I always feel extremely self-conscious, and a bit of a loser, if I'm on my own in a restaurant, pub or cinema and have to make jokes about the wife or kids before awkwardly going back to my newspaper, book or browsing my phone.
I always feel extremely self-conscious, and a bit of a loser, if I'm on my own in a restaurant, pub or cinema and have to make jokes about the wife or kids before awkwardly going back to my newspaper, book or browsing my phone.
What's the secret to being comfortable with this?
Take an iPad and don’t give a fuck. I’ve done it so often now I don’t care whatsoever and I positively enjoy dining alone. I don’t have to make small talk and I can chat on here or Twitter or wherever
It’s rather restful
Of course I really enjoy dining with others as well. They are two very different experiences
The first time you do it it's really difficult for some reason.
It’s a massive breakthrough when you realise you’ve reached the stage when you actually enjoy dining alone
Not least, because that means you can travel the world alone and still enjoy really good food at night. And travelling alone is the best for accruing experiences, as we have discussed
There’s also an interesting gradient of discomfort to be overcome. Breakfast alone is fine for everyone. We all do it. Lunch alone can make you a little more self conscious
But you’ve only beaten the silly awkwardness when you can waltz into a restaurant and dine alone. Do it with flair and a smile. Dinner for one!
Then a dry martini. Mmmmm
I would usually rather eat alone than with other people. I mean, other people are fine and all, but I'd usually rather read a book than chat to someone.
It’s another world. Such gems as how difficult Labour will find it in 2024 to go up against substantially lower taxes. Lots of praise for her from the usual suspects for her low key approach. In the middle of the discussion someone mentioned that the pound was falling.
Did we ever get to the bottom of why Leon has a photo of Hitler as his screensaver/wallpaper?
I always feel extremely self-conscious, and a bit of a loser, if I'm on my own in a restaurant, pub or cinema and have to make jokes about the wife or kids before awkwardly going back to my newspaper, book or browsing my phone.
What's the secret to being comfortable with this?
Pick fights with complete strangers and get into brawls until pain is mother's milk to you. Eventually you'll have zero locus of external identity and won't give a fuck what people think.
I always feel extremely self-conscious, and a bit of a loser, if I'm on my own in a restaurant, pub or cinema and have to make jokes about the wife or kids before awkwardly going back to my newspaper, book or browsing my phone.
What's the secret to being comfortable with this?
A book. Gives you something to focus on and you look vaguely interesting even if the book is the profanosaurus with an intellectual bigger book cover around the outside.
And where you can, smoking, as “you are never alone with a Strand” whilst an advertising failure if you are sitting outside alone with a smoke and a drink etc it seems more acceptable. And then you die earlier thus reducing the amount of times you have to dine alone.
I was reading a biography of the Duke of Wellington earlier for a bit in Winchester.
Thought I looked a bit odd but I'm sure most people don't care.
It’s another world. Such gems as how difficult Labour will find it in 2024 to go up against substantially lower taxes. Lots of praise for her from the usual suspects for her low key approach. In the middle of the discussion someone mentioned that the pound was falling.
Did we ever get to the bottom of why Leon has a photo of Hitler as his screensaver/wallpaper?
I always feel extremely self-conscious, and a bit of a loser, if I'm on my own in a restaurant, pub or cinema and have to make jokes about the wife or kids before awkwardly going back to my newspaper, book or browsing my phone.
What's the secret to being comfortable with this?
Sitting alone in a restaurant never bothers me, nor does being alone in a pub. My "secret" is that I like people watching and I do not care what people think of me. I will probably never see the other patrons again so their opinions are irrelevant for me.
I have never gone to a cinema on my own, but cinema is not really my thing.
I always feel extremely self-conscious, and a bit of a loser, if I'm on my own in a restaurant, pub or cinema and have to make jokes about the wife or kids before awkwardly going back to my newspaper, book or browsing my phone.
What's the secret to being comfortable with this?
At restaurants sit at the bar if there is one.
The unwritten rule there is, though, that you're game for a chat - and should try and chat.
It’s a massive breakthrough when you realise you’ve reached the stage when you actually enjoy dining alone
Not least, because that means you can travel the world alone and still enjoy really good food at night. And travelling alone is the best for accruing experiences, as we have discussed
There’s also an interesting gradient of discomfort to be overcome. Breakfast alone is fine for everyone. We all do it. Lunch alone can make you a little more self conscious
But you’ve only beaten the silly awkwardness when you can waltz into a restaurant and dine alone. Do it with flair and a smile. Dinner for one!
Then a dry martini. Mmmmm
I would usually rather eat alone than with other people. I mean, other people are fine and all, but I'd usually rather read a book than chat to someone.
Since I mostly dine alone when I'm on a long-distance walk (sadly infrequently atm), people probably don't talk to me for reasons of fragrance. At least that's what I tell myself.
Having said that, I did meet a very pleasant Canadian lass in the Pizza Hut in Cockburn Street, Edinburgh many moons ago. I was eating alone, and she asked if she could join me.
It’s a massive breakthrough when you realise you’ve reached the stage when you actually enjoy dining alone
Not least, because that means you can travel the world alone and still enjoy really good food at night. And travelling alone is the best for accruing experiences, as we have discussed
There’s also an interesting gradient of discomfort to be overcome. Breakfast alone is fine for everyone. We all do it. Lunch alone can make you a little more self conscious
But you’ve only beaten the silly awkwardness when you can waltz into a restaurant and dine alone. Do it with flair and a smile. Dinner for one!
Then a dry martini. Mmmmm
9am fry up and a couple of pints in the Whiffler 'Spoons on Norwich ring road. Gritty. They open at 8 but who's getting out of bed for 8?
It’s a massive breakthrough when you realise you’ve reached the stage when you actually enjoy dining alone
Not least, because that means you can travel the world alone and still enjoy really good food at night. And travelling alone is the best for accruing experiences, as we have discussed
There’s also an interesting gradient of discomfort to be overcome. Breakfast alone is fine for everyone. We all do it. Lunch alone can make you a little more self conscious
But you’ve only beaten the silly awkwardness when you can waltz into a restaurant and dine alone. Do it with flair and a smile. Dinner for one!
Then a dry martini. Mmmmm
I would usually rather eat alone than with other people. I mean, other people are fine and all, but I'd usually rather read a book than chat to someone.
Since I mostly dine alone when I'm on a long-distance walk (sadly infrequently atm), people probably don't talk to me for reasons of fragrance. At least that's what I tell myself.
Having said that, I did meet a very pleasant Canadian lass in the Pizza Hut in Cockburn Street, Edinburgh many moons ago. I was eating alone, and she asked if she could join me.
I'm interested on how PB's finest would tackle the boats across the channel issue. I think a deal with the French is needed along lines of processing applications for asylum jointly in France and we take a certain percentage or number and French agree that intercepted boats can be turned back. Anybody think that Rwanda might "work" if implemented fully?
Easy.
Permanent landlord ban on anyone housing undocumented migrants
Permanent director ban for any company employing them
Permanent driving ban for anyone moving them about
Etc etc
And residency rights for any illegal immigrant who whistleblows on the above.
But think about the companies. How are they to know, in the absence of a UK ID card?
They'd need to ask everyone to show a passport. How do they know they are real? And what about the many, many UK subjects who don't have a passport? Are they to become unemployable?
For every job I've had, I've been asked for evidence of my identity. Not just for right to work, but for risk reduction.
A relative who runs a building company finds no difficulty in getting his people to prove who they are.
I have grudging respect for those blokes that can watch porn in 4k on their laptops on public transport. That's grandmaster level of not giving a fuck.
Russia has just claimed that Ukraine plan to shoot down a rocket filled with radioactive material over the Chernobyl exclusion zone.
So, going by Russian logic, that is exactly what Russia will now do. Then they can say Told you so, while scaring the shit out of everyone
Given the U?S at least and probably others have intel into the heart of the Kremlin (eg detailed advance knowledge of the Ukraine invasion) how do you think Russia will get away with this? Sure, there will be a gazillion Twitter twats who will go "Ooh, look, Ukrainian bastards!" but the higher levels of diplomacy will know exactly what gas gone on.
And Ukraine would lose its military and financial support overnight if they actually did it themselves. So it is beyond any credulity for it to work as the Russians suggest "it was Ukraine wot did it...."
Russia doesn't care about the truth, here, it cares about perceptions
If they set off a small dirty bomb and manage to at least temporarily blur the truth of who did it, then that is job done. Everyone will know it was probably Russia - probably - but won't be entirely sure. And everyone will be scared shitless and probably pushing Ukraine to back down
See the Kerch bombing, the Nordstream bombing, and the Dugin bombing. Each has been successfully blamed on various actors, even though we have a good idea in all cases who did it (Ukraine, USA, Ukraine)
You think US did nordstream? Interesting. I imagine any nuclear incident would lead to enormous pressure on China and India not to buy Russian oil. China is already alleged to be pretty furious with Putin and their economy is in trouble.
I am fairly confident the USA did Nordstream, tho they might have used a proxy to get it done yet avoid the blame (Ukraine itself, or maybe the Poles or Finns)
The strategic prize of keeping Germany on the western side, reliant on America, and also of cutting off Putin's options - one day selling more gas to Europe - was irresistible for Washington. And recall we have several vids of Biden and aides months ago saying the USA would do exactly this: cut Nordsream (one way or another)
But we cannot be sure. The fog of war obscures the truth. And that fog is what Putin might rely on, if he "does something radioactive"
I'm no conspiracy theorist, and I agree that the US is the most likely culprit for the Nordstream sabotage, on the "cui bono" principle. I don't understand what Russia got out of the sabotage, other than saying "look at what we did here, we can do it to something that matters, e.g. the north sea pipeline or a transatlantic communications cable.
America however benefits enormously from ensuring that Russian gas is cut off and stays cut off. Prevents waverers in Europe if there is a very cold winter. Add to that the fact that Biden literally said the US would "put an end" to Nordstream 2 if Russia attacked Ukraine, back in January.
1) The Russians send exactly the message you say.
2) Europe has learnt the hard way the problems with relying on Russia for energy. There was virtually no chance of (say) Germany going back to using it - which is why they've refused once Russia offered a week or so ago.
3) The implications if the Americans get caught doing it are massive, and not good for them.
4) For Russia, it adds to the 'Russia stronk!' pathetic meme they like to sell to their population and silly people outside Russia.
5) The spate of recent cable breaks are *not* to the US's advantage. They are to Russia's.
It makes far more sense to blame the Russians for the Shetland cable sabotage. Why would they start with something huge (Nordstream) then follow it up with something small like telephones in Shetland?
My view is that by blowing up Nordstream, the US (assuming they are the culprits) ensure that there can be no normalisation of relations in the event of a complete Russian collapse and regime change - thus protecting their long term strategic interests. Put simply, they have the most to benefit from doing it. Especially if they believe a regime change is possible or even near (which they might). If I were America and expected Russia to lose this war quickly, but wanted to prevent a normalisation of relations and a resumption of gas supplies once the new regime was in place, this is *exactly* what I would do. This is simply realpolitik, and every nation state engages in it.
I don't get what the Russians get out of blowing up Nordstream that they can't get out of snipping a few phone lines in Shetland. The former effs up their income stream from gas for decades, the latter inconveniences a few shepherds while sending a message.
I really don't understand how America could get "caught" here. Even if there were photos of a grinning Joe Biden planting plastic explosives, while wearing an old-timey diving suit, and giving the thumbs up, the Americans would deny all knowledge, as they always do, and we would still be in "conspiracy theory" territory.
"It makes far more sense to blame the Russians for the Shetland cable sabotage. Why would they start with something huge (Nordstream) then follow it up with something small like telephones in Shetland?"
To send the message that all out underwater infrastructure is vulnerable. If it was just gas pipelines we *might* be able to protect them; having to protect the vast network of cables as well is orders of magnitude more difficult because of the numbers involved. See https://www.submarinecablemap.com/
And attacking underwater cables might be much more immediately disruptive than even the gas pipelines. One of the most important acts we did in WW1 was cutting the German international cables - and we did that in the first few weeks.
How could Americans get caught? People talking. Other countries (perhaps those who might want to use pipelines) detecting submarines or ships that did it. Other intelligence means.
Exactly my point.
So the Russians are most likely to blame for Shetland - it sends a powerful message, at little cost to them. Whereas blowing up a gas pipeline sends a message "you can't rely on Russia for your gas" at an extraordinary cost to them. Which would be a message the Americans would dearly like to send, especially if they think Putin is about to lose, and they want to set the geopolitical agenda for another 30 years or more.
So on the cui bono principle, the Russians are obviously responsible for Shetland, but they'd have to be barking mad, and cutting off their own noses to spite their face, to blow up Nordstream.
It’s over 20C here in the Maconnais at 8.30 and I’m out on the terrace in the dark in short sleeves listening to crickets chirping. It’s nearly November. 25C forecast tomorrow.
#climatechange.
Incidentally I worked out the nearest nukeable location is St Yan air force base, 43km to our SW. reckon it would be a smallish warhead for that one rather than a megaton city-destroyer. Lyon 100km to the Soith gets one of them. Possibly Le Creusot or Montceau les Mines 50km to the NW get a small one. Dijon? Far enough away not to worry.
So I’d see the flash, possibly get a bit of fallout on a Westerly but not too much. Would be like the scene in Empire of the Sun when the boy sees the Nagasaki bomb and thinks it’s his mother going up to heaven.
Climate change plus a long fetch southerly.
Yes, and high pressure here. A long fetch Southerly across very warm subtropical Atlantic SSTs and a soup like Med.
Remarkable pattern really. Warm water anomalies everywhere except a very marked and deep La Niña in the pacific.
