to Maes Howe. Which is also aligned with the setting sun on the solstice, bathing the chamber in light.
It doesn't work any more as the axis of the earth had shifted since then.
I can well believe it. The Orcadian megaliths are amazing
One of the many many surprises of the wonderful Stonehenge exhibition at the British Museum (which I may have menshed) was discovering just how interlinked these worlds were. Skara Brae, Stonehenge, northwest France, Germany, Denmark, even Greece - they exchanged ideas, objects, memes, motifs - as they travelled easily around Europe. They wore gold hats and wolf-teeth dresses and they had fabulous mythology. And they inhabited a wholly unspoiled world, perhaps devoid of guilt
I wonder if they were happier than us. Possibly they were
Some people reckon a chap called Yahweh came from Judea to England to ask the Druid’s a question. “Hello Druid, son of Druid” [it may not have gone exactly like this, but similar] “can you tell me sir, before Piscean age there was no North Star, so how did your ancient builders accurately know where North was?”
Have you come across the answer to that Leon?
That's easy: put a stick in the ground on a sunny day and every half hour or so put a pebble where the end of the shadow is. After a couple of hours you have a line that points east-west. Keep going from morning into the afternoon and the direction of the shortest shadow of the day is due south, north is in the opposite direction to south.
The constant talking up that Putin will use Chemical weapons, can we be hopeful this is laying down a red line for NATO involvement? UK and US preparing the way with this “he is planning to use chemical weapons he always does” line, to tell NATO enough is enough, now we go in. If not, why are they saying it before proof it has happened? If anything it just alarms more Ukrainians not to stay and fight?
It's the same as with the invasion itself. They are hoping that by saying publicly to Putin that they know what he is up to, that it will somehow shame him into not doing it.
This wasn't successful for the invasion. I'm not sure why it should be different this time. There certainly hasn't been any message that it would change the policy on direct military intervention - and if it was going to then you would want to make that clear ahead of time so that it might have some deterrent value.
Given Melenchon is even more pro Putin than Le Pen and wants to pull France out of NATO (Le Pen has at least shredded pictures of her meeting Putin and opposed the invasion) I doubt it makes any difference at all to the likelihood of Le Pen being Macron's opponent in the runoff.
The latest poll has Macron getting a boost from the situation on 30%, Le Pen still second on 18%, Pecresse third on 12% and Melenchon and Zemmour tied 4th on 11%.
As this is a betting site, and you don’t wish to mislead us, “ Given Melenchon is even more pro Putin than Le Pen and wants to pull France out of NATO” share with us this evidence you have seen from this campaign. I looked around for this and couldn’t find it.
The problem is that Mélenchon is a Corbyn lookalike who is just as compromised as Le Pen when it comes to his stance vis a vis Putin. Hollande has just said that Mélenchon may be a “useful vote”, in that he’s the front runner amongst the fissiparous left, but he weren’t be a “useful president”! He’s plateauing in recent polls.
I’m calling you out on this, Blurp. to call the ardent Nationalist Melenchon Corbynite is to call Corbyn an ardent Nationalist. Le Pen and Melenchon sit on the opposite side of the table from Corbyn. Anti immigration. Anti EU. Close borders, look after our own with early retirement etc. you need to take a closer look and rethink your response.
Once it gets underway this French election is not as it seems - Macrons policy positions are a declaration of war on what the French Electorate want right now.
That’s a good find HY! 🙂 have you got TASS on speed dial. I didn’t actually go looking for quote from TASS, the Russian news agency, I thought maybe people would disbelieve it on here, can we be sure he did actually say that, even if it was just what we wanted to hear, can we trust TASS, I checked BBC and French press for same thing.
The next bit, "I would first and foremost like to restore our military sovereignty. France, who has nuclear deterrent forces, should be independent and should not depend on the US in terms of arms production," Melenchon added. That makes him sound very much the French Nationalist? That line might actually be popular with a lot of the French electorate? Especially post AUKUS double dealing? It doesn’t prove Melenchon is pro Putin because De Gaulle was not Pro Kremlin when he took France out NATO. France only rejoined NATO in 2009, when de gaule took them out they were out 44 years, so it’s not such a wild proposition for the French electorate out NATO as for UK? Especially with this Ukraine situation playing in this French election. “"Why do we have to protect Ukraine’s borders?" Melenchon said. As it turned out, we didn’t, as last evening on PB showed we are watching Putin place Ukraine borders where he wants, without UK and France defending them, leaving Melenchon position very little different than the UK governments now, and probably just a tad more honest and straight speaking about it ☹️
All I’m saying is, as political bettors, we shouldn’t view French election as though it was English. The fact they have been out NATO those 44 years recently shows they are different, far more independent minded and nationalist than the English. And a lot of very local factors could play a part in French election this year, I’ll give you one example, there’s a lot of clear yellow between Macron on one side and the Yellowjacket candidates Melenchon and Le Pen regarding credit crunch, pension age, unfair tax system.
De Gaulle didn't leave NATO - he opted the French military out of the integrated command structure, but France remained a part of NATO.
Not as the headlines on Google search tells it. Joined 49, left 66, rejoined 2009
It's still wrong though. :-)
They were part of the integrated planning for WWIII all through those years, paying into the various common funds, providing tons of staff at NATO headquarters etc etc.
EDIT: One thing about NATO that seems to get missed is that it is a very variable geometry alliance - there are some minima requirements to be a member, but after that then nature of the relationship a country has with NATO is quite flexible.
I felt there was more mileage and much for me to learn in what you were saying, so I copied it across.
So, if you “opt out the integrated command structure for a variable geometric relationship” are you still obliged to go to aid of an attacked member? That would be a definition whether you were actually in it or not, like the Malmesbury versus the internet argument about France out for 44 years or still actually in?
In fact where you went on to say
“One thing about NATO that seems to get missed is that it is a very variable geometry alliance - there are some minima requirements to be a member, but after that then nature of the relationship a country has with NATO is quite flexible.”
How much flexibility is there today in being able to pick and choose and opt out a conflict?
- Greece and Turkey have been at each other's throats for many years, arguing over Cyprus. Complete with invasions, fighting etc. Without dragging the other NATO members in. With Turkey and Greece in SHAPE, all the while...
- While there is a requirement to go to the aid of members who are attacked "in area*", there is no legally binding definition of what that "aid" should be. So you could send a letter deploring the attack, in theory.
- The 2% minimum spend on defence is a recommendation, without any force/legal basis/or penalties, apart from being neighbourly
*There is special provision to exclude colonial territories - hence the Falklands was "out of area" for NATO.
So, and I hope certain posters arn’t reading, if Putin attacked one of the Baltic states, we are not obliged to go to their aid, just send Mad Vlad a stiff letter if we chose?
There are some clear signs that the wheels are starting to come off for Putin. When you get pundits on Russian state TV’s main show calling for the Kremlin to end the investigation and some of the oligarchs starting to break ranks (look at Vladimir Potanin’s comments on the proposal to seize foreign owned assets), there is something clearly happening.
Yep. The clock is ticking for Putin now. The Russian army being defeated by Ukraine is a humiliation that cannot be ignored, and looks increasingly likely.
How extensive the Navalny protests are this weekend will be vert interesting.
The UK and western media (mainstream and social) is so relentlessly anti-Putin I do wonder if they are largely telling themselves what they want to believe rather than what is is really happening in Ukraine and Russia. It's one thing to acknowledge stiff Ukrainian resistance in the first two weeks of the conflict but to declare Russia on the brink of defeat or Putin about to lose power is a pretty big leap I just don't see any real evidence for.
The US is saying that Chernihiv, another sizable city of nearly 300k, has been encircled. The Ukrainians haven't been able to lift the siege of Mariupol, despite the desperate need to do so.
The Ukrainians are doing very well, inflicting heavy damage on the Russian army and air force, but they're heavily outnumbered, don't have enough forces to cover every front, and so lack the ability to launch a major counter-offensive.
They're going to have to continue to inflict disproportionate losses for a long time to turn the tide.
Are you sure that the Ukraine military is heavily outnumbered ?
There are some clear signs that the wheels are starting to come off for Putin. When you get pundits on Russian state TV’s main show calling for the Kremlin to end the investigation and some of the oligarchs starting to break ranks (look at Vladimir Potanin’s comments on the proposal to seize foreign owned assets), there is something clearly happening.
Yep. The clock is ticking for Putin now. The Russian army being defeated by Ukraine is a humiliation that cannot be ignored, and looks increasingly likely.
How extensive the Navalny protests are this weekend will be vert interesting.
The UK and western media (mainstream and social) is so relentlessly anti-Putin I do wonder if they are largely telling themselves what they want to believe rather than what is is really happening in Ukraine and Russia. It's one thing to acknowledge stiff Ukrainian resistance in the first two weeks of the conflict but to declare Russia on the brink of defeat or Putin about to lose power is a pretty big leap I just don't see any real evidence for.
The US is saying that Chernihiv, another sizable city of nearly 300k, has been encircled. The Ukrainians haven't been able to lift the siege of Mariupol, despite the desperate need to do so.
The Ukrainians are doing very well, inflicting heavy damage on the Russian army and air force, but they're heavily outnumbered, don't have enough forces to cover every front, and so lack the ability to launch a major counter-offensive.
They're going to have to continue to inflict disproportionate losses for a long time to turn the tide.
Would that be Chernihiv where the 10 Russian tanks were reportedly abandoned?
I’m not saying the situation isn’t dire but Russia hasn’t got unlimited time. Every day that goes, the Ukrainians are training more conscripts whereas Russia’s army is being depleted. Ukraine is also been constantly supplied by western equipment whereas Russia is running down its reserves. The Ukrainians are now a significant net gainer when it comes to equipment as, even not withstanding western supplies, captured equipment from the Russians exceed the losses. It’s also now looking as though the Ukrainian estimates on Russian losses may not be too far off the truth.
What exactly is going to turn this round for Russia?
The constant talking up that Putin will use Chemical weapons, can we be hopeful this is laying down a red line for NATO involvement? UK and US preparing the way with this “he is planning to use chemical weapons he always does” line, to tell NATO enough is enough, now we go in. If not, why are they saying it before proof it has happened? If anything it just alarms more Ukrainians not to stay and fight?
The reason they are saying it is going to happen is the same reason that they announced the false-flag operation attempts.
- Makes Putin look more of an idiot. - Creates massive paranoia in his inner circle (probably). - Gets ahead in the information cycle.
The biggest issue with using Chemical weapons is probably the ability of the Russian Army to manoeuvre and fight in areas they've attacked with them.
In the past the USSR/Russian Army was (in)famous for it's training and equipping for massive chemical warfare. There was a bitter joke that the Russian plan for WWIII was, on the outbreak of war, to kill all Germans, East and West, by flooding Germany with 10s of thousands of tons of persistent nerve agents.
I'd be willing to bet most of that capability has been lost now. Without it, chemical weapons would hit the Russians as much as the Ukrainians in close combat.
Corrupt and fucking useless. The current version has the picture blanked out in best Stalinist style.
These posts are embarrassing, even without the photo mess-up.
It’s the FCO, not fucking Buzzfeed
Well also never mind the embarrassment, let's not ignore the substantive point that this blokes son has been appointed to the UK legislature for sucking the cock and balls of services rendered to a former Chancellor of the exchequer and the current prime minister, and nobody seems to mind, or even have the bad taste to mention the fact
Sucking probably the other way round come to think of it
Have we had any comment recently from Osborne and Mandelson about all their dealings with Russian oligarchs ?
The finest monument in these islands is the Cerne Abbas Giant and I accept no argument against that.
If and only if it is seriously ancient. Jury out on that.
I deliberately did not claim it as our finest ancient monument. Being a potential 17th century goof renders it no less fine!