It’s a massive breakthrough when you realise you’ve reached the stage when you actually enjoy dining alone
Not least, because that means you can travel the world alone and still enjoy really good food at night. And travelling alone is the best for accruing experiences, as we have discussed
There’s also an interesting gradient of discomfort to be overcome. Breakfast alone is fine for everyone. We all do it. Lunch alone can make you a little more self conscious
But you’ve only beaten the silly awkwardness when you can waltz into a restaurant and dine alone. Do it with flair and a smile. Dinner for one!
Then a dry martini. Mmmmm
Dry martini after dinner?
Fuck me.
Not sure Bond was ever that direct in the Fleming novels.
It’s a massive breakthrough when you realise you’ve reached the stage when you actually enjoy dining alone
Not least, because that means you can travel the world alone and still enjoy really good food at night. And travelling alone is the best for accruing experiences, as we have discussed
There’s also an interesting gradient of discomfort to be overcome. Breakfast alone is fine for everyone. We all do it. Lunch alone can make you a little more self conscious
But you’ve only beaten the silly awkwardness when you can waltz into a restaurant and dine alone. Do it with flair and a smile. Dinner for one!
Then a dry martini. Mmmmm
Taking the time to chat to the FoH staff is also well worthwhile - especially in a City you don't know.
The BOE is becoming a definite problem. Since being granted its independence it seems to have done a sort of reverse takeover of the Treasury, which now seems to need to be granted independence from the Bank.
I'm no global economics expert, but borrowing billions to give tax cuts to rich people in an unfunded budget doesn't sound like a good idea. But now I'm told it was the Bank of England's fault. Really?
Not sure if you've read the article, but the author blames the budget largely (I think) for the smaller movements in the pound and the FTSE, but the Bank largely for the ongoing issues with gilts and the knock on effect on pensions. I think that's broadly correct.
If I were Truss and Kwarteng I'd have gone in two footed on the bank, and tested their determination to continue their bond sell off in the court of public opinion. They didn't, probably for good reason. And yes, the budget was poor, and poorly conceived, organised and presented.
I have grudging respect for those blokes that can watch porn in 4k on their laptops on public transport. That's grandmaster level of not giving a fuck.
I have grudging respect for those blokes that can watch porn in 4k on their laptops on public transport. That's grandmaster level of not giving a fuck.
This came up over the tractor porn episode under Johnson (remember that?) Was presented as a method of sexual aggression against women in the vicinity. Not giving a fuck seems more probable.
I'm interested on how PB's finest would tackle the boats across the channel issue. I think a deal with the French is needed along lines of processing applications for asylum jointly in France and we take a certain percentage or number and French agree that intercepted boats can be turned back. Anybody think that Rwanda might "work" if implemented fully?
Good God! Strike a deal with the French? You absolute traitor, sir, how dare you!
More importantly, the French will never stop the boats.
They will make agreements, but the locals hate the migrants with a considerable heat.
No French politician is going to upset so many French people to accommodate foreigners. Especially the British.
The only way to stop the boats is to eliminate the pull factor. It must be clearly understood that there is no direct route to staying in the country for boat arrivals. No ifs or buts.
Not logical. Why treat them differently from other illegals?
We shouldn't. Anyone here illegally should, by definition, be deported.
Where to?
Their choice, and if they don't have one, dealer's choice.
Because soooo many countries have border policies such that you can turn up with a ship or plane full of a few hundred passportless undesirables and offload them and fuck off home to get the next lot.
But just give us an example.
The only wY risk this given modern ability to travel is to have fe the rules so you can send back down the chain (ie France can return to Italy, Italy to Libya, etc). Return to point of origin dies t wirk as people destroy their id
I always feel extremely self-conscious, and a bit of a loser, if I'm on my own in a restaurant, pub or cinema and have to make jokes about the wife or kids before awkwardly going back to my newspaper, book or browsing my phone.
What's the secret to being comfortable with this?
A book. Gives you something to focus on and you look vaguely interesting even if the book is the profanosaurus with an intellectual bigger book cover around the outside.
And where you can, smoking, as “you are never alone with a Strand” whilst an advertising failure if you are sitting outside alone with a smoke and a drink etc it seems more acceptable. And then you die earlier thus reducing the amount of times you have to dine alone.
I was reading a biography of the Duke of Wellington earlier for a bit in Winchester.
Thought I looked a bit odd but I'm sure most people don't care.
That’s how Rishi got his big idea! CRIPM coming up in a few years.
It’s a massive breakthrough when you realise you’ve reached the stage when you actually enjoy dining alone
Not least, because that means you can travel the world alone and still enjoy really good food at night. And travelling alone is the best for accruing experiences, as we have discussed
There’s also an interesting gradient of discomfort to be overcome. Breakfast alone is fine for everyone. We all do it. Lunch alone can make you a little more self conscious
But you’ve only beaten the silly awkwardness when you can waltz into a restaurant and dine alone. Do it with flair and a smile. Dinner for one!
Then a dry martini. Mmmmm
9am fry up and a couple of pints in the Whiffler 'Spoons on Norwich ring road. Gritty. They open at 8 but who's getting out of bed for 8?
Years ago I was having a lunchtime drink and meal in a pub during a walk. A much older man entered the pub, stood at the bar, and then came over and asked me if I was (insert my name).
It turned out he recognised me from me website. It was his local pub, and he was a keen walker. It's the only time that's ever happened, and it felt weird.
Russia has just claimed that Ukraine plan to shoot down a rocket filled with radioactive material over the Chernobyl exclusion zone.
So, going by Russian logic, that is exactly what Russia will now do. Then they can say Told you so, while scaring the shit out of everyone
Given the U?S at least and probably others have intel into the heart of the Kremlin (eg detailed advance knowledge of the Ukraine invasion) how do you think Russia will get away with this? Sure, there will be a gazillion Twitter twats who will go "Ooh, look, Ukrainian bastards!" but the higher levels of diplomacy will know exactly what gas gone on.
And Ukraine would lose its military and financial support overnight if they actually did it themselves. So it is beyond any credulity for it to work as the Russians suggest "it was Ukraine wot did it...."
Russia doesn't care about the truth, here, it cares about perceptions
If they set off a small dirty bomb and manage to at least temporarily blur the truth of who did it, then that is job done. Everyone will know it was probably Russia - probably - but won't be entirely sure. And everyone will be scared shitless and probably pushing Ukraine to back down
See the Kerch bombing, the Nordstream bombing, and the Dugin bombing. Each has been successfully blamed on various actors, even though we have a good idea in all cases who did it (Ukraine, USA, Ukraine)
You think US did nordstream? Interesting. I imagine any nuclear incident would lead to enormous pressure on China and India not to buy Russian oil. China is already alleged to be pretty furious with Putin and their economy is in trouble.
I am fairly confident the USA did Nordstream, tho they might have used a proxy to get it done yet avoid the blame (Ukraine itself, or maybe the Poles or Finns)
The strategic prize of keeping Germany on the western side, reliant on America, and also of cutting off Putin's options - one day selling more gas to Europe - was irresistible for Washington. And recall we have several vids of Biden and aides months ago saying the USA would do exactly this: cut Nordsream (one way or another)
But we cannot be sure. The fog of war obscures the truth. And that fog is what Putin might rely on, if he "does something radioactive"
I'm no conspiracy theorist, and I agree that the US is the most likely culprit for the Nordstream sabotage, on the "cui bono" principle. I don't understand what Russia got out of the sabotage, other than saying "look at what we did here, we can do it to something that matters, e.g. the north sea pipeline or a transatlantic communications cable.
America however benefits enormously from ensuring that Russian gas is cut off and stays cut off. Prevents waverers in Europe if there is a very cold winter. Add to that the fact that Biden literally said the US would "put an end" to Nordstream 2 if Russia attacked Ukraine, back in January.
1) The Russians send exactly the message you say.
2) Europe has learnt the hard way the problems with relying on Russia for energy. There was virtually no chance of (say) Germany going back to using it - which is why they've refused once Russia offered a week or so ago.
3) The implications if the Americans get caught doing it are massive, and not good for them.
4) For Russia, it adds to the 'Russia stronk!' pathetic meme they like to sell to their population and silly people outside Russia.
5) The spate of recent cable breaks are *not* to the US's advantage. They are to Russia's.
It makes far more sense to blame the Russians for the Shetland cable sabotage. Why would they start with something huge (Nordstream) then follow it up with something small like telephones in Shetland?
My view is that by blowing up Nordstream, the US (assuming they are the culprits) ensure that there can be no normalisation of relations in the event of a complete Russian collapse and regime change - thus protecting their long term strategic interests. Put simply, they have the most to benefit from doing it. Especially if they believe a regime change is possible or even near (which they might). If I were America and expected Russia to lose this war quickly, but wanted to prevent a normalisation of relations and a resumption of gas supplies once the new regime was in place, this is *exactly* what I would do. This is simply realpolitik, and every nation state engages in it.
I don't get what the Russians get out of blowing up Nordstream that they can't get out of snipping a few phone lines in Shetland. The former effs up their income stream from gas for decades, the latter inconveniences a few shepherds while sending a message.
I really don't understand how America could get "caught" here. Even if there were photos of a grinning Joe Biden planting plastic explosives, while wearing an old-timey diving suit, and giving the thumbs up, the Americans would deny all knowledge, as they always do, and we would still be in "conspiracy theory" territory.
"It makes far more sense to blame the Russians for the Shetland cable sabotage. Why would they start with something huge (Nordstream) then follow it up with something small like telephones in Shetland?"
To send the message that all out underwater infrastructure is vulnerable. If it was just gas pipelines we *might* be able to protect them; having to protect the vast network of cables as well is orders of magnitude more difficult because of the numbers involved. See https://www.submarinecablemap.com/
And attacking underwater cables might be much more immediately disruptive than even the gas pipelines. One of the most important acts we did in WW1 was cutting the German international cables - and we did that in the first few weeks.
How could Americans get caught? People talking. Other countries (perhaps those who might want to use pipelines) detecting submarines or ships that did it. Other intelligence means.
Exactly my point.
So the Russians are most likely to blame for Shetland - it sends a powerful message, at little cost to them. Whereas blowing up a gas pipeline sends a message "you can't rely on Russia for your gas" at an extraordinary cost to them. Which would be a message the Americans would dearly like to send, especially if they think Putin is about to lose, and they want to set the geopolitical agenda for another 30 years or more.
So on the cui bono principle, the Russians are obviously responsible for Shetland, but they'd have to be barking mad, and cutting off their own noses to spite their face, to blow up Nordstream.
Some little time later, the Russians offered to sell gas to Germany via Nordstream 2, if it was activated.
Which might suggest a motive for damaging the original Nordstream.
It’s a massive breakthrough when you realise you’ve reached the stage when you actually enjoy dining alone
Not least, because that means you can travel the world alone and still enjoy really good food at night. And travelling alone is the best for accruing experiences, as we have discussed
There’s also an interesting gradient of discomfort to be overcome. Breakfast alone is fine for everyone. We all do it. Lunch alone can make you a little more self conscious
But you’ve only beaten the silly awkwardness when you can waltz into a restaurant and dine alone. Do it with flair and a smile. Dinner for one!
Then a dry martini. Mmmmm
I would usually rather eat alone than with other people. I mean, other people are fine and all, but I'd usually rather read a book than chat to someone.
Since I mostly dine alone when I'm on a long-distance walk (sadly infrequently atm), people probably don't talk to me for reasons of fragrance. At least that's what I tell myself.
Having said that, I did meet a very pleasant Canadian lass in the Pizza Hut in Cockburn Street, Edinburgh many moons ago. I was eating alone, and she asked if she could join me.
I always feel extremely self-conscious, and a bit of a loser, if I'm on my own in a restaurant, pub or cinema and have to make jokes about the wife or kids before awkwardly going back to my newspaper, book or browsing my phone.
What's the secret to being comfortable with this?
I think it's good to practice not caring too much about what you think other people might be thinking about you.
If you can do that, there is a lot of pleasure to be had from the peace of your own company.
Yes indeed, in fact it's a general rule of life. In general, almost nobody is very interested in anything we do unless it's ridiculous or outrageous. If we see someone else sitting on their own, do we speculate about their situation? Nah.
I suppose it depends how badly they do at the next election. On last week’s polls (which will doubtless soon be a thing of the past) they’d be begging for PR.
I always feel extremely self-conscious, and a bit of a loser, if I'm on my own in a restaurant, pub or cinema and have to make jokes about the wife or kids before awkwardly going back to my newspaper, book or browsing my phone.
What's the secret to being comfortable with this?
I think it's good to practice not caring too much about what you think other people might be thinking about you.
If you can do that, there is a lot of pleasure to be had from the peace of your own company.
Yes indeed, in fact it's a general rule of life. In general, almost nobody is very interested in anything we do unless it's ridiculous or outrageous. If we see someone else sitting on their own, do we speculate about their situation? Nah.
I'm interested on how PB's finest would tackle the boats across the channel issue. I think a deal with the French is needed along lines of processing applications for asylum jointly in France and we take a certain percentage or number and French agree that intercepted boats can be turned back. Anybody think that Rwanda might "work" if implemented fully?
Good God! Strike a deal with the French? You absolute traitor, sir, how dare you!
More importantly, the French will never stop the boats.
They will make agreements, but the locals hate the migrants with a considerable heat.
No French politician is going to upset so many French people to accommodate foreigners. Especially the British.
The only way to stop the boats is to eliminate the pull factor. It must be clearly understood that there is no direct route to staying in the country for boat arrivals. No ifs or buts.
Not logical. Why treat them differently from other illegals?
We shouldn't. Anyone here illegally should, by definition, be deported.
Where to?
Their choice, and if they don't have one, dealer's choice.
Because soooo many countries have border policies such that you can turn up with a ship or plane full of a few hundred passportless undesirables and offload them and fuck off home to get the next lot.
But just give us an example.
The only wY risk this given modern ability to travel is to have fe the rules so you can send back down the chain (ie France can return to Italy, Italy to Libya, etc). Return to point of origin dies t wirk as people destroy their id
Take a leaf out the EU solution book - Get the Libyan Coast Guard to patrol the Channel, kidnapping any refugees they find.
I've always thought some cultures are more tolerant of the lone diner than others. The Italians tend to take a bit more convincing, unless you're stylishly dressed. Germans and other Northern Europeans tend to keep their thoughts about you to themselves, and the Greeks will be confident and happy about it simply if you look confident and blase yourself.
I always feel extremely self-conscious, and a bit of a loser, if I'm on my own in a restaurant, pub or cinema and have to make jokes about the wife or kids before awkwardly going back to my newspaper, book or browsing my phone.
What's the secret to being comfortable with this?
I think it's good to practice not caring too much about what you think other people might be thinking about you.
If you can do that, there is a lot of pleasure to be had from the peace of your own company.
Yes indeed, in fact it's a general rule of life. In general, almost nobody is very interested in anything we do unless it's ridiculous or outrageous. If we see someone else sitting on their own, do we speculate about their situation? Nah.
I sort of do, actually.
It's the people watching thing.
Having a phone to browse, or, in previous years, a book to read takes away any self consciousness in this respect.
Russia has just claimed that Ukraine plan to shoot down a rocket filled with radioactive material over the Chernobyl exclusion zone.
So, going by Russian logic, that is exactly what Russia will now do. Then they can say Told you so, while scaring the shit out of everyone
Given the U?S at least and probably others have intel into the heart of the Kremlin (eg detailed advance knowledge of the Ukraine invasion) how do you think Russia will get away with this? Sure, there will be a gazillion Twitter twats who will go "Ooh, look, Ukrainian bastards!" but the higher levels of diplomacy will know exactly what gas gone on.
And Ukraine would lose its military and financial support overnight if they actually did it themselves. So it is beyond any credulity for it to work as the Russians suggest "it was Ukraine wot did it...."
Russia doesn't care about the truth, here, it cares about perceptions
If they set off a small dirty bomb and manage to at least temporarily blur the truth of who did it, then that is job done. Everyone will know it was probably Russia - probably - but won't be entirely sure. And everyone will be scared shitless and probably pushing Ukraine to back down
See the Kerch bombing, the Nordstream bombing, and the Dugin bombing. Each has been successfully blamed on various actors, even though we have a good idea in all cases who did it (Ukraine, USA, Ukraine)
You think US did nordstream? Interesting. I imagine any nuclear incident would lead to enormous pressure on China and India not to buy Russian oil. China is already alleged to be pretty furious with Putin and their economy is in trouble.
I am fairly confident the USA did Nordstream, tho they might have used a proxy to get it done yet avoid the blame (Ukraine itself, or maybe the Poles or Finns)
The strategic prize of keeping Germany on the western side, reliant on America, and also of cutting off Putin's options - one day selling more gas to Europe - was irresistible for Washington. And recall we have several vids of Biden and aides months ago saying the USA would do exactly this: cut Nordsream (one way or another)
But we cannot be sure. The fog of war obscures the truth. And that fog is what Putin might rely on, if he "does something radioactive"
I'm no conspiracy theorist, and I agree that the US is the most likely culprit for the Nordstream sabotage, on the "cui bono" principle. I don't understand what Russia got out of the sabotage, other than saying "look at what we did here, we can do it to something that matters, e.g. the north sea pipeline or a transatlantic communications cable.
America however benefits enormously from ensuring that Russian gas is cut off and stays cut off. Prevents waverers in Europe if there is a very cold winter. Add to that the fact that Biden literally said the US would "put an end" to Nordstream 2 if Russia attacked Ukraine, back in January.
1) The Russians send exactly the message you say.
2) Europe has learnt the hard way the problems with relying on Russia for energy. There was virtually no chance of (say) Germany going back to using it - which is why they've refused once Russia offered a week or so ago.
3) The implications if the Americans get caught doing it are massive, and not good for them.
4) For Russia, it adds to the 'Russia stronk!' pathetic meme they like to sell to their population and silly people outside Russia.
5) The spate of recent cable breaks are *not* to the US's advantage. They are to Russia's.
It makes far more sense to blame the Russians for the Shetland cable sabotage. Why would they start with something huge (Nordstream) then follow it up with something small like telephones in Shetland?
My view is that by blowing up Nordstream, the US (assuming they are the culprits) ensure that there can be no normalisation of relations in the event of a complete Russian collapse and regime change - thus protecting their long term strategic interests. Put simply, they have the most to benefit from doing it. Especially if they believe a regime change is possible or even near (which they might). If I were America and expected Russia to lose this war quickly, but wanted to prevent a normalisation of relations and a resumption of gas supplies once the new regime was in place, this is *exactly* what I would do. This is simply realpolitik, and every nation state engages in it.
I don't get what the Russians get out of blowing up Nordstream that they can't get out of snipping a few phone lines in Shetland. The former effs up their income stream from gas for decades, the latter inconveniences a few shepherds while sending a message.
I really don't understand how America could get "caught" here. Even if there were photos of a grinning Joe Biden planting plastic explosives, while wearing an old-timey diving suit, and giving the thumbs up, the Americans would deny all knowledge, as they always do, and we would still be in "conspiracy theory" territory.
"It makes far more sense to blame the Russians for the Shetland cable sabotage. Why would they start with something huge (Nordstream) then follow it up with something small like telephones in Shetland?"
To send the message that all out underwater infrastructure is vulnerable. If it was just gas pipelines we *might* be able to protect them; having to protect the vast network of cables as well is orders of magnitude more difficult because of the numbers involved. See https://www.submarinecablemap.com/
And attacking underwater cables might be much more immediately disruptive than even the gas pipelines. One of the most important acts we did in WW1 was cutting the German international cables - and we did that in the first few weeks.
How could Americans get caught? People talking. Other countries (perhaps those who might want to use pipelines) detecting submarines or ships that did it. Other intelligence means.
Exactly my point.
So the Russians are most likely to blame for Shetland - it sends a powerful message, at little cost to them. Whereas blowing up a gas pipeline sends a message "you can't rely on Russia for your gas" at an extraordinary cost to them. Which would be a message the Americans would dearly like to send, especially if they think Putin is about to lose, and they want to set the geopolitical agenda for another 30 years or more.
So on the cui bono principle, the Russians are obviously responsible for Shetland, but they'd have to be barking mad, and cutting off their own noses to spite their face, to blow up Nordstream.
Some little time later, the Russians offered to sell gas to Germany via Nordstream 2, if it was activated.
Which might suggest a motive for damaging the original Nordstream.
Only one country is desperate and ready to escalate beyond common sense, and only one has anything meaningful to gain from scaring the Europeans about gas supplies. The Americans didn’t even want to to export LNG until a couple of years ago, for national security reasons. Cheap American gas is more important than exports.
Only one country has been persistently hovering around both gas pipelines and telecoms cables for years, acting menacing.
It was a warning to Europe, with the added benefit of hoping to bring NS2 back on the table. A warning that didn’t work.
It’s a massive breakthrough when you realise you’ve reached the stage when you actually enjoy dining alone
Not least, because that means you can travel the world alone and still enjoy really good food at night. And travelling alone is the best for accruing experiences, as we have discussed
There’s also an interesting gradient of discomfort to be overcome. Breakfast alone is fine for everyone. We all do it. Lunch alone can make you a little more self conscious
But you’ve only beaten the silly awkwardness when you can waltz into a restaurant and dine alone. Do it with flair and a smile. Dinner for one!
Then a dry martini. Mmmmm
Taking the time to chat to the FoH staff is also well worthwhile - especially in a City you don't know.
I find that works best with the pre-dinner cocktail.
Russia has just claimed that Ukraine plan to shoot down a rocket filled with radioactive material over the Chernobyl exclusion zone.
So, going by Russian logic, that is exactly what Russia will now do. Then they can say Told you so, while scaring the shit out of everyone
Given the U?S at least and probably others have intel into the heart of the Kremlin (eg detailed advance knowledge of the Ukraine invasion) how do you think Russia will get away with this? Sure, there will be a gazillion Twitter twats who will go "Ooh, look, Ukrainian bastards!" but the higher levels of diplomacy will know exactly what gas gone on.
And Ukraine would lose its military and financial support overnight if they actually did it themselves. So it is beyond any credulity for it to work as the Russians suggest "it was Ukraine wot did it...."
Russia doesn't care about the truth, here, it cares about perceptions
If they set off a small dirty bomb and manage to at least temporarily blur the truth of who did it, then that is job done. Everyone will know it was probably Russia - probably - but won't be entirely sure. And everyone will be scared shitless and probably pushing Ukraine to back down
See the Kerch bombing, the Nordstream bombing, and the Dugin bombing. Each has been successfully blamed on various actors, even though we have a good idea in all cases who did it (Ukraine, USA, Ukraine)
You think US did nordstream? Interesting. I imagine any nuclear incident would lead to enormous pressure on China and India not to buy Russian oil. China is already alleged to be pretty furious with Putin and their economy is in trouble.
I am fairly confident the USA did Nordstream, tho they might have used a proxy to get it done yet avoid the blame (Ukraine itself, or maybe the Poles or Finns)
The strategic prize of keeping Germany on the western side, reliant on America, and also of cutting off Putin's options - one day selling more gas to Europe - was irresistible for Washington. And recall we have several vids of Biden and aides months ago saying the USA would do exactly this: cut Nordsream (one way or another)
But we cannot be sure. The fog of war obscures the truth. And that fog is what Putin might rely on, if he "does something radioactive"
I'm no conspiracy theorist, and I agree that the US is the most likely culprit for the Nordstream sabotage, on the "cui bono" principle. I don't understand what Russia got out of the sabotage, other than saying "look at what we did here, we can do it to something that matters, e.g. the north sea pipeline or a transatlantic communications cable.
America however benefits enormously from ensuring that Russian gas is cut off and stays cut off. Prevents waverers in Europe if there is a very cold winter. Add to that the fact that Biden literally said the US would "put an end" to Nordstream 2 if Russia attacked Ukraine, back in January.
1) The Russians send exactly the message you say.
2) Europe has learnt the hard way the problems with relying on Russia for energy. There was virtually no chance of (say) Germany going back to using it - which is why they've refused once Russia offered a week or so ago.
3) The implications if the Americans get caught doing it are massive, and not good for them.
4) For Russia, it adds to the 'Russia stronk!' pathetic meme they like to sell to their population and silly people outside Russia.
5) The spate of recent cable breaks are *not* to the US's advantage. They are to Russia's.
It makes far more sense to blame the Russians for the Shetland cable sabotage. Why would they start with something huge (Nordstream) then follow it up with something small like telephones in Shetland?
My view is that by blowing up Nordstream, the US (assuming they are the culprits) ensure that there can be no normalisation of relations in the event of a complete Russian collapse and regime change - thus protecting their long term strategic interests. Put simply, they have the most to benefit from doing it. Especially if they believe a regime change is possible or even near (which they might). If I were America and expected Russia to lose this war quickly, but wanted to prevent a normalisation of relations and a resumption of gas supplies once the new regime was in place, this is *exactly* what I would do. This is simply realpolitik, and every nation state engages in it.
I don't get what the Russians get out of blowing up Nordstream that they can't get out of snipping a few phone lines in Shetland. The former effs up their income stream from gas for decades, the latter inconveniences a few shepherds while sending a message.
I really don't understand how America could get "caught" here. Even if there were photos of a grinning Joe Biden planting plastic explosives, while wearing an old-timey diving suit, and giving the thumbs up, the Americans would deny all knowledge, as they always do, and we would still be in "conspiracy theory" territory.
"It makes far more sense to blame the Russians for the Shetland cable sabotage. Why would they start with something huge (Nordstream) then follow it up with something small like telephones in Shetland?"
To send the message that all out underwater infrastructure is vulnerable. If it was just gas pipelines we *might* be able to protect them; having to protect the vast network of cables as well is orders of magnitude more difficult because of the numbers involved. See https://www.submarinecablemap.com/
And attacking underwater cables might be much more immediately disruptive than even the gas pipelines. One of the most important acts we did in WW1 was cutting the German international cables - and we did that in the first few weeks.
How could Americans get caught? People talking. Other countries (perhaps those who might want to use pipelines) detecting submarines or ships that did it. Other intelligence means.
Exactly my point.
So the Russians are most likely to blame for Shetland - it sends a powerful message, at little cost to them. Whereas blowing up a gas pipeline sends a message "you can't rely on Russia for your gas" at an extraordinary cost to them. Which would be a message the Americans would dearly like to send, especially if they think Putin is about to lose, and they want to set the geopolitical agenda for another 30 years or more.
So on the cui bono principle, the Russians are obviously responsible for Shetland, but they'd have to be barking mad, and cutting off their own noses to spite their face, to blow up Nordstream.
Some little time later, the Russians offered to sell gas to Germany via Nordstream 2, if it was activated.
Which might suggest a motive for damaging the original Nordstream.
Fair. You're looking at possible motives.
My point would be, if Nordstream 1 blew up, why would you want to take delivery via Nordstream 2?
It's like Babylon 4 disappearing then immediately booking a room on Babylon 5.
Russia has just claimed that Ukraine plan to shoot down a rocket filled with radioactive material over the Chernobyl exclusion zone.
So, going by Russian logic, that is exactly what Russia will now do. Then they can say Told you so, while scaring the shit out of everyone
Given the U?S at least and probably others have intel into the heart of the Kremlin (eg detailed advance knowledge of the Ukraine invasion) how do you think Russia will get away with this? Sure, there will be a gazillion Twitter twats who will go "Ooh, look, Ukrainian bastards!" but the higher levels of diplomacy will know exactly what gas gone on.