I wonder if it frustrates the Russian sock puppets that we keep drifting off into ephemera like this? If I was a supervillain, I expect I'd want the world trembling at my every doing. I'd find it quite frustrating if people's focus kept drifting off to ancient monuments and how football was better in the old days and Netflix and cricket and cookery.
"KYIV, Ukraine (AP) — Satellite photos show Russian convoy outside Kyiv appears to have dispersed to surrounding areas."
Looks like there may be the battle for Kyiv in the next 72ish hours. I would not want to be attacking such well supplied dug in troops. However it's not clear what meaning of dispersed this means, and how much co-ordination they have.
Mate, I could do a top 50! I love megaliths, if I go anywhere and find out there is some mysterious ancient stone monument nearby, I practically orgasm
And now you've set me off. Here are my top ten megalithic monuments of the world
10. Newgrange, Ireland 9. Avebury, England 8. Carnac, France 7. Castlerigg, England 6. Uragh, Ireland 5. Callanish, Scotland 4. Ggantija, Malta 3. Brodgar, Orkney 2. Stonehenge, England 1. Gobekli Tepe, Turkey
And I have seen them all
This might be mis-remembered nonsense: On Orkney there are two standing stones with holes in them, miles apart.
If you line them both up it directs you down the entrance tunnel to Maes Howe. Which is also aligned with the setting sun on the solstice, bathing the chamber in light.
It doesn't work any more as the axis of the earth had shifted since then.
I can well believe it. The Orcadian megaliths are amazing
One of the many many surprises of the wonderful Stonehenge exhibition at the British Museum (which I may have menshed) was discovering just how interlinked these worlds were. Skara Brae, Stonehenge, northwest France, Germany, Denmark, even Greece - they exchanged ideas, objects, memes, motifs - as they travelled easily around Europe. They wore gold hats and wolf-teeth dresses and they had fabulous mythology. And they inhabited a wholly unspoiled world, perhaps devoid of guilt
I wonder if they were happier than us. Possibly they were
Some people reckon a chap called Yahweh came from Judea to England to ask the Druid’s a question. “Hello Druid, son of Druid” [it may not have gone exactly like this, but similar] “can you tell me sir, before Piscean age there was no North Star, so how did your ancient builders accurately know where North was?”
Have you come across the answer to that Leon?
That's easy: put a stick in the ground on a sunny day and every half hour or so put a pebble where the end of the shadow is. After a couple of hours you have a line that points east-west. Keep going from morning into the afternoon and the direction of the shortest shadow of the day is due south, north is in the opposite direction to south.
Surely that only works on the equinox (ignoring atmospheric effects)?
Given Melenchon is even more pro Putin than Le Pen and wants to pull France out of NATO (Le Pen has at least shredded pictures of her meeting Putin and opposed the invasion) I doubt it makes any difference at all to the likelihood of Le Pen being Macron's opponent in the runoff.
The latest poll has Macron getting a boost from the situation on 30%, Le Pen still second on 18%, Pecresse third on 12% and Melenchon and Zemmour tied 4th on 11%.
As this is a betting site, and you don’t wish to mislead us, “ Given Melenchon is even more pro Putin than Le Pen and wants to pull France out of NATO” share with us this evidence you have seen from this campaign. I looked around for this and couldn’t find it.
The problem is that Mélenchon is a Corbyn lookalike who is just as compromised as Le Pen when it comes to his stance vis a vis Putin. Hollande has just said that Mélenchon may be a “useful vote”, in that he’s the front runner amongst the fissiparous left, but he weren’t be a “useful president”! He’s plateauing in recent polls.
I’m calling you out on this, Blurp. to call the ardent Nationalist Melenchon Corbynite is to call Corbyn an ardent Nationalist. Le Pen and Melenchon sit on the opposite side of the table from Corbyn. Anti immigration. Anti EU. Close borders, look after our own with early retirement etc. you need to take a closer look and rethink your response.
Once it gets underway this French election is not as it seems - Macrons policy positions are a declaration of war on what the French Electorate want right now.
That’s a good find HY! 🙂 have you got TASS on speed dial. I didn’t actually go looking for quote from TASS, the Russian news agency, I thought maybe people would disbelieve it on here, can we be sure he did actually say that, even if it was just what we wanted to hear, can we trust TASS, I checked BBC and French press for same thing.
The next bit, "I would first and foremost like to restore our military sovereignty. France, who has nuclear deterrent forces, should be independent and should not depend on the US in terms of arms production," Melenchon added. That makes him sound very much the French Nationalist? That line might actually be popular with a lot of the French electorate? Especially post AUKUS double dealing? It doesn’t prove Melenchon is pro Putin because De Gaulle was not Pro Kremlin when he took France out NATO. France only rejoined NATO in 2009, when de gaule took them out they were out 44 years, so it’s not such a wild proposition for the French electorate out NATO as for UK? Especially with this Ukraine situation playing in this French election. “"Why do we have to protect Ukraine’s borders?" Melenchon said. As it turned out, we didn’t, as last evening on PB showed we are watching Putin place Ukraine borders where he wants, without UK and France defending them, leaving Melenchon position very little different than the UK governments now, and probably just a tad more honest and straight speaking about it ☹️
All I’m saying is, as political bettors, we shouldn’t view French election as though it was English. The fact they have been out NATO those 44 years recently shows they are different, far more independent minded and nationalist than the English. And a lot of very local factors could play a part in French election this year, I’ll give you one example, there’s a lot of clear yellow between Macron on one side and the Yellowjacket candidates Melenchon and Le Pen regarding credit crunch, pension age, unfair tax system.
De Gaulle didn't leave NATO - he opted the French military out of the integrated command structure, but France remained a part of NATO.
Not as the headlines on Google search tells it. Joined 49, left 66, rejoined 2009
It's still wrong though. :-)
They were part of the integrated planning for WWIII all through those years, paying into the various common funds, providing tons of staff at NATO headquarters etc etc.
EDIT: One thing about NATO that seems to get missed is that it is a very variable geometry alliance - there are some minima requirements to be a member, but after that then nature of the relationship a country has with NATO is quite flexible.
I felt there was more mileage and much for me to learn in what you were saying, so I copied it across.
So, if you “opt out the integrated command structure for a variable geometric relationship” are you still obliged to go to aid of an attacked member? That would be a definition whether you were actually in it or not, like the Malmesbury versus the internet argument about France out for 44 years or still actually in?
In fact where you went on to say
“One thing about NATO that seems to get missed is that it is a very variable geometry alliance - there are some minima requirements to be a member, but after that then nature of the relationship a country has with NATO is quite flexible.”
How much flexibility is there today in being able to pick and choose and opt out a conflict?
- Greece and Turkey have been at each other's throats for many years, arguing over Cyprus. Complete with invasions, fighting etc. Without dragging the other NATO members in. With Turkey and Greece in SHAPE, all the while...
- While there is a requirement to go to the aid of members who are attacked "in area*", there is no legally binding definition of what that "aid" should be. So you could send a letter deploring the attack, in theory.
- The 2% minimum spend on defence is a recommendation, without any force/legal basis/or penalties, apart from being neighbourly
*There is special provision to exclude colonial territories - hence the Falklands was "out of area" for NATO.
So, and I hope certain posters arn’t reading, if Putin attacked one of the Baltic states, we are not obliged to go to their aid, just send Mad Vlad a stiff letter if we chose?
Are you sure?
Yes - quite sure. The thing is that NATO (as an alliance) is the ultimate expression of the theory that only if it is truly voluntary, is an agreement truly binding.
There are some clear signs that the wheels are starting to come off for Putin. When you get pundits on Russian state TV’s main show calling for the Kremlin to end the investigation and some of the oligarchs starting to break ranks (look at Vladimir Potanin’s comments on the proposal to seize foreign owned assets), there is something clearly happening.
Russian censorship is very curious - sometimes it clamps down on trivial things that you'd think they'd shrug off. Sometimes something substantial like this gets ignored, and nobody really knows if there's a policy change or just a censor in a good mood. Sometimes there's possibly some kite-flying - let someone go off piste and see how people react.
In normal times you can get away with a fair amount, hence the existence of liberal radio stations and press that were recently shut down, and rather than mass imprisonment of dissidents they seem to pick on a few prominent dissidents like Navalny as a warning to everyone else: there don't seem to be huge numbers of people locked up for long periods. But the lack of certainty is what kills serious open debate - if you're a regular critic then sooner or later you will get arrested.
My impression, though, is that the military think they're gradually winning the war by successive encirclement, so we won't see a coup any time soon, but we could see something civilian.
If the military thinks that, then they really are idiots. In one month’s time, the Ukrainians probably will have trained tens of thousands of troops more. Russia’s supply lines are stretched and vulnerable to attacks. The mud means they have to stick to the roads which is not ideal. They do not have air superiority and the land forces are operating in hostile territory.
Again the question: what exactly turns it around for Russia at this point?
FFS Death Rigby, now wants us all to die...she makes it sound like Boris is just being lazy and dithering not bothering to implement a NZF. Its the media's responsibility to explain that a NFZ requires NATO and equals WWIII.
Given Melenchon is even more pro Putin than Le Pen and wants to pull France out of NATO (Le Pen has at least shredded pictures of her meeting Putin and opposed the invasion) I doubt it makes any difference at all to the likelihood of Le Pen being Macron's opponent in the runoff.
The latest poll has Macron getting a boost from the situation on 30%, Le Pen still second on 18%, Pecresse third on 12% and Melenchon and Zemmour tied 4th on 11%.
As this is a betting site, and you don’t wish to mislead us, “ Given Melenchon is even more pro Putin than Le Pen and wants to pull France out of NATO” share with us this evidence you have seen from this campaign. I looked around for this and couldn’t find it.
The problem is that Mélenchon is a Corbyn lookalike who is just as compromised as Le Pen when it comes to his stance vis a vis Putin. Hollande has just said that Mélenchon may be a “useful vote”, in that he’s the front runner amongst the fissiparous left, but he weren’t be a “useful president”! He’s plateauing in recent polls.
I’m calling you out on this, Blurp. to call the ardent Nationalist Melenchon Corbynite is to call Corbyn an ardent Nationalist. Le Pen and Melenchon sit on the opposite side of the table from Corbyn. Anti immigration. Anti EU. Close borders, look after our own with early retirement etc. you need to take a closer look and rethink your response.
Once it gets underway this French election is not as it seems - Macrons policy positions are a declaration of war on what the French Electorate want right now.
That’s a good find HY! 🙂 have you got TASS on speed dial. I didn’t actually go looking for quote from TASS, the Russian news agency, I thought maybe people would disbelieve it on here, can we be sure he did actually say that, even if it was just what we wanted to hear, can we trust TASS, I checked BBC and French press for same thing.
The next bit, "I would first and foremost like to restore our military sovereignty. France, who has nuclear deterrent forces, should be independent and should not depend on the US in terms of arms production," Melenchon added. That makes him sound very much the French Nationalist? That line might actually be popular with a lot of the French electorate? Especially post AUKUS double dealing? It doesn’t prove Melenchon is pro Putin because De Gaulle was not Pro Kremlin when he took France out NATO. France only rejoined NATO in 2009, when de gaule took them out they were out 44 years, so it’s not such a wild proposition for the French electorate out NATO as for UK? Especially with this Ukraine situation playing in this French election. “"Why do we have to protect Ukraine’s borders?" Melenchon said. As it turned out, we didn’t, as last evening on PB showed we are watching Putin place Ukraine borders where he wants, without UK and France defending them, leaving Melenchon position very little different than the UK governments now, and probably just a tad more honest and straight speaking about it ☹️
All I’m saying is, as political bettors, we shouldn’t view French election as though it was English. The fact they have been out NATO those 44 years recently shows they are different, far more independent minded and nationalist than the English. And a lot of very local factors could play a part in French election this year, I’ll give you one example, there’s a lot of clear yellow between Macron on one side and the Yellowjacket candidates Melenchon and Le Pen regarding credit crunch, pension age, unfair tax system.
De Gaulle didn't leave NATO - he opted the French military out of the integrated command structure, but France remained a part of NATO.
Not as the headlines on Google search tells it. Joined 49, left 66, rejoined 2009
It's still wrong though. :-)
They were part of the integrated planning for WWIII all through those years, paying into the various common funds, providing tons of staff at NATO headquarters etc etc.
EDIT: One thing about NATO that seems to get missed is that it is a very variable geometry alliance - there are some minima requirements to be a member, but after that then nature of the relationship a country has with NATO is quite flexible.
I felt there was more mileage and much for me to learn in what you were saying, so I copied it across.
So, if you “opt out the integrated command structure for a variable geometric relationship” are you still obliged to go to aid of an attacked member? That would be a definition whether you were actually in it or not, like the Malmesbury versus the internet argument about France out for 44 years or still actually in?
In fact where you went on to say
“One thing about NATO that seems to get missed is that it is a very variable geometry alliance - there are some minima requirements to be a member, but after that then nature of the relationship a country has with NATO is quite flexible.”
How much flexibility is there today in being able to pick and choose and opt out a conflict?
- Greece and Turkey have been at each other's throats for many years, arguing over Cyprus. Complete with invasions, fighting etc. Without dragging the other NATO members in. With Turkey and Greece in SHAPE, all the while...
- While there is a requirement to go to the aid of members who are attacked "in area*", there is no legally binding definition of what that "aid" should be. So you could send a letter deploring the attack, in theory.
- The 2% minimum spend on defence is a recommendation, without any force/legal basis/or penalties, apart from being neighbourly
*There is special provision to exclude colonial territories - hence the Falklands was "out of area" for NATO.
So, and I hope certain posters arn’t reading, if Putin attacked one of the Baltic states, we are not obliged to go to their aid, just send Mad Vlad a stiff letter if we chose?
Are you sure?
That’s why various NATO members including us have been rushing forces there. It’s an an effective guarantee both to the Baltic states and to Putin.
There are some clear signs that the wheels are starting to come off for Putin. When you get pundits on Russian state TV’s main show calling for the Kremlin to end the investigation and some of the oligarchs starting to break ranks (look at Vladimir Potanin’s comments on the proposal to seize foreign owned assets), there is something clearly happening.
Yep. The clock is ticking for Putin now. The Russian army being defeated by Ukraine is a humiliation that cannot be ignored, and looks increasingly likely.
How extensive the Navalny protests are this weekend will be vert interesting.
The UK and western media (mainstream and social) is so relentlessly anti-Putin I do wonder if they are largely telling themselves what they want to believe rather than what is is really happening in Ukraine and Russia. It's one thing to acknowledge stiff Ukrainian resistance in the first two weeks of the conflict but to declare Russia on the brink of defeat or Putin about to lose power is a pretty big leap I just don't see any real evidence for.
The US is saying that Chernihiv, another sizable city of nearly 300k, has been encircled. The Ukrainians haven't been able to lift the siege of Mariupol, despite the desperate need to do so.
The Ukrainians are doing very well, inflicting heavy damage on the Russian army and air force, but they're heavily outnumbered, don't have enough forces to cover every front, and so lack the ability to launch a major counter-offensive.
They're going to have to continue to inflict disproportionate losses for a long time to turn the tide.
Would that be Chernihiv where the 10 Russian tanks were reportedly abandoned?
I’m not saying the situation isn’t dire but Russia hasn’t got unlimited time. Every day that goes, the Ukrainians are training more conscripts whereas Russia’s army is being depleted. Ukraine is also been constantly supplied by western equipment whereas Russia is running down its reserves. The Ukrainians are now a significant net gainer when it comes to equipment as, even not withstanding western supplies, captured equipment from the Russians exceed the losses. It’s also now looking as though the Ukrainian estimates on Russian losses may not be too far off the truth.
What exactly is going to turn this round for Russia?
Another 7 Russian tanks captured today according to:
Just like in UK polling (though some posters don’t do this and we have to keep nagging them) you have to compare polls from same firms, not mix and match calling it “the latest so most accurate”.
However the most recent polling trend does support you HY 🙂
But political betting is trying to predict what happens next and explain why. It may be the bigger factors in this election is not the war bounce for Macron but the threat of his policies going forward, particularly unpopular unfair taxes, retirement age and approach to the credit crunch. Macron very much the EU Nationalist, whilst his opponents probably outnumber him on votes for a withdraw to French nationalism and closure of the borders.
if le pen or Mélenchon wins into second round I will instantly have a bet on them.
The constant talking up that Putin will use Chemical weapons, can we be hopeful this is laying down a red line for NATO involvement? UK and US preparing the way with this “he is planning to use chemical weapons he always does” line, to tell NATO enough is enough, now we go in. If not, why are they saying it before proof it has happened? If anything it just alarms more Ukrainians not to stay and fight?
The reason they are saying it is going to happen is the same reason that they announced the false-flag operation attempts.
- Makes Putin look more of an idiot. - Creates massive paranoia in his inner circle (probably). - Gets ahead in the information cycle.
The biggest issue with using Chemical weapons is probably the ability of the Russian Army to manoeuvre and fight in areas they've attacked with them.
In the past the USSR/Russian Army was (in)famous for it's training and equipping for massive chemical warfare. There was a bitter joke that the Russian plan for WWIII was, on the outbreak of war, to kill all Germans, East and West, by flooding Germany with 10s of thousands of tons of persistent nerve agents.
I'd be willing to bet most of that capability has been lost now. Without it, chemical weapons would hit the Russians as much as the Ukrainians in close combat.
Not entirely. The use of chlorine gas in Aleppo was crude, but brutally effective in clearing a city which had survived a siege of years. There is a real fear of a similar effort in Kharkiv or Mariupol.
There are some clear signs that the wheels are starting to come off for Putin. When you get pundits on Russian state TV’s main show calling for the Kremlin to end the investigation and some of the oligarchs starting to break ranks (look at Vladimir Potanin’s comments on the proposal to seize foreign owned assets), there is something clearly happening.
Yep. The clock is ticking for Putin now. The Russian army being defeated by Ukraine is a humiliation that cannot be ignored, and looks increasingly likely.
How extensive the Navalny protests are this weekend will be vert interesting.
The UK and western media (mainstream and social) is so relentlessly anti-Putin I do wonder if they are largely telling themselves what they want to believe rather than what is is really happening in Ukraine and Russia. It's one thing to acknowledge stiff Ukrainian resistance in the first two weeks of the conflict but to declare Russia on the brink of defeat or Putin about to lose power is a pretty big leap I just don't see any real evidence for.
The US is saying that Chernihiv, another sizable city of nearly 300k, has been encircled. The Ukrainians haven't been able to lift the siege of Mariupol, despite the desperate need to do so.
The Ukrainians are doing very well, inflicting heavy damage on the Russian army and air force, but they're heavily outnumbered, don't have enough forces to cover every front, and so lack the ability to launch a major counter-offensive.
They're going to have to continue to inflict disproportionate losses for a long time to turn the tide.
Would that be Chernihiv where the 10 Russian tanks were reportedly abandoned?
I’m not saying the situation isn’t dire but Russia hasn’t got unlimited time. Every day that goes, the Ukrainians are training more conscripts whereas Russia’s army is being depleted. Ukraine is also been constantly supplied by western equipment whereas Russia is running down its reserves. The Ukrainians are now a significant net gainer when it comes to equipment as, even not withstanding western supplies, captured equipment from the Russians exceed the losses. It’s also now looking as though the Ukrainian estimates on Russian losses may not be too far off the truth.
What exactly is going to turn this round for Russia?
Another 7 Russian tanks captured today according to:
Now can anyone give an example of an army which was having so much of its equipment captured without being in serious problems ?
Apparently in the ambush that was caught on drone that killed the Colonel Andrei Zakharov. It one thing losing the cannon fodder, but losing commanders / generals, is quite another.
There are some clear signs that the wheels are starting to come off for Putin. When you get pundits on Russian state TV’s main show calling for the Kremlin to end the investigation and some of the oligarchs starting to break ranks (look at Vladimir Potanin’s comments on the proposal to seize foreign owned assets), there is something clearly happening.
Yep. The clock is ticking for Putin now. The Russian army being defeated by Ukraine is a humiliation that cannot be ignored, and looks increasingly likely.
How extensive the Navalny protests are this weekend will be vert interesting.
The UK and western media (mainstream and social) is so relentlessly anti-Putin I do wonder if they are largely telling themselves what they want to believe rather than what is is really happening in Ukraine and Russia. It's one thing to acknowledge stiff Ukrainian resistance in the first two weeks of the conflict but to declare Russia on the brink of defeat or Putin about to lose power is a pretty big leap I just don't see any real evidence for.
The US is saying that Chernihiv, another sizable city of nearly 300k, has been encircled. The Ukrainians haven't been able to lift the siege of Mariupol, despite the desperate need to do so.
The Ukrainians are doing very well, inflicting heavy damage on the Russian army and air force, but they're heavily outnumbered, don't have enough forces to cover every front, and so lack the ability to launch a major counter-offensive.
They're going to have to continue to inflict disproportionate losses for a long time to turn the tide.
Are you sure that the Ukraine military is heavily outnumbered ?
I guess it depends how you count the numbers. In terms of raw numbers of armed people within the 2014 boundaries of Ukraine it's possible Ukraine has greater numbers, but Ukraine is certainly under the cosh, as evidenced by (1) the survival of a large portion of the infamous stuck convoy (Ukraine clearly didn't have the capacity to take full advantage of that opportunity), (2) the failure to lift the siege of Mariupol, or even to mount a serious attempt to do so, (3) the failure to prevent the encirclement of Chernihiv, (4) despite some well-publicised success in downing Russian aircraft and destroying Russian artillery, the failure to put a serious dent in the forces pounding cities such as Kharkiv and Sumy, such that it would lessen the intensity of the bombardment.
I don't go as far as to say that the Ukrainians are bound to eventually fail to defend Ukraine east of the Dniepr, but they're clearly only able to fight a valiant rearguard action at present. There's a lot of dying left in the Russian army before that balance of power would change.
There are some clear signs that the wheels are starting to come off for Putin. When you get pundits on Russian state TV’s main show calling for the Kremlin to end the investigation and some of the oligarchs starting to break ranks (look at Vladimir Potanin’s comments on the proposal to seize foreign owned assets), there is something clearly happening.
Yep. The clock is ticking for Putin now. The Russian army being defeated by Ukraine is a humiliation that cannot be ignored, and looks increasingly likely.
How extensive the Navalny protests are this weekend will be vert interesting.
The UK and western media (mainstream and social) is so relentlessly anti-Putin I do wonder if they are largely telling themselves what they want to believe rather than what is is really happening in Ukraine and Russia. It's one thing to acknowledge stiff Ukrainian resistance in the first two weeks of the conflict but to declare Russia on the brink of defeat or Putin about to lose power is a pretty big leap I just don't see any real evidence for.
The US is saying that Chernihiv, another sizable city of nearly 300k, has been encircled. The Ukrainians haven't been able to lift the siege of Mariupol, despite the desperate need to do so.
The Ukrainians are doing very well, inflicting heavy damage on the Russian army and air force, but they're heavily outnumbered, don't have enough forces to cover every front, and so lack the ability to launch a major counter-offensive.
They're going to have to continue to inflict disproportionate losses for a long time to turn the tide.
Would that be Chernihiv where the 10 Russian tanks were reportedly abandoned?
I’m not saying the situation isn’t dire but Russia hasn’t got unlimited time. Every day that goes, the Ukrainians are training more conscripts whereas Russia’s army is being depleted. Ukraine is also been constantly supplied by western equipment whereas Russia is running down its reserves. The Ukrainians are now a significant net gainer when it comes to equipment as, even not withstanding western supplies, captured equipment from the Russians exceed the losses. It’s also now looking as though the Ukrainian estimates on Russian losses may not be too far off the truth.