And Ukraine would lose its military and financial support overnight if they actually did it themselves. So it is beyond any credulity for it to work as the Russians suggest "it was Ukraine wot did it...."
Russia doesn't care about the truth, here, it cares about perceptions
If they set off a small dirty bomb and manage to at least temporarily blur the truth of who did it, then that is job done. Everyone will know it was probably Russia - probably - but won't be entirely sure. And everyone will be scared shitless and probably pushing Ukraine to back down
See the Kerch bombing, the Nordstream bombing, and the Dugin bombing. Each has been successfully blamed on various actors, even though we have a good idea in all cases who did it (Ukraine, USA, Ukraine)
You think US did nordstream? Interesting. I imagine any nuclear incident would lead to enormous pressure on China and India not to buy Russian oil. China is already alleged to be pretty furious with Putin and their economy is in trouble.
I am fairly confident the USA did Nordstream, tho they might have used a proxy to get it done yet avoid the blame (Ukraine itself, or maybe the Poles or Finns)
The strategic prize of keeping Germany on the western side, reliant on America, and also of cutting off Putin's options - one day selling more gas to Europe - was irresistible for Washington. And recall we have several vids of Biden and aides months ago saying the USA would do exactly this: cut Nordsream (one way or another)
But we cannot be sure. The fog of war obscures the truth. And that fog is what Putin might rely on, if he "does something radioactive"
I'm no conspiracy theorist, and I agree that the US is the most likely culprit for the Nordstream sabotage, on the "cui bono" principle. I don't understand what Russia got out of the sabotage, other than saying "look at what we did here, we can do it to something that matters, e.g. the north sea pipeline or a transatlantic communications cable.
America however benefits enormously from ensuring that Russian gas is cut off and stays cut off. Prevents waverers in Europe if there is a very cold winter. Add to that the fact that Biden literally said the US would "put an end" to Nordstream 2 if Russia attacked Ukraine, back in January.
1) The Russians send exactly the message you say.
2) Europe has learnt the hard way the problems with relying on Russia for energy. There was virtually no chance of (say) Germany going back to using it - which is why they've refused once Russia offered a week or so ago.
3) The implications if the Americans get caught doing it are massive, and not good for them.
4) For Russia, it adds to the 'Russia stronk!' pathetic meme they like to sell to their population and silly people outside Russia.
5) The spate of recent cable breaks are *not* to the US's advantage. They are to Russia's.
It makes far more sense to blame the Russians for the Shetland cable sabotage. Why would they start with something huge (Nordstream) then follow it up with something small like telephones in Shetland?
My view is that by blowing up Nordstream, the US (assuming they are the culprits) ensure that there can be no normalisation of relations in the event of a complete Russian collapse and regime change - thus protecting their long term strategic interests. Put simply, they have the most to benefit from doing it. Especially if they believe a regime change is possible or even near (which they might). If I were America and expected Russia to lose this war quickly, but wanted to prevent a normalisation of relations and a resumption of gas supplies once the new regime was in place, this is *exactly* what I would do. This is simply realpolitik, and every nation state engages in it.
I don't get what the Russians get out of blowing up Nordstream that they can't get out of snipping a few phone lines in Shetland. The former effs up their income stream from gas for decades, the latter inconveniences a few shepherds while sending a message.
I really don't understand how America could get "caught" here. Even if there were photos of a grinning Joe Biden planting plastic explosives, while wearing an old-timey diving suit, and giving the thumbs up, the Americans would deny all knowledge, as they always do, and we would still be in "conspiracy theory" territory.
"It makes far more sense to blame the Russians for the Shetland cable sabotage. Why would they start with something huge (Nordstream) then follow it up with something small like telephones in Shetland?"
To send the message that all out underwater infrastructure is vulnerable. If it was just gas pipelines we *might* be able to protect them; having to protect the vast network of cables as well is orders of magnitude more difficult because of the numbers involved. See https://www.submarinecablemap.com/
And attacking underwater cables might be much more immediately disruptive than even the gas pipelines. One of the most important acts we did in WW1 was cutting the German international cables - and we did that in the first few weeks.
How could Americans get caught? People talking. Other countries (perhaps those who might want to use pipelines) detecting submarines or ships that did it. Other intelligence means.
Exactly my point.
So the Russians are most likely to blame for Shetland - it sends a powerful message, at little cost to them. Whereas blowing up a gas pipeline sends a message "you can't rely on Russia for your gas" at an extraordinary cost to them. Which would be a message the Americans would dearly like to send, especially if they think Putin is about to lose, and they want to set the geopolitical agenda for another 30 years or more.
So on the cui bono principle, the Russians are obviously responsible for Shetland, but they'd have to be barking mad, and cutting off their own noses to spite their face, to blow up Nordstream.
Blowing up NordStream is at zero cost to them because no one is going to use it, as was shown when they offered to sell gas via NS the other week and were rebuffed.
Also, the people sending the strongest message of "you can't rely on Russia for your gas" is Russia themselves. They were the ones massively restricting gas supplies earlier in the year on rather spurious grounds; they were the ones insisting on being paid in roubles.
Also, this does rather rely on assuming the Russians are acting in their own best interests. This entire war - and certainly the parts after the withdrawal from the gates of Kyiv - shows that is a big assumption.
It’s a massive breakthrough when you realise you’ve reached the stage when you actually enjoy dining alone
Not least, because that means you can travel the world alone and still enjoy really good food at night. And travelling alone is the best for accruing experiences, as we have discussed
There’s also an interesting gradient of discomfort to be overcome. Breakfast alone is fine for everyone. We all do it. Lunch alone can make you a little more self conscious
But you’ve only beaten the silly awkwardness when you can waltz into a restaurant and dine alone. Do it with flair and a smile. Dinner for one!
It’s a massive breakthrough when you realise you’ve reached the stage when you actually enjoy dining alone
Not least, because that means you can travel the world alone and still enjoy really good food at night. And travelling alone is the best for accruing experiences, as we have discussed
There’s also an interesting gradient of discomfort to be overcome. Breakfast alone is fine for everyone. We all do it. Lunch alone can make you a little more self conscious
But you’ve only beaten the silly awkwardness when you can waltz into a restaurant and dine alone. Do it with flair and a smile. Dinner for one!
Then a dry martini. Mmmmm
The last (and only) time I went to a three-star restaurant in france for dinner, the next table over was taken by a young smartly-dressed Japanese man whose company was a pot of green tea, a glass of water and the 7 course tasting menu. I rather envied him.
I always feel extremely self-conscious, and a bit of a loser, if I'm on my own in a restaurant, pub or cinema and have to make jokes about the wife or kids before awkwardly going back to my newspaper, book or browsing my phone.
What's the secret to being comfortable with this?
I think it's good to practice not caring too much about what you think other people might be thinking about you.
If you can do that, there is a lot of pleasure to be had from the peace of your own company.
Yes indeed, in fact it's a general rule of life. In general, almost nobody is very interested in anything we do unless it's ridiculous or outrageous. If we see someone else sitting on their own, do we speculate about their situation? Nah.
I sort of do, actually.
It's the people watching thing.
I recommend cryptic crosswords when dining or drinking alone. You don't need to concentrate like when you read a book. Think about the clues while you people-watch and eavesdrop, and then if you get noticed quickly look down at the crossword, pen poised. Worked for me for many years.
It’s over 20C here in the Maconnais at 8.30 and I’m out on the terrace in the dark in short sleeves listening to crickets chirping. It’s nearly November. 25C forecast tomorrow.
#climatechange.
Incidentally I worked out the nearest nukeable location is St Yan air force base, 43km to our SW. reckon it would be a smallish warhead for that one rather than a megaton city-destroyer. Lyon 100km to the Soith gets one of them. Possibly Le Creusot or Montceau les Mines 50km to the NW get a small one. Dijon? Far enough away not to worry.
So I’d see the flash, possibly get a bit of fallout on a Westerly but not too much. Would be like the scene in Empire of the Sun when the boy sees the Nagasaki bomb and thinks it’s his mother going up to heaven.
Russia doesnt have enough 'megaton' nukes to nuke Lyon with one. They may have a handful of Avangard with a yiekd of 2 to 5mt, but no more than a dozen or so. The Satan 2 Sarmats are not yet operational and the alleged 100mt nuclear torpedo is complete fantasy horseshit. No such weapon exists, they might have a 2mt torpedo but that won't be anywhere near enough to create a tidal wave. Most if its arsenal is aging Sarmats with multiple 400 or 800 kt warheads that may or may not work, a few hundred sub launched that may or may not work or be in dock and a hundred air dropped on heavy long range bombers plus their battlefield collection. This ain't '62 but any exchange would be pretty grotesque even with all their dusty old crap. Some of it would get through
I always feel extremely self-conscious, and a bit of a loser, if I'm on my own in a restaurant, pub or cinema and have to make jokes about the wife or kids before awkwardly going back to my newspaper, book or browsing my phone.
What's the secret to being comfortable with this?
I think it's good to practice not caring too much about what you think other people might be thinking about you.
If you can do that, there is a lot of pleasure to be had from the peace of your own company.
Yes indeed, in fact it's a general rule of life. In general, almost nobody is very interested in anything we do unless it's ridiculous or outrageous. If we see someone else sitting on their own, do we speculate about their situation? Nah.
I sort of do, actually.
It's the people watching thing.
I very rarely get a chance to eat or drink alone. But when I do, I almost always get into interesting conversations. Having no companions removes barriers you didn't know were there.
I always feel extremely self-conscious, and a bit of a loser, if I'm on my own in a restaurant, pub or cinema and have to make jokes about the wife or kids before awkwardly going back to my newspaper, book or browsing my phone.
What's the secret to being comfortable with this?
I think it's good to practice not caring too much about what you think other people might be thinking about you.
If you can do that, there is a lot of pleasure to be had from the peace of your own company.
Yes indeed, in fact it's a general rule of life. In general, almost nobody is very interested in anything we do unless it's ridiculous or outrageous. If we see someone else sitting on their own, do we speculate about their situation? Nah.
I sort of do, actually.
It's the people watching thing.
I recommend cryptic crosswords when dining or drinking alone. You don't need to concentrate like when you read a book. Think about the clues while you people-watch and eavesdrop, and then if you get noticed quickly look down at the crossword, pen poised. Worked for me for many years.
As it's you, I recommend The Guardian crossword.
Online diplomacy is good for that sort of thing? If your game has got to an interesting point, you can spend a whole meal analysing next move and not have to keep fiddling with the phone.
It’s a massive breakthrough when you realise you’ve reached the stage when you actually enjoy dining alone
Not least, because that means you can travel the world alone and still enjoy really good food at night. And travelling alone is the best for accruing experiences, as we have discussed
There’s also an interesting gradient of discomfort to be overcome. Breakfast alone is fine for everyone. We all do it. Lunch alone can make you a little more self conscious
But you’ve only beaten the silly awkwardness when you can waltz into a restaurant and dine alone. Do it with flair and a smile. Dinner for one!
Then a dry martini. Mmmmm
Dry martini after dinner?
Fuck me.
Don’t be daft!
Clear spirits followed by wine followed by dark spirits. Sorry, but rules are rules.
The BOE is becoming a definite problem. Since being granted its independence it seems to have done a sort of reverse takeover of the Treasury, which now seems to need to be granted independence from the Bank.
I'm no global economics expert, but borrowing billions to give tax cuts to rich people in an unfunded budget doesn't sound like a good idea. But now I'm told it was the Bank of England's fault. Really?
Not sure if you've read the article, but the author blames the budget largely (I think) for the smaller movements in the pound and the FTSE, but the Bank largely for the ongoing issues with gilts and the knock on effect on pensions. I think that's broadly correct.
If I were Truss and Kwarteng I'd have gone in two footed on the bank, and tested their determination to continue their bond sell off in the court of public opinion. They didn't, probably for good reason. And yes, the budget was poor, and poorly conceived, organised and presented.
Just as well you aren't Truss and Kwarteng. Only goes to show that however clueless people are, there's always someone worse.
It’s a massive breakthrough when you realise you’ve reached the stage when you actually enjoy dining alone
Not least, because that means you can travel the world alone and still enjoy really good food at night. And travelling alone is the best for accruing experiences, as we have discussed
There’s also an interesting gradient of discomfort to be overcome. Breakfast alone is fine for everyone. We all do it. Lunch alone can make you a little more self conscious
But you’ve only beaten the silly awkwardness when you can waltz into a restaurant and dine alone. Do it with flair and a smile. Dinner for one!
Then a dry martini. Mmmmm
I would usually rather eat alone than with other people. I mean, other people are fine and all, but I'd usually rather read a book than chat to someone.
Since I mostly dine alone when I'm on a long-distance walk (sadly infrequently atm), people probably don't talk to me for reasons of fragrance. At least that's what I tell myself.
Having said that, I did meet a very pleasant Canadian lass in the Pizza Hut in Cockburn Street, Edinburgh many moons ago. I was eating alone, and she asked if she could join me.
...and?
And via a long story, later on the same trip I ended up meeting a lovely Australian lass, who I lived with for four years.
However, the supreme pontiff warned his ‘brothers’ and ‘sisters’ to ‘be careful’ as ‘the devil enters from there’
Even nuns and priests watch online pornography, Pope Francis has admitted, in an unusual admonishment of Catholic clergy.
Indulging in porn is a danger to the soul and a way of succumbing to the malign influence of “the devil”, the Pope warned an assembly of priests and seminarians in Rome.
“It’s a vice that many people have – many lay people but also priests and nuns. The devil enters from there,” he told the gathering at the Vatican earlier this week.
“And I’m not just talking about criminal pornography, involving the abuse of children, where you see live cases of abuse. That is already degenerate. I’m talking about ‘normal’ pornography. My dear brothers and sisters, be careful.”
A person with “a pure heart” should not be looking at porn, the head of the Roman Catholic Church said.
“If you can cancel it from your phone, then cancel it, then you won’t have temptation in your hand,” he continued.
“I’m sorry if I lower myself to such details about pornography, but it is reality. A reality that involves priests, seminarians, nuns, all consecrated souls. Have you understood? Good.”
It is not the first time the Argentinian pontiff has referenced pornography. In June he denounced porn as a threat to public health and the family.
Russia has just claimed that Ukraine plan to shoot down a rocket filled with radioactive material over the Chernobyl exclusion zone.
So, going by Russian logic, that is exactly what Russia will now do. Then they can say Told you so, while scaring the shit out of everyone
Given the U?S at least and probably others have intel into the heart of the Kremlin (eg detailed advance knowledge of the Ukraine invasion) how do you think Russia will get away with this? Sure, there will be a gazillion Twitter twats who will go "Ooh, look, Ukrainian bastards!" but the higher levels of diplomacy will know exactly what gas gone on.
And Ukraine would lose its military and financial support overnight if they actually did it themselves. So it is beyond any credulity for it to work as the Russians suggest "it was Ukraine wot did it...."
Russia doesn't care about the truth, here, it cares about perceptions
If they set off a small dirty bomb and manage to at least temporarily blur the truth of who did it, then that is job done. Everyone will know it was probably Russia - probably - but won't be entirely sure. And everyone will be scared shitless and probably pushing Ukraine to back down
See the Kerch bombing, the Nordstream bombing, and the Dugin bombing. Each has been successfully blamed on various actors, even though we have a good idea in all cases who did it (Ukraine, USA, Ukraine)
You think US did nordstream? Interesting. I imagine any nuclear incident would lead to enormous pressure on China and India not to buy Russian oil. China is already alleged to be pretty furious with Putin and their economy is in trouble.
I am fairly confident the USA did Nordstream, tho they might have used a proxy to get it done yet avoid the blame (Ukraine itself, or maybe the Poles or Finns)
The strategic prize of keeping Germany on the western side, reliant on America, and also of cutting off Putin's options - one day selling more gas to Europe - was irresistible for Washington. And recall we have several vids of Biden and aides months ago saying the USA would do exactly this: cut Nordsream (one way or another)
But we cannot be sure. The fog of war obscures the truth. And that fog is what Putin might rely on, if he "does something radioactive"
I'm no conspiracy theorist, and I agree that the US is the most likely culprit for the Nordstream sabotage, on the "cui bono" principle. I don't understand what Russia got out of the sabotage, other than saying "look at what we did here, we can do it to something that matters, e.g. the north sea pipeline or a transatlantic communications cable.
America however benefits enormously from ensuring that Russian gas is cut off and stays cut off. Prevents waverers in Europe if there is a very cold winter. Add to that the fact that Biden literally said the US would "put an end" to Nordstream 2 if Russia attacked Ukraine, back in January.
1) The Russians send exactly the message you say.
2) Europe has learnt the hard way the problems with relying on Russia for energy. There was virtually no chance of (say) Germany going back to using it - which is why they've refused once Russia offered a week or so ago.
3) The implications if the Americans get caught doing it are massive, and not good for them.
4) For Russia, it adds to the 'Russia stronk!' pathetic meme they like to sell to their population and silly people outside Russia.
5) The spate of recent cable breaks are *not* to the US's advantage. They are to Russia's.
It makes far more sense to blame the Russians for the Shetland cable sabotage. Why would they start with something huge (Nordstream) then follow it up with something small like telephones in Shetland?
My view is that by blowing up Nordstream, the US (assuming they are the culprits) ensure that there can be no normalisation of relations in the event of a complete Russian collapse and regime change - thus protecting their long term strategic interests. Put simply, they have the most to benefit from doing it. Especially if they believe a regime change is possible or even near (which they might). If I were America and expected Russia to lose this war quickly, but wanted to prevent a normalisation of relations and a resumption of gas supplies once the new regime was in place, this is *exactly* what I would do. This is simply realpolitik, and every nation state engages in it.
I don't get what the Russians get out of blowing up Nordstream that they can't get out of snipping a few phone lines in Shetland. The former effs up their income stream from gas for decades, the latter inconveniences a few shepherds while sending a message.
I really don't understand how America could get "caught" here. Even if there were photos of a grinning Joe Biden planting plastic explosives, while wearing an old-timey diving suit, and giving the thumbs up, the Americans would deny all knowledge, as they always do, and we would still be in "conspiracy theory" territory.
"It makes far more sense to blame the Russians for the Shetland cable sabotage. Why would they start with something huge (Nordstream) then follow it up with something small like telephones in Shetland?"
To send the message that all out underwater infrastructure is vulnerable. If it was just gas pipelines we *might* be able to protect them; having to protect the vast network of cables as well is orders of magnitude more difficult because of the numbers involved. See https://www.submarinecablemap.com/
And attacking underwater cables might be much more immediately disruptive than even the gas pipelines. One of the most important acts we did in WW1 was cutting the German international cables - and we did that in the first few weeks.
How could Americans get caught? People talking. Other countries (perhaps those who might want to use pipelines) detecting submarines or ships that did it. Other intelligence means.
Exactly my point.
So the Russians are most likely to blame for Shetland - it sends a powerful message, at little cost to them. Whereas blowing up a gas pipeline sends a message "you can't rely on Russia for your gas" at an extraordinary cost to them. Which would be a message the Americans would dearly like to send, especially if they think Putin is about to lose, and they want to set the geopolitical agenda for another 30 years or more.
So on the cui bono principle, the Russians are obviously responsible for Shetland, but they'd have to be barking mad, and cutting off their own noses to spite their face, to blow up Nordstream.
Blowing up NordStream is at zero cost to them because no one is going to use it, as was shown when they offered to sell gas via NS the other week and were rebuffed.
Also, the people sending the strongest message of "you can't rely on Russia for your gas" is Russia themselves. They were the ones massively restricting gas supplies earlier in the year on rather spurious grounds; they were the ones insisting on being paid in roubles.
Also, this does rather rely on assuming the Russians are acting in their own best interests. This entire war - and certainly the parts after the withdrawal from the gates of Kyiv - shows that is a big assumption.
As with Malmesbury, I think that's a fair point. Russia has proven itself to be an untrustworthy actor and I think you'd have to be mad to deal with them. You can argue the US doesn't need to blow up a pipeline to prove that.
On the other hand, if there's an exceptionally cold winter and the US sees the possibility of Germany, for example, wavering on Ukraine, in the face of people freezing or rioting because of freezing, there's still a reason to act.
There are a great number of possible motivations and potential beneficiaries. My view - and I'm far from a Putin stooge - is that the US stands to benefit the most, over the longer term, by preventing a normalisation in trade relations if Putin is overthrown. IMO Putin is clearly losing, and the US wants to prevent a return to "business as usual" in the event of regime change. However, there are plenty of other good, rational motivations for other actors, which is why we'll probably never know for sure.
Years ago I was having a lunchtime drink and meal in a pub during a walk. A much older man entered the pub, stood at the bar, and then came over and asked me if I was (insert my name).
It turned out he recognised me from me website. It was his local pub, and he was a keen walker. It's the only time that's ever happened, and it felt weird.
Many years ago I worked for a computer magazine that insisted on having my photo next to the byline. I'll never forget my horror while sat on a train and a guy (obv.) reading a copy of the magazine kept trying to casually peer over the top of it to look at me. My first taste of 'fame' - and I realised I really didn't like it.
I always feel extremely self-conscious, and a bit of a loser, if I'm on my own in a restaurant, pub or cinema and have to make jokes about the wife or kids before awkwardly going back to my newspaper, book or browsing my phone.
What's the secret to being comfortable with this?
Being a business traveller.
Meals out for one most nights when I'm travelling, and I rarely eat in the hotel bar (my former employer had a habit of sticking me in shitty hotels I wouldn't eat in, but had no problem with me expensing a damn fine dinner for one).
If you feel self conscious, just add "and make sure I get a copy of the receipt" to your order, which pretty much says "I'm in some weird part of the world, travelling on company expenses".
Absolutely. Being a business traveller. Three quarters of my business travel was solo and I never really wanted to dine with the people I was visiting. I wouldn’t spend my non working time with them in the normal course of events so I wouldn’t do it then.
Also if you are in a pub or restaurant on your own why give a toss what anyone else there thinks. You’re unlikely to see them again.
The BOE is becoming a definite problem. Since being granted its independence it seems to have done a sort of reverse takeover of the Treasury, which now seems to need to be granted independence from the Bank.
I'm no global economics expert, but borrowing billions to give tax cuts to rich people in an unfunded budget doesn't sound like a good idea. But now I'm told it was the Bank of England's fault. Really?
Not sure if you've read the article, but the author blames the budget largely (I think) for the smaller movements in the pound and the FTSE, but the Bank largely for the ongoing issues with gilts and the knock on effect on pensions. I think that's broadly correct.
If I were Truss and Kwarteng I'd have gone in two footed on the bank, and tested their determination to continue their bond sell off in the court of public opinion. They didn't, probably for good reason. And yes, the budget was poor, and poorly conceived, organised and presented.
Just as well you aren't Truss and Kwarteng. Only goes to show that however clueless people are, there's always someone worse.
That was their best option from where they were after the mini budget. I of course, would not have put together a mini-budget of that nature, nor would i have failed to coordinate it with the Bank in the first place.
I always feel extremely self-conscious, and a bit of a loser, if I'm on my own in a restaurant, pub or cinema and have to make jokes about the wife or kids before awkwardly going back to my newspaper, book or browsing my phone.
What's the secret to being comfortable with this?
I think it's good to practice not caring too much about what you think other people might be thinking about you.
If you can do that, there is a lot of pleasure to be had from the peace of your own company.
Yes indeed, in fact it's a general rule of life. In general, almost nobody is very interested in anything we do unless it's ridiculous or outrageous. If we see someone else sitting on their own, do we speculate about their situation? Nah.
I sort of do, actually.
It's the people watching thing.
I very rarely get a chance to eat or drink alone. But when I do, I almost always get into interesting conversations. Having no companions removes barriers you didn't know were there.
Yes, I can agree with that.
It also makes women more comfortable flirting with you, in a way they are not if you are with another women or a male friend.
It’s a massive breakthrough when you realise you’ve reached the stage when you actually enjoy dining alone
Not least, because that means you can travel the world alone and still enjoy really good food at night. And travelling alone is the best for accruing experiences, as we have discussed
There’s also an interesting gradient of discomfort to be overcome. Breakfast alone is fine for everyone. We all do it. Lunch alone can make you a little more self conscious
But you’ve only beaten the silly awkwardness when you can waltz into a restaurant and dine alone. Do it with flair and a smile. Dinner for one!
Then a dry martini. Mmmmm
Dry martini after dinner?
Fuck me.
Don’t be daft!
Clear spirits followed by wine followed by dark spirits. Sorry, but rules are rules.
I was AGREEING. A dry Martini after dinner would make me puke. Literally
It’s another world. Such gems as how difficult Labour will find it in 2024 to go up against substantially lower taxes. Lots of praise for her from the usual suspects for her low key approach. In the middle of the discussion someone mentioned that the pound was falling.
Actually I think Liz Truss did a better first PMQs than Rishi Sunak. She engaged seriously on the questions, while Sunak's responses were juvenile. Every one of Starmer's questions hit home - they don't always.
However, it may not matter. If Sunak can steady the Tory ship he should bring their vote share back from around 20% with Truss to the low 30's of latter Johnson. Sunak seems focused entirely on that task, so a PMQs that panders satisfactorily to the MPs on the benches behind him is a win. His sub-Johnsonian sound bytes may be more tired than a composted lettuce, but they clearly appeal to those thinking Johnson should still be there.
Interesting mix. A couple of tables of 30-something women (yes, yes no; yes, yes, yes, can't see, can't see), the group in earshot talking a lot about nothing. A bunch of male besuited City of London types, some with medals round their necks, two with poppies. And one other bloke on his own.
Thanks for reading.
The clientele at TGI Fridays in Dallas/Fort Worth is less rarefied
Russia has just claimed that Ukraine plan to shoot down a rocket filled with radioactive material over the Chernobyl exclusion zone.
So, going by Russian logic, that is exactly what Russia will now do. Then they can say Told you so, while scaring the shit out of everyone
Given the U?S at least and probably others have intel into the heart of the Kremlin (eg detailed advance knowledge of the Ukraine invasion) how do you think Russia will get away with this? Sure, there will be a gazillion Twitter twats who will go "Ooh, look, Ukrainian bastards!" but the higher levels of diplomacy will know exactly what gas gone on.
And Ukraine would lose its military and financial support overnight if they actually did it themselves. So it is beyond any credulity for it to work as the Russians suggest "it was Ukraine wot did it...."
Russia doesn't care about the truth, here, it cares about perceptions
If they set off a small dirty bomb and manage to at least temporarily blur the truth of who did it, then that is job done. Everyone will know it was probably Russia - probably - but won't be entirely sure. And everyone will be scared shitless and probably pushing Ukraine to back down
See the Kerch bombing, the Nordstream bombing, and the Dugin bombing. Each has been successfully blamed on various actors, even though we have a good idea in all cases who did it (Ukraine, USA, Ukraine)
You think US did nordstream? Interesting. I imagine any nuclear incident would lead to enormous pressure on China and India not to buy Russian oil. China is already alleged to be pretty furious with Putin and their economy is in trouble.