What exactly is going to turn this round for Russia?
Another 7 Russian tanks captured today according to:
Now can anyone give an example of an army which was having so much of its equipment captured without being in serious problems ?
That hits the nail on the head. It’s day 15 and the Russians are still abandoning equipment with merry haste. You don’t do that if you are winning. You do it when you think you are losing.
There are some clear signs that the wheels are starting to come off for Putin. When you get pundits on Russian state TV’s main show calling for the Kremlin to end the investigation and some of the oligarchs starting to break ranks (look at Vladimir Potanin’s comments on the proposal to seize foreign owned assets), there is something clearly happening.
Yep. The clock is ticking for Putin now. The Russian army being defeated by Ukraine is a humiliation that cannot be ignored, and looks increasingly likely.
How extensive the Navalny protests are this weekend will be vert interesting.
The UK and western media (mainstream and social) is so relentlessly anti-Putin I do wonder if they are largely telling themselves what they want to believe rather than what is is really happening in Ukraine and Russia. It's one thing to acknowledge stiff Ukrainian resistance in the first two weeks of the conflict but to declare Russia on the brink of defeat or Putin about to lose power is a pretty big leap I just don't see any real evidence for.
The US is saying that Chernihiv, another sizable city of nearly 300k, has been encircled. The Ukrainians haven't been able to lift the siege of Mariupol, despite the desperate need to do so.
The Ukrainians are doing very well, inflicting heavy damage on the Russian army and air force, but they're heavily outnumbered, don't have enough forces to cover every front, and so lack the ability to launch a major counter-offensive.
They're going to have to continue to inflict disproportionate losses for a long time to turn the tide.
Would that be Chernihiv where the 10 Russian tanks were reportedly abandoned?
I’m not saying the situation isn’t dire but Russia hasn’t got unlimited time. Every day that goes, the Ukrainians are training more conscripts whereas Russia’s army is being depleted. Ukraine is also been constantly supplied by western equipment whereas Russia is running down its reserves. The Ukrainians are now a significant net gainer when it comes to equipment as, even not withstanding western supplies, captured equipment from the Russians exceed the losses. It’s also now looking as though the Ukrainian estimates on Russian losses may not be too far off the truth.
What exactly is going to turn this round for Russia?
Another 7 Russian tanks captured today according to:
Now can anyone give an example of an army which was having so much of its equipment captured without being in serious problems ?
Also notable is the number of mobile anti aircraft systems they’ve lost - whereas Ukraine seems to have more than they started the war with, purely from captured weapons.
Given Melenchon is even more pro Putin than Le Pen and wants to pull France out of NATO (Le Pen has at least shredded pictures of her meeting Putin and opposed the invasion) I doubt it makes any difference at all to the likelihood of Le Pen being Macron's opponent in the runoff.
The latest poll has Macron getting a boost from the situation on 30%, Le Pen still second on 18%, Pecresse third on 12% and Melenchon and Zemmour tied 4th on 11%.
As this is a betting site, and you don’t wish to mislead us, “ Given Melenchon is even more pro Putin than Le Pen and wants to pull France out of NATO” share with us this evidence you have seen from this campaign. I looked around for this and couldn’t find it.
The problem is that Mélenchon is a Corbyn lookalike who is just as compromised as Le Pen when it comes to his stance vis a vis Putin. Hollande has just said that Mélenchon may be a “useful vote”, in that he’s the front runner amongst the fissiparous left, but he weren’t be a “useful president”! He’s plateauing in recent polls.
I’m calling you out on this, Blurp. to call the ardent Nationalist Melenchon Corbynite is to call Corbyn an ardent Nationalist. Le Pen and Melenchon sit on the opposite side of the table from Corbyn. Anti immigration. Anti EU. Close borders, look after our own with early retirement etc. you need to take a closer look and rethink your response.
Once it gets underway this French election is not as it seems - Macrons policy positions are a declaration of war on what the French Electorate want right now.
That’s a good find HY! 🙂 have you got TASS on speed dial. I didn’t actually go looking for quote from TASS, the Russian news agency, I thought maybe people would disbelieve it on here, can we be sure he did actually say that, even if it was just what we wanted to hear, can we trust TASS, I checked BBC and French press for same thing.
The next bit, "I would first and foremost like to restore our military sovereignty. France, who has nuclear deterrent forces, should be independent and should not depend on the US in terms of arms production," Melenchon added. That makes him sound very much the French Nationalist? That line might actually be popular with a lot of the French electorate? Especially post AUKUS double dealing? It doesn’t prove Melenchon is pro Putin because De Gaulle was not Pro Kremlin when he took France out NATO. France only rejoined NATO in 2009, when de gaule took them out they were out 44 years, so it’s not such a wild proposition for the French electorate out NATO as for UK? Especially with this Ukraine situation playing in this French election. “"Why do we have to protect Ukraine’s borders?" Melenchon said. As it turned out, we didn’t, as last evening on PB showed we are watching Putin place Ukraine borders where he wants, without UK and France defending them, leaving Melenchon position very little different than the UK governments now, and probably just a tad more honest and straight speaking about it ☹️
All I’m saying is, as political bettors, we shouldn’t view French election as though it was English. The fact they have been out NATO those 44 years recently shows they are different, far more independent minded and nationalist than the English. And a lot of very local factors could play a part in French election this year, I’ll give you one example, there’s a lot of clear yellow between Macron on one side and the Yellowjacket candidates Melenchon and Le Pen regarding credit crunch, pension age, unfair tax system.
De Gaulle didn't leave NATO - he opted the French military out of the integrated command structure, but France remained a part of NATO.
Not as the headlines on Google search tells it. Joined 49, left 66, rejoined 2009
It's still wrong though. :-)
They were part of the integrated planning for WWIII all through those years, paying into the various common funds, providing tons of staff at NATO headquarters etc etc.
EDIT: One thing about NATO that seems to get missed is that it is a very variable geometry alliance - there are some minima requirements to be a member, but after that then nature of the relationship a country has with NATO is quite flexible.
I felt there was more mileage and much for me to learn in what you were saying, so I copied it across.
So, if you “opt out the integrated command structure for a variable geometric relationship” are you still obliged to go to aid of an attacked member? That would be a definition whether you were actually in it or not, like the Malmesbury versus the internet argument about France out for 44 years or still actually in?
In fact where you went on to say
“One thing about NATO that seems to get missed is that it is a very variable geometry alliance - there are some minima requirements to be a member, but after that then nature of the relationship a country has with NATO is quite flexible.”
How much flexibility is there today in being able to pick and choose and opt out a conflict?
- Greece and Turkey have been at each other's throats for many years, arguing over Cyprus. Complete with invasions, fighting etc. Without dragging the other NATO members in. With Turkey and Greece in SHAPE, all the while...
- While there is a requirement to go to the aid of members who are attacked "in area*", there is no legally binding definition of what that "aid" should be. So you could send a letter deploring the attack, in theory.
- The 2% minimum spend on defence is a recommendation, without any force/legal basis/or penalties, apart from being neighbourly
*There is special provision to exclude colonial territories - hence the Falklands was "out of area" for NATO.
So, and I hope certain posters arn’t reading, if Putin attacked one of the Baltic states, we are not obliged to go to their aid, just send Mad Vlad a stiff letter if we chose?
Are you sure?
Yes - quite sure. The thing is that NATO (as an alliance) is the ultimate expression of the theory that only if it is truly voluntary, is an agreement truly binding.
Naaaaaaaa. Your have a bubble as they say in landan 🤔
"KYIV, Ukraine (AP) — Satellite photos show Russian convoy outside Kyiv appears to have dispersed to surrounding areas."
Looks like there may be the battle for Kyiv in the next 72ish hours. I would not want to be attacking such well supplied dug in troops. However it's not clear what meaning of dispersed this means, and how much co-ordination they have.
Possibly in response to the Ukrainian action today where they counter-attacked with artillery and tanks. Having such a column on such a long road was inviting trouble (as we discussed)
Mate, I could do a top 50! I love megaliths, if I go anywhere and find out there is some mysterious ancient stone monument nearby, I practically orgasm
And now you've set me off. Here are my top ten megalithic monuments of the world
10. Newgrange, Ireland 9. Avebury, England 8. Carnac, France 7. Castlerigg, England 6. Uragh, Ireland 5. Callanish, Scotland 4. Ggantija, Malta 3. Brodgar, Orkney 2. Stonehenge, England 1. Gobekli Tepe, Turkey
And I have seen them all
This might be mis-remembered nonsense: On Orkney there are two standing stones with holes in them, miles apart.
If you line them both up it directs you down the entrance tunnel to Maes Howe. Which is also aligned with the setting sun on the solstice, bathing the chamber in light.
It doesn't work any more as the axis of the earth had shifted since then.
I can well believe it. The Orcadian megaliths are amazing
One of the many many surprises of the wonderful Stonehenge exhibition at the British Museum (which I may have menshed) was discovering just how interlinked these worlds were. Skara Brae, Stonehenge, northwest France, Germany, Denmark, even Greece - they exchanged ideas, objects, memes, motifs - as they travelled easily around Europe. They wore gold hats and wolf-teeth dresses and they had fabulous mythology. And they inhabited a wholly unspoiled world, perhaps devoid of guilt
I wonder if they were happier than us. Possibly they were
Some people reckon a chap called Yahweh came from Judea to England to ask the Druid’s a question. “Hello Druid, son of Druid” [it may not have gone exactly like this, but similar] “can you tell me sir, before Piscean age there was no North Star, so how did your ancient builders accurately know where North was?”
Have you come across the answer to that Leon?
That's easy: put a stick in the ground on a sunny day and every half hour or so put a pebble where the end of the shadow is. After a couple of hours you have a line that points east-west. Keep going from morning into the afternoon and the direction of the shortest shadow of the day is due south, north is in the opposite direction to south.
Surely that only works on the equinox (ignoring atmospheric effects)?
At other times the shadow describes a curve.
Give it a try: it does work. It was a standard bit of practical work in GCSE Astronomy when I used to teach it.
There are some clear signs that the wheels are starting to come off for Putin. When you get pundits on Russian state TV’s main show calling for the Kremlin to end the investigation and some of the oligarchs starting to break ranks (look at Vladimir Potanin’s comments on the proposal to seize foreign owned assets), there is something clearly happening.
Russian censorship is very curious - sometimes it clamps down on trivial things that you'd think they'd shrug off. Sometimes something substantial like this gets ignored, and nobody really knows if there's a policy change or just a censor in a good mood. Sometimes there's possibly some kite-flying - let someone go off piste and see how people react.
In normal times you can get away with a fair amount, hence the existence of liberal radio stations and press that were recently shut down, and rather than mass imprisonment of dissidents they seem to pick on a few prominent dissidents like Navalny as a warning to everyone else: there don't seem to be huge numbers of people locked up for long periods. But the lack of certainty is what kills serious open debate - if you're a regular critic then sooner or later you will get arrested…
Or if particularly effective, then assassinated. Dissent as a safety valve was tolerated; effective opposition was not allowed to exist.
Given Melenchon is even more pro Putin than Le Pen and wants to pull France out of NATO (Le Pen has at least shredded pictures of her meeting Putin and opposed the invasion) I doubt it makes any difference at all to the likelihood of Le Pen being Macron's opponent in the runoff.
The latest poll has Macron getting a boost from the situation on 30%, Le Pen still second on 18%, Pecresse third on 12% and Melenchon and Zemmour tied 4th on 11%.
As this is a betting site, and you don’t wish to mislead us, “ Given Melenchon is even more pro Putin than Le Pen and wants to pull France out of NATO” share with us this evidence you have seen from this campaign. I looked around for this and couldn’t find it.
The problem is that Mélenchon is a Corbyn lookalike who is just as compromised as Le Pen when it comes to his stance vis a vis Putin. Hollande has just said that Mélenchon may be a “useful vote”, in that he’s the front runner amongst the fissiparous left, but he weren’t be a “useful president”! He’s plateauing in recent polls.
I’m calling you out on this, Blurp. to call the ardent Nationalist Melenchon Corbynite is to call Corbyn an ardent Nationalist. Le Pen and Melenchon sit on the opposite side of the table from Corbyn. Anti immigration. Anti EU. Close borders, look after our own with early retirement etc. you need to take a closer look and rethink your response.
Once it gets underway this French election is not as it seems - Macrons policy positions are a declaration of war on what the French Electorate want right now.
That’s a good find HY! 🙂 have you got TASS on speed dial. I didn’t actually go looking for quote from TASS, the Russian news agency, I thought maybe people would disbelieve it on here, can we be sure he did actually say that, even if it was just what we wanted to hear, can we trust TASS, I checked BBC and French press for same thing.
The next bit, "I would first and foremost like to restore our military sovereignty. France, who has nuclear deterrent forces, should be independent and should not depend on the US in terms of arms production," Melenchon added. That makes him sound very much the French Nationalist? That line might actually be popular with a lot of the French electorate? Especially post AUKUS double dealing? It doesn’t prove Melenchon is pro Putin because De Gaulle was not Pro Kremlin when he took France out NATO. France only rejoined NATO in 2009, when de gaule took them out they were out 44 years, so it’s not such a wild proposition for the French electorate out NATO as for UK? Especially with this Ukraine situation playing in this French election. “"Why do we have to protect Ukraine’s borders?" Melenchon said. As it turned out, we didn’t, as last evening on PB showed we are watching Putin place Ukraine borders where he wants, without UK and France defending them, leaving Melenchon position very little different than the UK governments now, and probably just a tad more honest and straight speaking about it ☹️
All I’m saying is, as political bettors, we shouldn’t view French election as though it was English. The fact they have been out NATO those 44 years recently shows they are different, far more independent minded and nationalist than the English. And a lot of very local factors could play a part in French election this year, I’ll give you one example, there’s a lot of clear yellow between Macron on one side and the Yellowjacket candidates Melenchon and Le Pen regarding credit crunch, pension age, unfair tax system.
De Gaulle didn't leave NATO - he opted the French military out of the integrated command structure, but France remained a part of NATO.
Not as the headlines on Google search tells it. Joined 49, left 66, rejoined 2009
It's still wrong though. :-)
They were part of the integrated planning for WWIII all through those years, paying into the various common funds, providing tons of staff at NATO headquarters etc etc.
EDIT: One thing about NATO that seems to get missed is that it is a very variable geometry alliance - there are some minima requirements to be a member, but after that then nature of the relationship a country has with NATO is quite flexible.
I felt there was more mileage and much for me to learn in what you were saying, so I copied it across.
So, if you “opt out the integrated command structure for a variable geometric relationship” are you still obliged to go to aid of an attacked member? That would be a definition whether you were actually in it or not, like the Malmesbury versus the internet argument about France out for 44 years or still actually in?
In fact where you went on to say
“One thing about NATO that seems to get missed is that it is a very variable geometry alliance - there are some minima requirements to be a member, but after that then nature of the relationship a country has with NATO is quite flexible.”
How much flexibility is there today in being able to pick and choose and opt out a conflict?
- Greece and Turkey have been at each other's throats for many years, arguing over Cyprus. Complete with invasions, fighting etc. Without dragging the other NATO members in. With Turkey and Greece in SHAPE, all the while...
- While there is a requirement to go to the aid of members who are attacked "in area*", there is no legally binding definition of what that "aid" should be. So you could send a letter deploring the attack, in theory.
- The 2% minimum spend on defence is a recommendation, without any force/legal basis/or penalties, apart from being neighbourly
*There is special provision to exclude colonial territories - hence the Falklands was "out of area" for NATO.
So, and I hope certain posters arn’t reading, if Putin attacked one of the Baltic states, we are not obliged to go to their aid, just send Mad Vlad a stiff letter if we chose?
Are you sure?
Yes - quite sure. The thing is that NATO (as an alliance) is the ultimate expression of the theory that only if it is truly voluntary, is an agreement truly binding.
Naaaaaaaa. Your have a bubble as they say in landan 🤔
It’s an alliance of self interest, and there is a very strong incentive to come to others’ aid as a way of ensuring they’ll do the same for you when the chips are down. There’s strength in numbers, and there are 34 member states,
The constant talking up that Putin will use Chemical weapons, can we be hopeful this is laying down a red line for NATO involvement? UK and US preparing the way with this “he is planning to use chemical weapons he always does” line, to tell NATO enough is enough, now we go in. If not, why are they saying it before proof it has happened? If anything it just alarms more Ukrainians not to stay and fight?
It's the same as with the invasion itself. They are hoping that by saying publicly to Putin that they know what he is up to, that it will somehow shame him into not doing it.
This wasn't successful for the invasion. I'm not sure why it should be different this time. There certainly hasn't been any message that it would change the policy on direct military intervention - and if it was going to then you would want to make that clear ahead of time so that it might have some deterrent value.
If it’s a shame game then, I don’t think it will work on Putin. 😕
It’s said they have already used the evil vacuum weapon. That one really annoys me. 😠
Given Melenchon is even more pro Putin than Le Pen and wants to pull France out of NATO (Le Pen has at least shredded pictures of her meeting Putin and opposed the invasion) I doubt it makes any difference at all to the likelihood of Le Pen being Macron's opponent in the runoff.
The latest poll has Macron getting a boost from the situation on 30%, Le Pen still second on 18%, Pecresse third on 12% and Melenchon and Zemmour tied 4th on 11%.
As this is a betting site, and you don’t wish to mislead us, “ Given Melenchon is even more pro Putin than Le Pen and wants to pull France out of NATO” share with us this evidence you have seen from this campaign. I looked around for this and couldn’t find it.
The problem is that Mélenchon is a Corbyn lookalike who is just as compromised as Le Pen when it comes to his stance vis a vis Putin. Hollande has just said that Mélenchon may be a “useful vote”, in that he’s the front runner amongst the fissiparous left, but he weren’t be a “useful president”! He’s plateauing in recent polls.
I’m calling you out on this, Blurp. to call the ardent Nationalist Melenchon Corbynite is to call Corbyn an ardent Nationalist. Le Pen and Melenchon sit on the opposite side of the table from Corbyn. Anti immigration. Anti EU. Close borders, look after our own with early retirement etc. you need to take a closer look and rethink your response.
Once it gets underway this French election is not as it seems - Macrons policy positions are a declaration of war on what the French Electorate want right now.
That’s a good find HY! 🙂 have you got TASS on speed dial. I didn’t actually go looking for quote from TASS, the Russian news agency, I thought maybe people would disbelieve it on here, can we be sure he did actually say that, even if it was just what we wanted to hear, can we trust TASS, I checked BBC and French press for same thing.
The next bit, "I would first and foremost like to restore our military sovereignty. France, who has nuclear deterrent forces, should be independent and should not depend on the US in terms of arms production," Melenchon added. That makes him sound very much the French Nationalist? That line might actually be popular with a lot of the French electorate? Especially post AUKUS double dealing? It doesn’t prove Melenchon is pro Putin because De Gaulle was not Pro Kremlin when he took France out NATO. France only rejoined NATO in 2009, when de gaule took them out they were out 44 years, so it’s not such a wild proposition for the French electorate out NATO as for UK? Especially with this Ukraine situation playing in this French election. “"Why do we have to protect Ukraine’s borders?" Melenchon said. As it turned out, we didn’t, as last evening on PB showed we are watching Putin place Ukraine borders where he wants, without UK and France defending them, leaving Melenchon position very little different than the UK governments now, and probably just a tad more honest and straight speaking about it ☹️
All I’m saying is, as political bettors, we shouldn’t view French election as though it was English. The fact they have been out NATO those 44 years recently shows they are different, far more independent minded and nationalist than the English. And a lot of very local factors could play a part in French election this year, I’ll give you one example, there’s a lot of clear yellow between Macron on one side and the Yellowjacket candidates Melenchon and Le Pen regarding credit crunch, pension age, unfair tax system.
De Gaulle didn't leave NATO - he opted the French military out of the integrated command structure, but France remained a part of NATO.
Not as the headlines on Google search tells it. Joined 49, left 66, rejoined 2009
It's still wrong though. :-)
They were part of the integrated planning for WWIII all through those years, paying into the various common funds, providing tons of staff at NATO headquarters etc etc.
EDIT: One thing about NATO that seems to get missed is that it is a very variable geometry alliance - there are some minima requirements to be a member, but after that then nature of the relationship a country has with NATO is quite flexible.
I felt there was more mileage and much for me to learn in what you were saying, so I copied it across.
So, if you “opt out the integrated command structure for a variable geometric relationship” are you still obliged to go to aid of an attacked member? That would be a definition whether you were actually in it or not, like the Malmesbury versus the internet argument about France out for 44 years or still actually in?
In fact where you went on to say
“One thing about NATO that seems to get missed is that it is a very variable geometry alliance - there are some minima requirements to be a member, but after that then nature of the relationship a country has with NATO is quite flexible.”
How much flexibility is there today in being able to pick and choose and opt out a conflict?
- Greece and Turkey have been at each other's throats for many years, arguing over Cyprus. Complete with invasions, fighting etc. Without dragging the other NATO members in. With Turkey and Greece in SHAPE, all the while...
- While there is a requirement to go to the aid of members who are attacked "in area*", there is no legally binding definition of what that "aid" should be. So you could send a letter deploring the attack, in theory.
- The 2% minimum spend on defence is a recommendation, without any force/legal basis/or penalties, apart from being neighbourly
*There is special provision to exclude colonial territories - hence the Falklands was "out of area" for NATO.
So, and I hope certain posters arn’t reading, if Putin attacked one of the Baltic states, we are not obliged to go to their aid, just send Mad Vlad a stiff letter if we chose?
Are you sure?
Yes - quite sure. The thing is that NATO (as an alliance) is the ultimate expression of the theory that only if it is truly voluntary, is an agreement truly binding.
Naaaaaaaa. Your have a bubble as they say in landan 🤔
NATO has always been a very voluntary thing.
How's this for wacky - the US *lends* nuclear weapons to it's allies. As part of NATO...
This started way back in the 50s. A German fighter jet would sit on the ground (for example), ready for takeoff. A couple of American nuclear bombs attached. An American officer would be there, nominally in charge of the bombs...
On one occasion the American observer was talking to the pilot of the German jet. Turned out the German pilot had got his Iron Cross (which he was wearing) for shooting down American planes in WWII. Which might well have included the American observer chap, they both realised, on swapping dates and times.... Less than a decade later, borrowing nukes.....
While they don't actual do the live alerts anymore, the bombs are still there, in Germany. And the German airforce has an issue with making sure that some of its planes are nuclear capable to carry them.....
There are some clear signs that the wheels are starting to come off for Putin. When you get pundits on Russian state TV’s main show calling for the Kremlin to end the investigation and some of the oligarchs starting to break ranks (look at Vladimir Potanin’s comments on the proposal to seize foreign owned assets), there is something clearly happening.
Yep. The clock is ticking for Putin now. The Russian army being defeated by Ukraine is a humiliation that cannot be ignored, and looks increasingly likely.
How extensive the Navalny protests are this weekend will be vert interesting.
The UK and western media (mainstream and social) is so relentlessly anti-Putin I do wonder if they are largely telling themselves what they want to believe rather than what is is really happening in Ukraine and Russia. It's one thing to acknowledge stiff Ukrainian resistance in the first two weeks of the conflict but to declare Russia on the brink of defeat or Putin about to lose power is a pretty big leap I just don't see any real evidence for.