I am fairly confident the USA did Nordstream, tho they might have used a proxy to get it done yet avoid the blame (Ukraine itself, or maybe the Poles or Finns)
The strategic prize of keeping Germany on the western side, reliant on America, and also of cutting off Putin's options - one day selling more gas to Europe - was irresistible for Washington. And recall we have several vids of Biden and aides months ago saying the USA would do exactly this: cut Nordsream (one way or another)
But we cannot be sure. The fog of war obscures the truth. And that fog is what Putin might rely on, if he "does something radioactive"
I'm no conspiracy theorist, and I agree that the US is the most likely culprit for the Nordstream sabotage, on the "cui bono" principle. I don't understand what Russia got out of the sabotage, other than saying "look at what we did here, we can do it to something that matters, e.g. the north sea pipeline or a transatlantic communications cable.
America however benefits enormously from ensuring that Russian gas is cut off and stays cut off. Prevents waverers in Europe if there is a very cold winter. Add to that the fact that Biden literally said the US would "put an end" to Nordstream 2 if Russia attacked Ukraine, back in January.
1) The Russians send exactly the message you say.
2) Europe has learnt the hard way the problems with relying on Russia for energy. There was virtually no chance of (say) Germany going back to using it - which is why they've refused once Russia offered a week or so ago.
3) The implications if the Americans get caught doing it are massive, and not good for them.
4) For Russia, it adds to the 'Russia stronk!' pathetic meme they like to sell to their population and silly people outside Russia.
5) The spate of recent cable breaks are *not* to the US's advantage. They are to Russia's.
It makes far more sense to blame the Russians for the Shetland cable sabotage. Why would they start with something huge (Nordstream) then follow it up with something small like telephones in Shetland?
My view is that by blowing up Nordstream, the US (assuming they are the culprits) ensure that there can be no normalisation of relations in the event of a complete Russian collapse and regime change - thus protecting their long term strategic interests. Put simply, they have the most to benefit from doing it. Especially if they believe a regime change is possible or even near (which they might). If I were America and expected Russia to lose this war quickly, but wanted to prevent a normalisation of relations and a resumption of gas supplies once the new regime was in place, this is *exactly* what I would do. This is simply realpolitik, and every nation state engages in it.
I don't get what the Russians get out of blowing up Nordstream that they can't get out of snipping a few phone lines in Shetland. The former effs up their income stream from gas for decades, the latter inconveniences a few shepherds while sending a message.
I really don't understand how America could get "caught" here. Even if there were photos of a grinning Joe Biden planting plastic explosives, while wearing an old-timey diving suit, and giving the thumbs up, the Americans would deny all knowledge, as they always do, and we would still be in "conspiracy theory" territory.
"It makes far more sense to blame the Russians for the Shetland cable sabotage. Why would they start with something huge (Nordstream) then follow it up with something small like telephones in Shetland?"
To send the message that all out underwater infrastructure is vulnerable. If it was just gas pipelines we *might* be able to protect them; having to protect the vast network of cables as well is orders of magnitude more difficult because of the numbers involved. See https://www.submarinecablemap.com/
And attacking underwater cables might be much more immediately disruptive than even the gas pipelines. One of the most important acts we did in WW1 was cutting the German international cables - and we did that in the first few weeks.
How could Americans get caught? People talking. Other countries (perhaps those who might want to use pipelines) detecting submarines or ships that did it. Other intelligence means.
Exactly my point.
So the Russians are most likely to blame for Shetland - it sends a powerful message, at little cost to them. Whereas blowing up a gas pipeline sends a message "you can't rely on Russia for your gas" at an extraordinary cost to them. Which would be a message the Americans would dearly like to send, especially if they think Putin is about to lose, and they want to set the geopolitical agenda for another 30 years or more.
So on the cui bono principle, the Russians are obviously responsible for Shetland, but they'd have to be barking mad, and cutting off their own noses to spite their face, to blow up Nordstream.
Blowing up NordStream is at zero cost to them because no one is going to use it, as was shown when they offered to sell gas via NS the other week and were rebuffed.
Also, the people sending the strongest message of "you can't rely on Russia for your gas" is Russia themselves. They were the ones massively restricting gas supplies earlier in the year on rather spurious grounds; they were the ones insisting on being paid in roubles.
Also, this does rather rely on assuming the Russians are acting in their own best interests. This entire war - and certainly the parts after the withdrawal from the gates of Kyiv - shows that is a big assumption.
As with Malmesbury, I think that's a fair point. Russia has proven itself to be an untrustworthy actor and I think you'd have to be mad to deal with them. You can argue the US doesn't need to blow up a pipeline to prove that.
On the other hand, if there's an exceptionally cold winter and the US sees the possibility of Germany, for example, wavering on Ukraine, in the face of people freezing or rioting because of freezing, there's still a reason to act.
There are a great number of possible motivations and potential beneficiaries. My view - and I'm far from a Putin stooge - is that the US stands to benefit the most, over the longer term, by preventing a normalisation in trade relations if Putin is overthrown. IMO Putin is clearly losing, and the US wants to prevent a return to "business as usual" in the event of regime change. However, there are plenty of other good, rational motivations for other actors, which is why we'll probably never know for sure.
But they're all non-immediate factors for the Yanks. *If* they were to do that, then wait for the cold winter. Wait for the normalisation in trade. Doing it now exposes them to risks for rewards that may not happen. Worse, it risks exposing American capabilities (we've suspected Russia has these capabilities for years.)
Yet for Russia, the potential rewards and messages are very immediate.
Also, America could achieve similar 'rewards' by other diplomatic means, if they wanted.
It’s another world. Such gems as how difficult Labour will find it in 2024 to go up against substantially lower taxes. Lots of praise for her from the usual suspects for her low key approach. In the middle of the discussion someone mentioned that the pound was falling.
Did we ever get to the bottom of why Leon has a photo of Hitler as his screensaver/wallpaper?
Anyway. A magical evening this evening. The Enchanted Forest on Pitlochry. I had never heard of it until.it was recommended a couple of months backby one of our friendly Scottish contingent - but it appears to be a big deal in these parts. "Oh, you're going to the enchanted forest" they'll say, with a smile, as if you've just discovered a big and wonderful secret. "You'll have a great time." And we did. The family - the wife especially - are connosseurs of a light show, but this was something else. Ethereal, trippy, mystical, spectacular. We walked round with big happy, soppy smiles on our faces. As a happy postscript, heading back down the A9 to Dunkeld the sky suddenly cleared. There was a "wow" from the daughter on the right as she saw the dazzling array of stars - and then when we got back to our accommodation the same noise from everyone as we piled out of the car. Utterly astonishing. The girls had never seen anything like it. You could see the Milky Way. You could see shooting stars. Even for adults who had seen one or two starry skies in the past it was astonishing.
It’s another world. Such gems as how difficult Labour will find it in 2024 to go up against substantially lower taxes. Lots of praise for her from the usual suspects for her low key approach. In the middle of the discussion someone mentioned that the pound was falling.
Did we ever get to the bottom of why Leon has a photo of Hitler as his screensaver/wallpaper?
Yes. It was one of my finest ever wind-ups
Most interesting for me that I never realised the photo itself is probably fake. I’d seen it many times and just accepted it.
Russia has just claimed that Ukraine plan to shoot down a rocket filled with radioactive material over the Chernobyl exclusion zone.
So, going by Russian logic, that is exactly what Russia will now do. Then they can say Told you so, while scaring the shit out of everyone
Given the U?S at least and probably others have intel into the heart of the Kremlin (eg detailed advance knowledge of the Ukraine invasion) how do you think Russia will get away with this? Sure, there will be a gazillion Twitter twats who will go "Ooh, look, Ukrainian bastards!" but the higher levels of diplomacy will know exactly what gas gone on.
And Ukraine would lose its military and financial support overnight if they actually did it themselves. So it is beyond any credulity for it to work as the Russians suggest "it was Ukraine wot did it...."
Russia doesn't care about the truth, here, it cares about perceptions
If they set off a small dirty bomb and manage to at least temporarily blur the truth of who did it, then that is job done. Everyone will know it was probably Russia - probably - but won't be entirely sure. And everyone will be scared shitless and probably pushing Ukraine to back down
See the Kerch bombing, the Nordstream bombing, and the Dugin bombing. Each has been successfully blamed on various actors, even though we have a good idea in all cases who did it (Ukraine, USA, Ukraine)
You think US did nordstream? Interesting. I imagine any nuclear incident would lead to enormous pressure on China and India not to buy Russian oil. China is already alleged to be pretty furious with Putin and their economy is in trouble.
I am fairly confident the USA did Nordstream, tho they might have used a proxy to get it done yet avoid the blame (Ukraine itself, or maybe the Poles or Finns)
The strategic prize of keeping Germany on the western side, reliant on America, and also of cutting off Putin's options - one day selling more gas to Europe - was irresistible for Washington. And recall we have several vids of Biden and aides months ago saying the USA would do exactly this: cut Nordsream (one way or another)
But we cannot be sure. The fog of war obscures the truth. And that fog is what Putin might rely on, if he "does something radioactive"
I'm no conspiracy theorist, and I agree that the US is the most likely culprit for the Nordstream sabotage, on the "cui bono" principle. I don't understand what Russia got out of the sabotage, other than saying "look at what we did here, we can do it to something that matters, e.g. the north sea pipeline or a transatlantic communications cable.
America however benefits enormously from ensuring that Russian gas is cut off and stays cut off. Prevents waverers in Europe if there is a very cold winter. Add to that the fact that Biden literally said the US would "put an end" to Nordstream 2 if Russia attacked Ukraine, back in January.
1) The Russians send exactly the message you say.
2) Europe has learnt the hard way the problems with relying on Russia for energy. There was virtually no chance of (say) Germany going back to using it - which is why they've refused once Russia offered a week or so ago.
3) The implications if the Americans get caught doing it are massive, and not good for them.
4) For Russia, it adds to the 'Russia stronk!' pathetic meme they like to sell to their population and silly people outside Russia.
5) The spate of recent cable breaks are *not* to the US's advantage. They are to Russia's.
It makes far more sense to blame the Russians for the Shetland cable sabotage. Why would they start with something huge (Nordstream) then follow it up with something small like telephones in Shetland?
My view is that by blowing up Nordstream, the US (assuming they are the culprits) ensure that there can be no normalisation of relations in the event of a complete Russian collapse and regime change - thus protecting their long term strategic interests. Put simply, they have the most to benefit from doing it. Especially if they believe a regime change is possible or even near (which they might). If I were America and expected Russia to lose this war quickly, but wanted to prevent a normalisation of relations and a resumption of gas supplies once the new regime was in place, this is *exactly* what I would do. This is simply realpolitik, and every nation state engages in it.
I don't get what the Russians get out of blowing up Nordstream that they can't get out of snipping a few phone lines in Shetland. The former effs up their income stream from gas for decades, the latter inconveniences a few shepherds while sending a message.
I really don't understand how America could get "caught" here. Even if there were photos of a grinning Joe Biden planting plastic explosives, while wearing an old-timey diving suit, and giving the thumbs up, the Americans would deny all knowledge, as they always do, and we would still be in "conspiracy theory" territory.
"It makes far more sense to blame the Russians for the Shetland cable sabotage. Why would they start with something huge (Nordstream) then follow it up with something small like telephones in Shetland?"
To send the message that all out underwater infrastructure is vulnerable. If it was just gas pipelines we *might* be able to protect them; having to protect the vast network of cables as well is orders of magnitude more difficult because of the numbers involved. See https://www.submarinecablemap.com/
And attacking underwater cables might be much more immediately disruptive than even the gas pipelines. One of the most important acts we did in WW1 was cutting the German international cables - and we did that in the first few weeks.
How could Americans get caught? People talking. Other countries (perhaps those who might want to use pipelines) detecting submarines or ships that did it. Other intelligence means.
Exactly my point.
So the Russians are most likely to blame for Shetland - it sends a powerful message, at little cost to them. Whereas blowing up a gas pipeline sends a message "you can't rely on Russia for your gas" at an extraordinary cost to them. Which would be a message the Americans would dearly like to send, especially if they think Putin is about to lose, and they want to set the geopolitical agenda for another 30 years or more.
So on the cui bono principle, the Russians are obviously responsible for Shetland, but they'd have to be barking mad, and cutting off their own noses to spite their face, to blow up Nordstream.
Blowing up NordStream is at zero cost to them because no one is going to use it, as was shown when they offered to sell gas via NS the other week and were rebuffed.
Also, the people sending the strongest message of "you can't rely on Russia for your gas" is Russia themselves. They were the ones massively restricting gas supplies earlier in the year on rather spurious grounds; they were the ones insisting on being paid in roubles.
Also, this does rather rely on assuming the Russians are acting in their own best interests. This entire war - and certainly the parts after the withdrawal from the gates of Kyiv - shows that is a big assumption.
As with Malmesbury, I think that's a fair point. Russia has proven itself to be an untrustworthy actor and I think you'd have to be mad to deal with them. You can argue the US doesn't need to blow up a pipeline to prove that.
On the other hand, if there's an exceptionally cold winter and the US sees the possibility of Germany, for example, wavering on Ukraine, in the face of people freezing or rioting because of freezing, there's still a reason to act.
There are a great number of possible motivations and potential beneficiaries. My view - and I'm far from a Putin stooge - is that the US stands to benefit the most, over the longer term, by preventing a normalisation in trade relations if Putin is overthrown. IMO Putin is clearly losing, and the US wants to prevent a return to "business as usual" in the event of regime change. However, there are plenty of other good, rational motivations for other actors, which is why we'll probably never know for sure.
But they're all non-immediate factors for the Yanks. *If* they were to do that, then wait for the cold winter. Wait for the normalisation in trade. Doing it now exposes them to risks for rewards that may not happen. Worse, it risks exposing American capabilities (we've suspected Russia has these capabilities for years.)
Yet for Russia, the potential rewards and messages are very immediate.
Also, America could achieve similar 'rewards' by other diplomatic means, if they wanted.