The US is saying that Chernihiv, another sizable city of nearly 300k, has been encircled. The Ukrainians haven't been able to lift the siege of Mariupol, despite the desperate need to do so.
The Ukrainians are doing very well, inflicting heavy damage on the Russian army and air force, but they're heavily outnumbered, don't have enough forces to cover every front, and so lack the ability to launch a major counter-offensive.
They're going to have to continue to inflict disproportionate losses for a long time to turn the tide.
Would that be Chernihiv where the 10 Russian tanks were reportedly abandoned?
I’m not saying the situation isn’t dire but Russia hasn’t got unlimited time. Every day that goes, the Ukrainians are training more conscripts whereas Russia’s army is being depleted. Ukraine is also been constantly supplied by western equipment whereas Russia is running down its reserves. The Ukrainians are now a significant net gainer when it comes to equipment as, even not withstanding western supplies, captured equipment from the Russians exceed the losses. It’s also now looking as though the Ukrainian estimates on Russian losses may not be too far off the truth.
What exactly is going to turn this round for Russia?
Have we any estimates for Ukrainian casualties? Russia's losses much more publicised for obvious reasons.
Mate, I could do a top 50! I love megaliths, if I go anywhere and find out there is some mysterious ancient stone monument nearby, I practically orgasm
And now you've set me off. Here are my top ten megalithic monuments of the world
10. Newgrange, Ireland 9. Avebury, England 8. Carnac, France 7. Castlerigg, England 6. Uragh, Ireland 5. Callanish, Scotland 4. Ggantija, Malta 3. Brodgar, Orkney 2. Stonehenge, England 1. Gobekli Tepe, Turkey
And I have seen them all
This might be mis-remembered nonsense: On Orkney there are two standing stones with holes in them, miles apart.
If you line them both up it directs you down the entrance tunnel to Maes Howe. Which is also aligned with the setting sun on the solstice, bathing the chamber in light.
It doesn't work any more as the axis of the earth had shifted since then.
I can well believe it. The Orcadian megaliths are amazing
One of the many many surprises of the wonderful Stonehenge exhibition at the British Museum (which I may have menshed) was discovering just how interlinked these worlds were. Skara Brae, Stonehenge, northwest France, Germany, Denmark, even Greece - they exchanged ideas, objects, memes, motifs - as they travelled easily around Europe. They wore gold hats and wolf-teeth dresses and they had fabulous mythology. And they inhabited a wholly unspoiled world, perhaps devoid of guilt
I wonder if they were happier than us. Possibly they were
Some people reckon a chap called Yahweh came from Judea to England to ask the Druid’s a question. “Hello Druid, son of Druid” [it may not have gone exactly like this, but similar] “can you tell me sir, before Piscean age there was no North Star, so how did your ancient builders accurately know where North was?”
Have you come across the answer to that Leon?
That's easy: put a stick in the ground on a sunny day and every half hour or so put a pebble where the end of the shadow is. After a couple of hours you have a line that points east-west. Keep going from morning into the afternoon and the direction of the shortest shadow of the day is due south, north is in the opposite direction to south.
Surely that only works on the equinox (ignoring atmospheric effects)?
At other times the shadow describes a curve.
Give it a try: it does work. It was a standard bit of practical work in GCSE Astronomy when I used to teach it.
The shortest shadow will obviously point south but I can't see how you get a straight EW line when the sun sets in the NW in the summer. Only when the sunset is due W will the shadow travel in a perfectly straight line, ie on the Equinox.
Given Melenchon is even more pro Putin than Le Pen and wants to pull France out of NATO (Le Pen has at least shredded pictures of her meeting Putin and opposed the invasion) I doubt it makes any difference at all to the likelihood of Le Pen being Macron's opponent in the runoff.
The latest poll has Macron getting a boost from the situation on 30%, Le Pen still second on 18%, Pecresse third on 12% and Melenchon and Zemmour tied 4th on 11%.
As this is a betting site, and you don’t wish to mislead us, “ Given Melenchon is even more pro Putin than Le Pen and wants to pull France out of NATO” share with us this evidence you have seen from this campaign. I looked around for this and couldn’t find it.
The problem is that Mélenchon is a Corbyn lookalike who is just as compromised as Le Pen when it comes to his stance vis a vis Putin. Hollande has just said that Mélenchon may be a “useful vote”, in that he’s the front runner amongst the fissiparous left, but he weren’t be a “useful president”! He’s plateauing in recent polls.
I’m calling you out on this, Blurp. to call the ardent Nationalist Melenchon Corbynite is to call Corbyn an ardent Nationalist. Le Pen and Melenchon sit on the opposite side of the table from Corbyn. Anti immigration. Anti EU. Close borders, look after our own with early retirement etc. you need to take a closer look and rethink your response.
Once it gets underway this French election is not as it seems - Macrons policy positions are a declaration of war on what the French Electorate want right now.
That’s a good find HY! 🙂 have you got TASS on speed dial. I didn’t actually go looking for quote from TASS, the Russian news agency, I thought maybe people would disbelieve it on here, can we be sure he did actually say that, even if it was just what we wanted to hear, can we trust TASS, I checked BBC and French press for same thing.
The next bit, "I would first and foremost like to restore our military sovereignty. France, who has nuclear deterrent forces, should be independent and should not depend on the US in terms of arms production," Melenchon added. That makes him sound very much the French Nationalist? That line might actually be popular with a lot of the French electorate? Especially post AUKUS double dealing? It doesn’t prove Melenchon is pro Putin because De Gaulle was not Pro Kremlin when he took France out NATO. France only rejoined NATO in 2009, when de gaule took them out they were out 44 years, so it’s not such a wild proposition for the French electorate out NATO as for UK? Especially with this Ukraine situation playing in this French election. “"Why do we have to protect Ukraine’s borders?" Melenchon said. As it turned out, we didn’t, as last evening on PB showed we are watching Putin place Ukraine borders where he wants, without UK and France defending them, leaving Melenchon position very little different than the UK governments now, and probably just a tad more honest and straight speaking about it ☹️
All I’m saying is, as political bettors, we shouldn’t view French election as though it was English. The fact they have been out NATO those 44 years recently shows they are different, far more independent minded and nationalist than the English. And a lot of very local factors could play a part in French election this year, I’ll give you one example, there’s a lot of clear yellow between Macron on one side and the Yellowjacket candidates Melenchon and Le Pen regarding credit crunch, pension age, unfair tax system.
De Gaulle didn't leave NATO - he opted the French military out of the integrated command structure, but France remained a part of NATO.
Not as the headlines on Google search tells it. Joined 49, left 66, rejoined 2009
It's still wrong though. :-)
They were part of the integrated planning for WWIII all through those years, paying into the various common funds, providing tons of staff at NATO headquarters etc etc.
EDIT: One thing about NATO that seems to get missed is that it is a very variable geometry alliance - there are some minima requirements to be a member, but after that then nature of the relationship a country has with NATO is quite flexible.
I felt there was more mileage and much for me to learn in what you were saying, so I copied it across.
So, if you “opt out the integrated command structure for a variable geometric relationship” are you still obliged to go to aid of an attacked member? That would be a definition whether you were actually in it or not, like the Malmesbury versus the internet argument about France out for 44 years or still actually in?
In fact where you went on to say
“One thing about NATO that seems to get missed is that it is a very variable geometry alliance - there are some minima requirements to be a member, but after that then nature of the relationship a country has with NATO is quite flexible.”
How much flexibility is there today in being able to pick and choose and opt out a conflict?
- Greece and Turkey have been at each other's throats for many years, arguing over Cyprus. Complete with invasions, fighting etc. Without dragging the other NATO members in. With Turkey and Greece in SHAPE, all the while...
- While there is a requirement to go to the aid of members who are attacked "in area*", there is no legally binding definition of what that "aid" should be. So you could send a letter deploring the attack, in theory.
- The 2% minimum spend on defence is a recommendation, without any force/legal basis/or penalties, apart from being neighbourly
*There is special provision to exclude colonial territories - hence the Falklands was "out of area" for NATO.
So, and I hope certain posters arn’t reading, if Putin attacked one of the Baltic states, we are not obliged to go to their aid, just send Mad Vlad a stiff letter if we chose?
Are you sure?
Yes - quite sure. The thing is that NATO (as an alliance) is the ultimate expression of the theory that only if it is truly voluntary, is an agreement truly binding.
Naaaaaaaa. Your have a bubble as they say in landan 🤔
It’s an alliance of self interest, and there is a very strong incentive to come to others’ aid as a way of ensuring they’ll do the same for you when the chips are down. There’s strength in numbers, and there are 34 member states,
Yet the same argument Putin has nuclear bombs. So it’s world war three.
World War III. World. War. Three. It’s only Estonia. How about we right a stiff letter?
"KYIV, Ukraine (AP) — Satellite photos show Russian convoy outside Kyiv appears to have dispersed to surrounding areas."
Looks like there may be the battle for Kyiv in the next 72ish hours. I would not want to be attacking such well supplied dug in troops. However it's not clear what meaning of dispersed this means, and how much co-ordination they have.
Possibly in response to the Ukrainian action today where they counter-attacked with artillery and tanks. Having such a column on such a long road was inviting trouble (as we discussed)
And if dispersed, more opportunities for the Ukrainian special forces to pick off parts off it rather than have to face the whole force.
Next 48 hours are crucial, as Russia tries to implement its battle plan on Kyiv.
Given Melenchon is even more pro Putin than Le Pen and wants to pull France out of NATO (Le Pen has at least shredded pictures of her meeting Putin and opposed the invasion) I doubt it makes any difference at all to the likelihood of Le Pen being Macron's opponent in the runoff.
The latest poll has Macron getting a boost from the situation on 30%, Le Pen still second on 18%, Pecresse third on 12% and Melenchon and Zemmour tied 4th on 11%.
As this is a betting site, and you don’t wish to mislead us, “ Given Melenchon is even more pro Putin than Le Pen and wants to pull France out of NATO” share with us this evidence you have seen from this campaign. I looked around for this and couldn’t find it.
The problem is that Mélenchon is a Corbyn lookalike who is just as compromised as Le Pen when it comes to his stance vis a vis Putin. Hollande has just said that Mélenchon may be a “useful vote”, in that he’s the front runner amongst the fissiparous left, but he weren’t be a “useful president”! He’s plateauing in recent polls.
I’m calling you out on this, Blurp. to call the ardent Nationalist Melenchon Corbynite is to call Corbyn an ardent Nationalist. Le Pen and Melenchon sit on the opposite side of the table from Corbyn. Anti immigration. Anti EU. Close borders, look after our own with early retirement etc. you need to take a closer look and rethink your response.
Once it gets underway this French election is not as it seems - Macrons policy positions are a declaration of war on what the French Electorate want right now.
That’s a good find HY! 🙂 have you got TASS on speed dial. I didn’t actually go looking for quote from TASS, the Russian news agency, I thought maybe people would disbelieve it on here, can we be sure he did actually say that, even if it was just what we wanted to hear, can we trust TASS, I checked BBC and French press for same thing.
The next bit, "I would first and foremost like to restore our military sovereignty. France, who has nuclear deterrent forces, should be independent and should not depend on the US in terms of arms production," Melenchon added. That makes him sound very much the French Nationalist? That line might actually be popular with a lot of the French electorate? Especially post AUKUS double dealing? It doesn’t prove Melenchon is pro Putin because De Gaulle was not Pro Kremlin when he took France out NATO. France only rejoined NATO in 2009, when de gaule took them out they were out 44 years, so it’s not such a wild proposition for the French electorate out NATO as for UK? Especially with this Ukraine situation playing in this French election. “"Why do we have to protect Ukraine’s borders?" Melenchon said. As it turned out, we didn’t, as last evening on PB showed we are watching Putin place Ukraine borders where he wants, without UK and France defending them, leaving Melenchon position very little different than the UK governments now, and probably just a tad more honest and straight speaking about it ☹️
All I’m saying is, as political bettors, we shouldn’t view French election as though it was English. The fact they have been out NATO those 44 years recently shows they are different, far more independent minded and nationalist than the English. And a lot of very local factors could play a part in French election this year, I’ll give you one example, there’s a lot of clear yellow between Macron on one side and the Yellowjacket candidates Melenchon and Le Pen regarding credit crunch, pension age, unfair tax system.
De Gaulle didn't leave NATO - he opted the French military out of the integrated command structure, but France remained a part of NATO.
Not as the headlines on Google search tells it. Joined 49, left 66, rejoined 2009
It's still wrong though. :-)
They were part of the integrated planning for WWIII all through those years, paying into the various common funds, providing tons of staff at NATO headquarters etc etc.
EDIT: One thing about NATO that seems to get missed is that it is a very variable geometry alliance - there are some minima requirements to be a member, but after that then nature of the relationship a country has with NATO is quite flexible.
I felt there was more mileage and much for me to learn in what you were saying, so I copied it across.
So, if you “opt out the integrated command structure for a variable geometric relationship” are you still obliged to go to aid of an attacked member? That would be a definition whether you were actually in it or not, like the Malmesbury versus the internet argument about France out for 44 years or still actually in?
In fact where you went on to say
“One thing about NATO that seems to get missed is that it is a very variable geometry alliance - there are some minima requirements to be a member, but after that then nature of the relationship a country has with NATO is quite flexible.”
How much flexibility is there today in being able to pick and choose and opt out a conflict?
- Greece and Turkey have been at each other's throats for many years, arguing over Cyprus. Complete with invasions, fighting etc. Without dragging the other NATO members in. With Turkey and Greece in SHAPE, all the while...
- While there is a requirement to go to the aid of members who are attacked "in area*", there is no legally binding definition of what that "aid" should be. So you could send a letter deploring the attack, in theory.
- The 2% minimum spend on defence is a recommendation, without any force/legal basis/or penalties, apart from being neighbourly
*There is special provision to exclude colonial territories - hence the Falklands was "out of area" for NATO.
So, and I hope certain posters arn’t reading, if Putin attacked one of the Baltic states, we are not obliged to go to their aid, just send Mad Vlad a stiff letter if we chose?
Are you sure?
Yes - quite sure. The thing is that NATO (as an alliance) is the ultimate expression of the theory that only if it is truly voluntary, is an agreement truly binding.
Naaaaaaaa. Your have a bubble as they say in landan 🤔
NATO has always been a very voluntary thing.
How's this for wacky - the US *lends* nuclear weapons to it's allies. As part of NATO...
This started way back in the 50s. A German fighter jet would sit on the ground (for example), ready for takeoff. A couple of American nuclear bombs attached. An American officer would be there, nominally in charge of the bombs...
On one occasion the American observer was talking to the pilot of the German jet. Turned out the German pilot had got his Iron Cross (which he was wearing) for shooting down American planes in WWII. Which might well have included the American observer chap, they both realised, on swapping dates and times.... Less than a decade later, borrowing nukes.....
While they don't actual do the live alerts anymore, the bombs are still there, in Germany. And the German airforce has an issue with making sure that some of its planes are nuclear capable to carry them.....
Are there NATO countries benefitting from nuclear deterrent who won’t have them on their land?
The Conservative councillor resigned over plans to build a giant solar farm. The Greens won the by-election by 13 votes: 281 to 268. I assume they're likely to be in favour of the solar farm.
"The winner of that by-election, the Conservatives' Richard Coleman, has now resigned in his turn. He was opposed to plans to build a giant solar farm across over three square miles of land in Essendine, with the capacity to generate renewable power for up to 92,000 homes (or about 5.4 Rutlands)."
Mate, I could do a top 50! I love megaliths, if I go anywhere and find out there is some mysterious ancient stone monument nearby, I practically orgasm
And now you've set me off. Here are my top ten megalithic monuments of the world
10. Newgrange, Ireland 9. Avebury, England 8. Carnac, France 7. Castlerigg, England 6. Uragh, Ireland 5. Callanish, Scotland 4. Ggantija, Malta 3. Brodgar, Orkney 2. Stonehenge, England 1. Gobekli Tepe, Turkey
And I have seen them all
This might be mis-remembered nonsense: On Orkney there are two standing stones with holes in them, miles apart.
If you line them both up it directs you down the entrance tunnel to Maes Howe. Which is also aligned with the setting sun on the solstice, bathing the chamber in light.
It doesn't work any more as the axis of the earth had shifted since then.
I can well believe it. The Orcadian megaliths are amazing
One of the many many surprises of the wonderful Stonehenge exhibition at the British Museum (which I may have menshed) was discovering just how interlinked these worlds were. Skara Brae, Stonehenge, northwest France, Germany, Denmark, even Greece - they exchanged ideas, objects, memes, motifs - as they travelled easily around Europe. They wore gold hats and wolf-teeth dresses and they had fabulous mythology. And they inhabited a wholly unspoiled world, perhaps devoid of guilt
I wonder if they were happier than us. Possibly they were
Some people reckon a chap called Yahweh came from Judea to England to ask the Druid’s a question. “Hello Druid, son of Druid” [it may not have gone exactly like this, but similar] “can you tell me sir, before Piscean age there was no North Star, so how did your ancient builders accurately know where North was?”
Have you come across the answer to that Leon?
That's easy: put a stick in the ground on a sunny day and every half hour or so put a pebble where the end of the shadow is. After a couple of hours you have a line that points east-west. Keep going from morning into the afternoon and the direction of the shortest shadow of the day is due south, north is in the opposite direction to south.
Surely that only works on the equinox (ignoring atmospheric effects)?
At other times the shadow describes a curve.
Give it a try: it does work. It was a standard bit of practical work in GCSE Astronomy when I used to teach it.
If you needed true north on a particular building site, you would be reliant on doing this each time? And perhaps even only on equinox as flatlander says?
I meant Yeshua not Yahweh in original post. In the Middle East they called it the magic in the North. When it came to building these things was there extra knowledge in the North of Europe?
The Conservative councillor resigned over plans to build a giant solar farm. The Greens won the by-election by 13 votes: 281 to 268. I assume they're likely to be in favour of the solar farm.
The Conservative councillor resigned over plans to build a giant solar farm. The Greens won the by-election by 13 votes: 281 to 268. I assume they're likely to be in favour of the solar farm.
I’m not a fan of Green Party weirdos. But green energy might not be a bad idea.
Also, of the green energy options, solar farm is the least intrusive in terms of NIMBYism i.e No massive windmill that can be seen for miles around making a racket all day long.
Mate, I could do a top 50! I love megaliths, if I go anywhere and find out there is some mysterious ancient stone monument nearby, I practically orgasm
And now you've set me off. Here are my top ten megalithic monuments of the world
10. Newgrange, Ireland 9. Avebury, England 8. Carnac, France 7. Castlerigg, England 6. Uragh, Ireland 5. Callanish, Scotland 4. Ggantija, Malta 3. Brodgar, Orkney 2. Stonehenge, England 1. Gobekli Tepe, Turkey
And I have seen them all
This might be mis-remembered nonsense: On Orkney there are two standing stones with holes in them, miles apart.
If you line them both up it directs you down the entrance tunnel to Maes Howe. Which is also aligned with the setting sun on the solstice, bathing the chamber in light.
It doesn't work any more as the axis of the earth had shifted since then.
I can well believe it. The Orcadian megaliths are amazing
One of the many many surprises of the wonderful Stonehenge exhibition at the British Museum (which I may have menshed) was discovering just how interlinked these worlds were. Skara Brae, Stonehenge, northwest France, Germany, Denmark, even Greece - they exchanged ideas, objects, memes, motifs - as they travelled easily around Europe. They wore gold hats and wolf-teeth dresses and they had fabulous mythology. And they inhabited a wholly unspoiled world, perhaps devoid of guilt
I wonder if they were happier than us. Possibly they were
Some people reckon a chap called Yahweh came from Judea to England to ask the Druid’s a question. “Hello Druid, son of Druid” [it may not have gone exactly like this, but similar] “can you tell me sir, before Piscean age there was no North Star, so how did your ancient builders accurately know where North was?”
Have you come across the answer to that Leon?
That's easy: put a stick in the ground on a sunny day and every half hour or so put a pebble where the end of the shadow is. After a couple of hours you have a line that points east-west. Keep going from morning into the afternoon and the direction of the shortest shadow of the day is due south, north is in the opposite direction to south.
Surely that only works on the equinox (ignoring atmospheric effects)?
At other times the shadow describes a curve.
Give it a try: it does work. It was a standard bit of practical work in GCSE Astronomy when I used to teach it.
The shortest shadow will obviously point south but I can't see how you get a straight EW line when the sun sets in the NW in the summer. Only when the sunset is due W will the shadow travel in a perfectly straight line, ie on the Equinox.
But as a way of finding NS, it works fine.
The shortest shadow will obviously point south north...
The Conservative councillor resigned over plans to build a giant solar farm. The Greens won the by-election by 13 votes: 281 to 268. I assume they're likely to be in favour of the solar farm.
I’m not a fan of Green Party weirdos. But green energy might not be a bad idea.
Also, of the green energy options, solar farm is the least intrusive in terms of NIMBYism i.e No massive windmill that can be seen for miles around making a racket all day long.
Yes and no. Solar kills off more habitat per MW (unless it is on a house roof or in a completely barren desert).
Plants might grow under panels but it is not really a natural habitat.
Mate, I could do a top 50! I love megaliths, if I go anywhere and find out there is some mysterious ancient stone monument nearby, I practically orgasm
And now you've set me off. Here are my top ten megalithic monuments of the world
10. Newgrange, Ireland 9. Avebury, England 8. Carnac, France 7. Castlerigg, England 6. Uragh, Ireland 5. Callanish, Scotland 4. Ggantija, Malta 3. Brodgar, Orkney 2. Stonehenge, England 1. Gobekli Tepe, Turkey
And I have seen them all
This might be mis-remembered nonsense: On Orkney there are two standing stones with holes in them, miles apart.
If you line them both up it directs you down the entrance tunnel to Maes Howe. Which is also aligned with the setting sun on the solstice, bathing the chamber in light.
It doesn't work any more as the axis of the earth had shifted since then.
I can well believe it. The Orcadian megaliths are amazing
One of the many many surprises of the wonderful Stonehenge exhibition at the British Museum (which I may have menshed) was discovering just how interlinked these worlds were. Skara Brae, Stonehenge, northwest France, Germany, Denmark, even Greece - they exchanged ideas, objects, memes, motifs - as they travelled easily around Europe. They wore gold hats and wolf-teeth dresses and they had fabulous mythology. And they inhabited a wholly unspoiled world, perhaps devoid of guilt
I wonder if they were happier than us. Possibly they were
Some people reckon a chap called Yahweh came from Judea to England to ask the Druid’s a question. “Hello Druid, son of Druid” [it may not have gone exactly like this, but similar] “can you tell me sir, before Piscean age there was no North Star, so how did your ancient builders accurately know where North was?”
Have you come across the answer to that Leon?
That's easy: put a stick in the ground on a sunny day and every half hour or so put a pebble where the end of the shadow is. After a couple of hours you have a line that points east-west. Keep going from morning into the afternoon and the direction of the shortest shadow of the day is due south, north is in the opposite direction to south.
Surely that only works on the equinox (ignoring atmospheric effects)?
At other times the shadow describes a curve.
Give it a try: it does work. It was a standard bit of practical work in GCSE Astronomy when I used to teach it.
The shortest shadow will obviously point south but I can't see how you get a straight EW line when the sun sets in the NW in the summer. Only when the sunset is due W will the shadow travel in a perfectly straight line, ie on the Equinox.
But as a way of finding NS, it works fine.