I think that's a very valid argument.
My view is that the US has a very clear understanding of its long term goals and doesn't want the situation to be normalised in the event of Putin being thrown out of a window next week. But your narrative is absolutely equally as valid.
I always feel extremely self-conscious, and a bit of a loser, if I'm on my own in a restaurant, pub or cinema and have to make jokes about the wife or kids before awkwardly going back to my newspaper, book or browsing my phone.
Interesting mix. A couple of tables of 30-something women (yes, yes no; yes, yes, yes, can't see, can't see), the group in earshot talking a lot about nothing. A bunch of male besuited City of London types, some with medals round their necks, two with poppies. And one other bloke on his own.
Thanks for reading.
I'd forgotten Poppymas was almost upon us. I wonder if lamenting her late maj will in some way be brought into the narrative this year.
The medals thing is a bit weird.
Sounds like they could have been Parish Clerks or something wearing their seals on a ribbon
Anyway. A magical evening this evening. The Enchanted Forest on Pitlochry. I had never heard of it until.it was recommended a couple of months backby one of our friendly Scottish contingent - but it appears to be a big deal in these parts. "Oh, you're going to the enchanted forest" they'll say, with a smile, as if you've just discovered a big and wonderful secret. "You'll have a great time." And we did. The family - the wife especially - are connosseurs of a light show, but this was something else. Ethereal, trippy, mystical, spectacular. We walked round with big happy, soppy smiles on our faces. As a happy postscript, heading back down the A9 to Dunkeld the sky suddenly cleared. There was a "wow" from the daughter on the right as she saw the dazzling array of stars - and then when we got back to our accommodation the same noise from everyone as we piled out of the car. Utterly astonishing. The girls had never seen anything like it. You could see the Milky Way. You could see shooting stars. Even for adults who had seen one or two starry skies in the past it was astonishing.
Russia has just claimed that Ukraine plan to shoot down a rocket filled with radioactive material over the Chernobyl exclusion zone.
So, going by Russian logic, that is exactly what Russia will now do. Then they can say Told you so, while scaring the shit out of everyone
Given the U?S at least and probably others have intel into the heart of the Kremlin (eg detailed advance knowledge of the Ukraine invasion) how do you think Russia will get away with this? Sure, there will be a gazillion Twitter twats who will go "Ooh, look, Ukrainian bastards!" but the higher levels of diplomacy will know exactly what gas gone on.
And Ukraine would lose its military and financial support overnight if they actually did it themselves. So it is beyond any credulity for it to work as the Russians suggest "it was Ukraine wot did it...."
Russia doesn't care about the truth, here, it cares about perceptions
If they set off a small dirty bomb and manage to at least temporarily blur the truth of who did it, then that is job done. Everyone will know it was probably Russia - probably - but won't be entirely sure. And everyone will be scared shitless and probably pushing Ukraine to back down
See the Kerch bombing, the Nordstream bombing, and the Dugin bombing. Each has been successfully blamed on various actors, even though we have a good idea in all cases who did it (Ukraine, USA, Ukraine)
You think US did nordstream? Interesting. I imagine any nuclear incident would lead to enormous pressure on China and India not to buy Russian oil. China is already alleged to be pretty furious with Putin and their economy is in trouble.
I am fairly confident the USA did Nordstream, tho they might have used a proxy to get it done yet avoid the blame (Ukraine itself, or maybe the Poles or Finns)
The strategic prize of keeping Germany on the western side, reliant on America, and also of cutting off Putin's options - one day selling more gas to Europe - was irresistible for Washington. And recall we have several vids of Biden and aides months ago saying the USA would do exactly this: cut Nordsream (one way or another)
But we cannot be sure. The fog of war obscures the truth. And that fog is what Putin might rely on, if he "does something radioactive"
I'm no conspiracy theorist, and I agree that the US is the most likely culprit for the Nordstream sabotage, on the "cui bono" principle. I don't understand what Russia got out of the sabotage, other than saying "look at what we did here, we can do it to something that matters, e.g. the north sea pipeline or a transatlantic communications cable.
America however benefits enormously from ensuring that Russian gas is cut off and stays cut off. Prevents waverers in Europe if there is a very cold winter. Add to that the fact that Biden literally said the US would "put an end" to Nordstream 2 if Russia attacked Ukraine, back in January.
1) The Russians send exactly the message you say.
2) Europe has learnt the hard way the problems with relying on Russia for energy. There was virtually no chance of (say) Germany going back to using it - which is why they've refused once Russia offered a week or so ago.
3) The implications if the Americans get caught doing it are massive, and not good for them.
4) For Russia, it adds to the 'Russia stronk!' pathetic meme they like to sell to their population and silly people outside Russia.
5) The spate of recent cable breaks are *not* to the US's advantage. They are to Russia's.
It makes far more sense to blame the Russians for the Shetland cable sabotage. Why would they start with something huge (Nordstream) then follow it up with something small like telephones in Shetland?
My view is that by blowing up Nordstream, the US (assuming they are the culprits) ensure that there can be no normalisation of relations in the event of a complete Russian collapse and regime change - thus protecting their long term strategic interests. Put simply, they have the most to benefit from doing it. Especially if they believe a regime change is possible or even near (which they might). If I were America and expected Russia to lose this war quickly, but wanted to prevent a normalisation of relations and a resumption of gas supplies once the new regime was in place, this is *exactly* what I would do. This is simply realpolitik, and every nation state engages in it.
I don't get what the Russians get out of blowing up Nordstream that they can't get out of snipping a few phone lines in Shetland. The former effs up their income stream from gas for decades, the latter inconveniences a few shepherds while sending a message.
I really don't understand how America could get "caught" here. Even if there were photos of a grinning Joe Biden planting plastic explosives, while wearing an old-timey diving suit, and giving the thumbs up, the Americans would deny all knowledge, as they always do, and we would still be in "conspiracy theory" territory.
"It makes far more sense to blame the Russians for the Shetland cable sabotage. Why would they start with something huge (Nordstream) then follow it up with something small like telephones in Shetland?"
To send the message that all out underwater infrastructure is vulnerable. If it was just gas pipelines we *might* be able to protect them; having to protect the vast network of cables as well is orders of magnitude more difficult because of the numbers involved. See https://www.submarinecablemap.com/
And attacking underwater cables might be much more immediately disruptive than even the gas pipelines. One of the most important acts we did in WW1 was cutting the German international cables - and we did that in the first few weeks.
How could Americans get caught? People talking. Other countries (perhaps those who might want to use pipelines) detecting submarines or ships that did it. Other intelligence means.
Exactly my point.
So the Russians are most likely to blame for Shetland - it sends a powerful message, at little cost to them. Whereas blowing up a gas pipeline sends a message "you can't rely on Russia for your gas" at an extraordinary cost to them. Which would be a message the Americans would dearly like to send, especially if they think Putin is about to lose, and they want to set the geopolitical agenda for another 30 years or more.
So on the cui bono principle, the Russians are obviously responsible for Shetland, but they'd have to be barking mad, and cutting off their own noses to spite their face, to blow up Nordstream.
Some little time later, the Russians offered to sell gas to Germany via Nordstream 2, if it was activated.
Which might suggest a motive for damaging the original Nordstream.
Only one country is desperate and ready to escalate beyond common sense, and only one has anything meaningful to gain from scaring the Europeans about gas supplies. The Americans didn’t even want to to export LNG until a couple of years ago, for national security reasons. Cheap American gas is more important than exports.
Only one country has been persistently hovering around both gas pipelines and telecoms cables for years, acting menacing.
It was a warning to Europe, with the added benefit of hoping to bring NS2 back on the table. A warning that didn’t work.
Aww. Bless. You really believe that
“US Secretary of State #Blinken on the destruction of #NordStream2 in the text:
"This presents a tremendous strategic opportunity for years to come. It is a tremendous opportunity to end dependence on Russian energy once and for all."
Anyway. A magical evening this evening. The Enchanted Forest on Pitlochry. I had never heard of it until.it was recommended a couple of months backby one of our friendly Scottish contingent - but it appears to be a big deal in these parts. "Oh, you're going to the enchanted forest" they'll say, with a smile, as if you've just discovered a big and wonderful secret. "You'll have a great time." And we did. The family - the wife especially - are connosseurs of a light show, but this was something else. Ethereal, trippy, mystical, spectacular. We walked round with big happy, soppy smiles on our faces. As a happy postscript, heading back down the A9 to Dunkeld the sky suddenly cleared. There was a "wow" from the daughter on the right as she saw the dazzling array of stars - and then when we got back to our accommodation the same noise from everyone as we piled out of the car. Utterly astonishing. The girls had never seen anything like it. You could see the Milky Way. You could see shooting stars. Even for adults who had seen one or two starry skies in the past it was astonishing.
It’s completely not acceptable in any culture but I’m enjoying a late evening pastis, as I always do when in the French residence and never at other times.
I’m not even in the Midi, but the chirping crickets and long-fetch globally warmed Southerly demand it.
But I just heard my wife opening some Corsican red which I annoyingly can’t now drink, not after a pastis. And it seems she’s declared its time for scrabble which she always wins.
The other true (northern) French oddity I do love a bit of is Picon bière. Bought a bottle of Picon yesterday which should last years and is probably nuclear Armageddon-proof.
The BOE is becoming a definite problem. Since being granted its independence it seems to have done a sort of reverse takeover of the Treasury, which now seems to need to be granted independence from the Bank.
I agree with you to a surprising extent. The Bank of England pursues a monetary policy, which is political, without reference to the policy of the elected government. There can be a big tension. Truss and Kwarteng's mistake was going all-in on a fiscal policy incompatible with the Bank's monetary policy. They should have managed that tension, but the Bank has responsibility too. It needs to work with the government to get to a viable compromise.
Russia has just claimed that Ukraine plan to shoot down a rocket filled with radioactive material over the Chernobyl exclusion zone.
So, going by Russian logic, that is exactly what Russia will now do. Then they can say Told you so, while scaring the shit out of everyone
Given the U?S at least and probably others have intel into the heart of the Kremlin (eg detailed advance knowledge of the Ukraine invasion) how do you think Russia will get away with this? Sure, there will be a gazillion Twitter twats who will go "Ooh, look, Ukrainian bastards!" but the higher levels of diplomacy will know exactly what gas gone on.
And Ukraine would lose its military and financial support overnight if they actually did it themselves. So it is beyond any credulity for it to work as the Russians suggest "it was Ukraine wot did it...."
Russia doesn't care about the truth, here, it cares about perceptions
If they set off a small dirty bomb and manage to at least temporarily blur the truth of who did it, then that is job done. Everyone will know it was probably Russia - probably - but won't be entirely sure. And everyone will be scared shitless and probably pushing Ukraine to back down
See the Kerch bombing, the Nordstream bombing, and the Dugin bombing. Each has been successfully blamed on various actors, even though we have a good idea in all cases who did it (Ukraine, USA, Ukraine)
You think US did nordstream? Interesting. I imagine any nuclear incident would lead to enormous pressure on China and India not to buy Russian oil. China is already alleged to be pretty furious with Putin and their economy is in trouble.
I am fairly confident the USA did Nordstream, tho they might have used a proxy to get it done yet avoid the blame (Ukraine itself, or maybe the Poles or Finns)
The strategic prize of keeping Germany on the western side, reliant on America, and also of cutting off Putin's options - one day selling more gas to Europe - was irresistible for Washington. And recall we have several vids of Biden and aides months ago saying the USA would do exactly this: cut Nordsream (one way or another)
But we cannot be sure. The fog of war obscures the truth. And that fog is what Putin might rely on, if he "does something radioactive"
I'm no conspiracy theorist, and I agree that the US is the most likely culprit for the Nordstream sabotage, on the "cui bono" principle. I don't understand what Russia got out of the sabotage, other than saying "look at what we did here, we can do it to something that matters, e.g. the north sea pipeline or a transatlantic communications cable.
America however benefits enormously from ensuring that Russian gas is cut off and stays cut off. Prevents waverers in Europe if there is a very cold winter. Add to that the fact that Biden literally said the US would "put an end" to Nordstream 2 if Russia attacked Ukraine, back in January.
1) The Russians send exactly the message you say.
2) Europe has learnt the hard way the problems with relying on Russia for energy. There was virtually no chance of (say) Germany going back to using it - which is why they've refused once Russia offered a week or so ago.
3) The implications if the Americans get caught doing it are massive, and not good for them.
4) For Russia, it adds to the 'Russia stronk!' pathetic meme they like to sell to their population and silly people outside Russia.
5) The spate of recent cable breaks are *not* to the US's advantage. They are to Russia's.
It makes far more sense to blame the Russians for the Shetland cable sabotage. Why would they start with something huge (Nordstream) then follow it up with something small like telephones in Shetland?
My view is that by blowing up Nordstream, the US (assuming they are the culprits) ensure that there can be no normalisation of relations in the event of a complete Russian collapse and regime change - thus protecting their long term strategic interests. Put simply, they have the most to benefit from doing it. Especially if they believe a regime change is possible or even near (which they might). If I were America and expected Russia to lose this war quickly, but wanted to prevent a normalisation of relations and a resumption of gas supplies once the new regime was in place, this is *exactly* what I would do. This is simply realpolitik, and every nation state engages in it.
I don't get what the Russians get out of blowing up Nordstream that they can't get out of snipping a few phone lines in Shetland. The former effs up their income stream from gas for decades, the latter inconveniences a few shepherds while sending a message.
I really don't understand how America could get "caught" here. Even if there were photos of a grinning Joe Biden planting plastic explosives, while wearing an old-timey diving suit, and giving the thumbs up, the Americans would deny all knowledge, as they always do, and we would still be in "conspiracy theory" territory.