The shortest shadow will obviously point south north...
Comments
Mate, I could do a top 50! I love megaliths, if I go anywhere and find out there is some mysterious ancient stone monument nearby, I practically orgasm
And now you've set me off. Here are my top ten megalithic monuments of the world
10. Newgrange, Ireland
9. Avebury, England
8. Carnac, France
7. Castlerigg, England
6. Uragh, Ireland
5. Callanish, Scotland
4. Ggantija, Malta
3. Brodgar, Orkney
2. Stonehenge, England
1. Gobekli Tepe, Turkey
And I have seen them all
Yes I am pretty sure. We can round it down to 10kg if you'd like but I am still as lean as I was because I've bulked so slowly.
Key points:
"Chernihiv is now assessed to be isolated, joining Mariupol in that regard.
The front of the long-stalled Russian military convoy north of Kyiv has made incremental progress, moving from about 20 km outside the city center to 15 km away. Another advance on Kyiv is now 40 km to the east of the city, the senior U.S. defense official says.
U.S. has made weapons deliveries to the Ukrainians within the last 24 hours, with more planned within the day. Plan is to get them “as much and as fast as we can, for as long as we can.” No transfer has been interrupted by the Russians – “yet,” the senior defense official says."
Worth pointing out that the Russian advance is as far as Irpin, and they started at Hostomel, so it's not exactly virgin ground being fought over.
How extensive the Navalny protests are this weekend will be vert interesting.
This seemed eminently avoidable for Jacinda. The utter cock up with omicron there: trying useless restrictions like vaxports that have failed everywhere and leaning on extreme isolation rules was just stupid. Overall NZ has had an excellent pandemic but recency bias has probably done for her.
If you line them both up it directs you down the entrance tunnel to Maes Howe. Which is also aligned with the setting sun on the solstice, bathing the chamber in light.
It doesn't work any more as the axis of the earth had shifted since then.
Macron 30%
Le Pen 18%
Pecresse 12%
Melenchon 11%
Zemmour 11%
https://www.opinion-way.com/fr/barometre-opinionway-kea-partners-election-presidentielle-2022
I think there will be few of the ruling class In the post Putin government.
It’s the FCO, not fucking Buzzfeed
But the inability of Leeds, Burnley, Watford and Norwich to pick up a single point lately has cheered me up a little.
We've a lot of games in hand now. Although that will probably only serve to make our goal difference worse.
11/2 about an EFC relegation seems value.
I'm on at eights. Which seems monstrous considering who we have left to play.
A remnant, yes, but somehow still a fantastical structure.
One of the many many surprises of the wonderful Stonehenge exhibition at the British Museum (which I may have menshed) was discovering just how interlinked these worlds were. Skara Brae, Stonehenge, northwest France, Germany, Denmark, even Greece - they exchanged ideas, objects, memes, motifs - as they travelled easily around Europe. They wore gold hats and wolf-teeth dresses and they had fabulous mythology. And they inhabited a wholly unspoiled world, perhaps devoid of guilt
I wonder if they were happier than us. Possibly they were
So, if you “opt out the integrated command structure for a variable geometric relationship” are you still obliged to go to aid of an attacked member? That would be a definition whether you were actually in it or not, like the Malmesbury versus the internet argument about France out for 44 years or still actually in?
In fact where you went on to say
“One thing about NATO that seems to get missed is that it is a very variable geometry alliance - there are some minima requirements to be a member, but after that then nature of the relationship a country has with NATO is quite flexible.”
How much flexibility is there today in being able to pick and choose and opt out a conflict?
The Russian Army is clearly struggling, but Russian armies have struggled before, and won out in the end, as we all know
And Putin has plenty of cards to play, most of them barbaric, but he won't mind that
Long way to go
Have you come across the answer to that Leon?
I saw my only ever unexplained phenomenon there. I saw a chap dowsing. He gave his dowsing rods to and American tourist who expressed an interest - had never heard of it before - and the look of wonder on the American who got exactly the same result was a joy to behold.
You never get Castlerigg to yourself though - though the other people enjoying it are part of its charm
But when I was at Mitchell's Fold it was like I was the only soul left on earth.
I love the ancientness of stone circles. But I also love the places where the ancients chose to site them. They feel significant. You can see why they were chosen.
But I wonder if there is something inherently satisfying about stones in a circle. There is a rather nice stone circle on top of Old Pale Heights in Delamere Forest in Cheshire. It dates back to, ooh, about 2,000. It still manages to be quite satisfying.
EDIT: Just seen your list.
I love Stonehenge - for pure stoniness, you can't beat it. But they're particularly difficult to get a good feel for. The most satisfying view of Stonehenge I have ever had was driving past on the A303(?) with the low sun lighting them up. I wasn't even looking for them. But if I could go back to one in the south west, it would be Avebury. They somehow feel more impressively ancient. I think it is the way they are so tied in with the village - like humas have been here for a long, long time.
I've also seen Callanish, in a foul Hebridean rainstorm under a low grey sky. Atmospheric, but not one to come away feeling good about.
The one on your list I really want to see is Brodgar.
I'd also give a polite thumbs up to the Nine Ladies in Derbyshire and the Rollright Stones in Oxfordshire. Sensible, pleasant, unthreatening megaliths suitable for introducing to a maiden aunt.
sucking the cock and balls ofservices rendered to a former Chancellor of the exchequer and the current prime minister, and nobody seems to mind, or even have the bad taste to mention the factSucking probably the other way round come to think of it
- While there is a requirement to go to the aid of members who are attacked "in area*", there is no legally binding definition of what that "aid" should be. So you could send a letter deploring the attack, in theory.
- The 2% minimum spend on defence is a recommendation, without any force/legal basis/or penalties, apart from being neighbourly
*There is special provision to exclude colonial territories - hence the Falklands was "out of area" for NATO.
The Ukrainians are doing very well, inflicting heavy damage on the Russian army and air force, but they're heavily outnumbered, don't have enough forces to cover every front, and so lack the ability to launch a major counter-offensive.
They're going to have to continue to inflict disproportionate losses for a long time to turn the tide.
Hitler didn't just invent his war aims off the cuff. They were the most extreme version of Greater Germany Nationalism that he could find - so there was something in there for everyone.
In normal times you can get away with a fair amount, hence the existence of liberal radio stations and press that were recently shut down, and rather than mass imprisonment of dissidents they seem to pick on a few prominent dissidents like Navalny as a warning to everyone else: there don't seem to be huge numbers of people locked up for long periods. But the lack of certainty is what kills serious open debate - if you're a regular critic then sooner or later you will get arrested.
My impression, though, is that the military think they're gradually winning the war by successive encirclement, so we won't see a coup any time soon, but we could see something civilian.
This wasn't successful for the invasion. I'm not sure why it should be different this time. There certainly hasn't been any message that it would change the policy on direct military intervention - and if it was going to then you would want to make that clear ahead of time so that it might have some deterrent value.
Are you sure?
I’m not saying the situation isn’t dire but Russia hasn’t got unlimited time. Every day that goes, the Ukrainians are training more conscripts whereas Russia’s army is being depleted. Ukraine is also been constantly supplied by western equipment whereas Russia is running down its reserves. The Ukrainians are now a significant net gainer when it comes to equipment as, even not withstanding western supplies, captured equipment from the Russians exceed the losses. It’s also now looking as though the Ukrainian estimates on Russian losses may not be too far off the truth.
What exactly is going to turn this round for Russia?
- Makes Putin look more of an idiot.
- Creates massive paranoia in his inner circle (probably).
- Gets ahead in the information cycle.
The biggest issue with using Chemical weapons is probably the ability of the Russian Army to manoeuvre and fight in areas they've attacked with them.
In the past the USSR/Russian Army was (in)famous for it's training and equipping for massive chemical warfare. There was a bitter joke that the Russian plan for WWIII was, on the outbreak of war, to kill all Germans, East and West, by flooding Germany with 10s of thousands of tons of persistent nerve agents.
I'd be willing to bet most of that capability has been lost now. Without it, chemical weapons would hit the Russians as much as the Ukrainians in close combat.
Go to bed happy.
Little victories.
"KYIV, Ukraine (AP) — Satellite photos show Russian convoy outside Kyiv appears to have dispersed to surrounding areas."
Looks like there may be the battle for Kyiv in the next 72ish hours. I would not want to be attacking such well supplied dug in troops. However it's not clear what meaning of dispersed this means, and how much co-ordination they have.
At other times the shadow describes a curve.
https://twitter.com/scotexpress/status/1501967964660195331?s=21
Again the question: what exactly turns it around for Russia at this point?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=808aPr8cRSM
https://www.oryxspioenkop.com/2022/02/attack-on-europe-documenting-equipment.html
Now can anyone give an example of an army which was having so much of its equipment captured without being in serious problems ?
However the most recent polling trend does support you HY 🙂
But political betting is trying to predict what happens next and explain why. It may be the bigger factors in this election is not the war bounce for Macron but the threat of his policies going forward, particularly unpopular unfair taxes, retirement age and approach to the credit crunch. Macron very much the EU Nationalist, whilst his opponents probably outnumber him on votes for a withdraw to French nationalism and closure of the borders.
if le pen or Mélenchon wins into second round I will instantly have a bet on them.
The use of chlorine gas in Aleppo was crude, but brutally effective in clearing a city which had survived a siege of years. There is a real fear of a similar effort in Kharkiv or Mariupol.
I don't go as far as to say that the Ukrainians are bound to eventually fail to defend Ukraine east of the Dniepr, but they're clearly only able to fight a valiant rearguard action at present. There's a lot of dying left in the Russian army before that balance of power would change.
Dissent as a safety valve was tolerated; effective opposition was not allowed to exist.
There’s strength in numbers, and there are 34 member states,
It’s said they have already used the evil vacuum weapon. That one really annoys me. 😠
How's this for wacky - the US *lends* nuclear weapons to it's allies. As part of NATO...
This started way back in the 50s. A German fighter jet would sit on the ground (for example), ready for takeoff. A couple of American nuclear bombs attached. An American officer would be there, nominally in charge of the bombs...
On one occasion the American observer was talking to the pilot of the German jet. Turned out the German pilot had got his Iron Cross (which he was wearing) for shooting down American planes in WWII. Which might well have included the American observer chap, they both realised, on swapping dates and times.... Less than a decade later, borrowing nukes.....
While they don't actual do the live alerts anymore, the bombs are still there, in Germany. And the German airforce has an issue with making sure that some of its planes are nuclear capable to carry them.....
But as a way of finding NS, it works fine.
World War III. World. War. Three. It’s only Estonia. How about we right a stiff letter?
Leader Ed Davey praises Keir Starmer for transforming the largest opposition party"
https://www.ft.com/content/544fb07c-c5c2-400f-a19a-50c9a3ebc570
Next 48 hours are crucial, as Russia tries to implement its battle plan on Kyiv.
https://twitter.com/carlbildt/status/1502026746903863298
https://medium.com/britainelects/all-the-right-votes-but-not-necessarily-in-the-right-order-49a405347870
https://twitter.com/rutlandcouncil/status/1502071341616406532
"The winner of that by-election, the Conservatives' Richard Coleman, has now resigned in his turn. He was opposed to plans to build a giant solar farm across over three square miles of land in Essendine, with the capacity to generate renewable power for up to 92,000 homes (or about 5.4 Rutlands)."
And perhaps even only on equinox as flatlander says?
I meant Yeshua not Yahweh in original post. In the Middle East they called it the magic in the North. When it came to building these things was there extra knowledge in the North of Europe?
Oops. Is that Muphry's law?
Plants might grow under panels but it is not really a natural habitat.
😴
https://twitter.com/MattCartoonist/status/1499074420685615106/photo/1
https://twitter.com/BBCHelena/status/1502053976895893521/photo/1
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ulTmdVG1nSE
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gezu6A9zcLU