"It makes far more sense to blame the Russians for the Shetland cable sabotage. Why would they start with something huge (Nordstream) then follow it up with something small like telephones in Shetland?"
To send the message that all out underwater infrastructure is vulnerable. If it was just gas pipelines we *might* be able to protect them; having to protect the vast network of cables as well is orders of magnitude more difficult because of the numbers involved. See https://www.submarinecablemap.com/
And attacking underwater cables might be much more immediately disruptive than even the gas pipelines. One of the most important acts we did in WW1 was cutting the German international cables - and we did that in the first few weeks.
How could Americans get caught? People talking. Other countries (perhaps those who might want to use pipelines) detecting submarines or ships that did it. Other intelligence means.
Exactly my point.
So the Russians are most likely to blame for Shetland - it sends a powerful message, at little cost to them. Whereas blowing up a gas pipeline sends a message "you can't rely on Russia for your gas" at an extraordinary cost to them. Which would be a message the Americans would dearly like to send, especially if they think Putin is about to lose, and they want to set the geopolitical agenda for another 30 years or more.
So on the cui bono principle, the Russians are obviously responsible for Shetland, but they'd have to be barking mad, and cutting off their own noses to spite their face, to blow up Nordstream.
Some little time later, the Russians offered to sell gas to Germany via Nordstream 2, if it was activated.
Which might suggest a motive for damaging the original Nordstream.
Fair. You're looking at possible motives.
My point would be, if Nordstream 1 blew up, why would you want to take delivery via Nordstream 2?
It's like Babylon 4 disappearing then immediately booking a room on Babylon 5.
Babylon 5 didn’t have an occupancy problem…
I think Putin may have been trying for “I have altered the deal. Pray that I don’t alter it further.”
Forcing the Germans to fire up Nordstream 2 would be a victory for him.
In the Barking Road, it's perfectly possible to have a table to yourself yet still engage in animated conversation with the three tables near you so you get the benefits of solo dining along with convivial (to a point) conversation.
Back to politics - after three months of getting worked over more frequently than a (fill in the analogy) at a (fill in the rest of the analogy) the Conservatives have found the unity of desperation and have recognised the old maxim if they don't hang together they'll hang separately.
It'll be interesting to see how long this new unity holds but the baying and shouting at PMQs all sounded a bit forced, a bit desperate. Starmer and Labour still have a way to go to No.10 but they're much further down the road than seemed likely 12 months ago and even 6 months ago.
The best you can say is the Conservatives have probably stopped being mistakes - Braverman apart - and so Starmer will have to start earning his corn again by attacking the policies and the record and of course starting to give us a clue as to what a mid-2020s Labour Government might do and look like.
It may even be the coming winter isn't the dystopia some have predicted though it will be difficult for many and the margin for error is non existent. The delay of the financial statement suggests to this observer some very hard conversations within Government and the Sunak-Hunt relationship will be critical. It will be fascinating to see if what is produced in the middle of next month is Hunt's work or whether it has Sunak's fingerprints all over it.
Tax rises and spending cuts are rarely popular and the scope for the latter now isn't what it was in 2010 for example. The demands on public sector spending are and remain considerable and unrelenting. Knowing Sunak, he will seek all manner of clever ways to raise funds without it impacting too directly on people though business and some other sectors may not agree.
Russia has just claimed that Ukraine plan to shoot down a rocket filled with radioactive material over the Chernobyl exclusion zone.
So, going by Russian logic, that is exactly what Russia will now do. Then they can say Told you so, while scaring the shit out of everyone
Given the U?S at least and probably others have intel into the heart of the Kremlin (eg detailed advance knowledge of the Ukraine invasion) how do you think Russia will get away with this? Sure, there will be a gazillion Twitter twats who will go "Ooh, look, Ukrainian bastards!" but the higher levels of diplomacy will know exactly what gas gone on.
And Ukraine would lose its military and financial support overnight if they actually did it themselves. So it is beyond any credulity for it to work as the Russians suggest "it was Ukraine wot did it...."
Russia doesn't care about the truth, here, it cares about perceptions
If they set off a small dirty bomb and manage to at least temporarily blur the truth of who did it, then that is job done. Everyone will know it was probably Russia - probably - but won't be entirely sure. And everyone will be scared shitless and probably pushing Ukraine to back down
See the Kerch bombing, the Nordstream bombing, and the Dugin bombing. Each has been successfully blamed on various actors, even though we have a good idea in all cases who did it (Ukraine, USA, Ukraine)
You think US did nordstream? Interesting. I imagine any nuclear incident would lead to enormous pressure on China and India not to buy Russian oil. China is already alleged to be pretty furious with Putin and their economy is in trouble.
I am fairly confident the USA did Nordstream, tho they might have used a proxy to get it done yet avoid the blame (Ukraine itself, or maybe the Poles or Finns)
The strategic prize of keeping Germany on the western side, reliant on America, and also of cutting off Putin's options - one day selling more gas to Europe - was irresistible for Washington. And recall we have several vids of Biden and aides months ago saying the USA would do exactly this: cut Nordsream (one way or another)
But we cannot be sure. The fog of war obscures the truth. And that fog is what Putin might rely on, if he "does something radioactive"
I'm no conspiracy theorist, and I agree that the US is the most likely culprit for the Nordstream sabotage, on the "cui bono" principle. I don't understand what Russia got out of the sabotage, other than saying "look at what we did here, we can do it to something that matters, e.g. the north sea pipeline or a transatlantic communications cable.
America however benefits enormously from ensuring that Russian gas is cut off and stays cut off. Prevents waverers in Europe if there is a very cold winter. Add to that the fact that Biden literally said the US would "put an end" to Nordstream 2 if Russia attacked Ukraine, back in January.
1) The Russians send exactly the message you say.
2) Europe has learnt the hard way the problems with relying on Russia for energy. There was virtually no chance of (say) Germany going back to using it - which is why they've refused once Russia offered a week or so ago.
3) The implications if the Americans get caught doing it are massive, and not good for them.
4) For Russia, it adds to the 'Russia stronk!' pathetic meme they like to sell to their population and silly people outside Russia.
5) The spate of recent cable breaks are *not* to the US's advantage. They are to Russia's.
It makes far more sense to blame the Russians for the Shetland cable sabotage. Why would they start with something huge (Nordstream) then follow it up with something small like telephones in Shetland?
My view is that by blowing up Nordstream, the US (assuming they are the culprits) ensure that there can be no normalisation of relations in the event of a complete Russian collapse and regime change - thus protecting their long term strategic interests. Put simply, they have the most to benefit from doing it. Especially if they believe a regime change is possible or even near (which they might). If I were America and expected Russia to lose this war quickly, but wanted to prevent a normalisation of relations and a resumption of gas supplies once the new regime was in place, this is *exactly* what I would do. This is simply realpolitik, and every nation state engages in it.
I don't get what the Russians get out of blowing up Nordstream that they can't get out of snipping a few phone lines in Shetland. The former effs up their income stream from gas for decades, the latter inconveniences a few shepherds while sending a message.
I really don't understand how America could get "caught" here. Even if there were photos of a grinning Joe Biden planting plastic explosives, while wearing an old-timey diving suit, and giving the thumbs up, the Americans would deny all knowledge, as they always do, and we would still be in "conspiracy theory" territory.
"It makes far more sense to blame the Russians for the Shetland cable sabotage. Why would they start with something huge (Nordstream) then follow it up with something small like telephones in Shetland?"
To send the message that all out underwater infrastructure is vulnerable. If it was just gas pipelines we *might* be able to protect them; having to protect the vast network of cables as well is orders of magnitude more difficult because of the numbers involved. See https://www.submarinecablemap.com/
And attacking underwater cables might be much more immediately disruptive than even the gas pipelines. One of the most important acts we did in WW1 was cutting the German international cables - and we did that in the first few weeks.
How could Americans get caught? People talking. Other countries (perhaps those who might want to use pipelines) detecting submarines or ships that did it. Other intelligence means.
Exactly my point.
So the Russians are most likely to blame for Shetland - it sends a powerful message, at little cost to them. Whereas blowing up a gas pipeline sends a message "you can't rely on Russia for your gas" at an extraordinary cost to them. Which would be a message the Americans would dearly like to send, especially if they think Putin is about to lose, and they want to set the geopolitical agenda for another 30 years or more.
So on the cui bono principle, the Russians are obviously responsible for Shetland, but they'd have to be barking mad, and cutting off their own noses to spite their face, to blow up Nordstream.
Some little time later, the Russians offered to sell gas to Germany via Nordstream 2, if it was activated.
Which might suggest a motive for damaging the original Nordstream.
Only one country is desperate and ready to escalate beyond common sense, and only one has anything meaningful to gain from scaring the Europeans about gas supplies. The Americans didn’t even want to to export LNG until a couple of years ago, for national security reasons. Cheap American gas is more important than exports.
Only one country has been persistently hovering around both gas pipelines and telecoms cables for years, acting menacing.
It was a warning to Europe, with the added benefit of hoping to bring NS2 back on the table. A warning that didn’t work.
Aww. Bless. You really believe that
“US Secretary of State #Blinken on the destruction of #NordStream2 in the text:
"This presents a tremendous strategic opportunity for years to come. It is a tremendous opportunity to end dependence on Russian energy once and for all."
Anyway. A magical evening this evening. The Enchanted Forest on Pitlochry. I had never heard of it until.it was recommended a couple of months backby one of our friendly Scottish contingent - but it appears to be a big deal in these parts. "Oh, you're going to the enchanted forest" they'll say, with a smile, as if you've just discovered a big and wonderful secret. "You'll have a great time." And we did. The family - the wife especially - are connosseurs of a light show, but this was something else. Ethereal, trippy, mystical, spectacular. We walked round with big happy, soppy smiles on our faces. As a happy postscript, heading back down the A9 to Dunkeld the sky suddenly cleared. There was a "wow" from the daughter on the right as she saw the dazzling array of stars - and then when we got back to our accommodation the same noise from everyone as we piled out of the car. Utterly astonishing. The girls had never seen anything like it. You could see the Milky Way. You could see shooting stars. Even for adults who had seen one or two starry skies in the past it was astonishing.
That does look rather stunning.
It was. And inasmuch as it had a theme, which was not very much, the theme was 'together' - which sounds a lot sappier than it was in practice. It does mean, though, that I still have burned into my retinas images of the silhouettes of my daughters before the neon slogans "tied with invisible strings" and "we journey together". You can see why I'd be feeling a little emotional. Though look over now and my youngest is plugged into a screen. Time to get the bedtime stories out...
It’s over 20C here in the Maconnais at 8.30 and I’m out on the terrace in the dark in short sleeves listening to crickets chirping. It’s nearly November. 25C forecast tomorrow.
#climatechange.
Incidentally I worked out the nearest nukeable location is St Yan air force base, 43km to our SW. reckon it would be a smallish warhead for that one rather than a megaton city-destroyer. Lyon 100km to the Soith gets one of them. Possibly Le Creusot or Montceau les Mines 50km to the NW get a small one. Dijon? Far enough away not to worry.
So I’d see the flash, possibly get a bit of fallout on a Westerly but not too much. Would be like the scene in Empire of the Sun when the boy sees the Nagasaki bomb and thinks it’s his mother going up to heaven.
Russia doesnt have enough 'megaton' nukes to nuke Lyon with one. They may have a handful of Avangard with a yiekd of 2 to 5mt, but no more than a dozen or so. The Satan 2 Sarmats are not yet operational and the alleged 100mt nuclear torpedo is complete fantasy horseshit. No such weapon exists, they might have a 2mt torpedo but that won't be anywhere near enough to create a tidal wave. Most if its arsenal is aging Sarmats with multiple 400 or 800 kt warheads that may or may not work, a few hundred sub launched that may or may not work or be in dock and a hundred air dropped on heavy long range bombers plus their battlefield collection. This ain't '62 but any exchange would be pretty grotesque even with all their dusty old crap. Some of it would get through
The fun bit about the 100 megaton torpedo is that it was a fantasy from the 1960s - previously proposed and developed in secret without the cooperation of the Soviet Navy. Who binned the project the moment they found out, on the grounds that it was a useless waste of time.
Thanks to the insights of my fellow PBers I am now comfortable in the knowledge that as soon as I left the restaurant yes, yes, no at the next table started to discuss how much they wanted to shag the loner in the cardigan.
Anyway. A magical evening this evening. The Enchanted Forest on Pitlochry. I had never heard of it until.it was recommended a couple of months backby one of our friendly Scottish contingent - but it appears to be a big deal in these parts. "Oh, you're going to the enchanted forest" they'll say, with a smile, as if you've just discovered a big and wonderful secret. "You'll have a great time." And we did. The family - the wife especially - are connosseurs of a light show, but this was something else. Ethereal, trippy, mystical, spectacular. We walked round with big happy, soppy smiles on our faces. As a happy postscript, heading back down the A9 to Dunkeld the sky suddenly cleared. There was a "wow" from the daughter on the right as she saw the dazzling array of stars - and then when we got back to our accommodation the same noise from everyone as we piled out of the car. Utterly astonishing. The girls had never seen anything like it. You could see the Milky Way. You could see shooting stars. Even for adults who had seen one or two starry skies in the past it was astonishing.
That does look rather stunning.
Some years ago a couple of friends came to stay at our Wiltshire home. We are on the very edge of the town, and by the side of the house there is no light at all to get in the way. Friends were astonished to see the Milky Way, as both had never seen it before, being city dwellers. Modern life is great with heat and light and all, but there is something primal about seeing the night sky without any human made light intruding.
Russia has just claimed that Ukraine plan to shoot down a rocket filled with radioactive material over the Chernobyl exclusion zone.
So, going by Russian logic, that is exactly what Russia will now do. Then they can say Told you so, while scaring the shit out of everyone
Given the U?S at least and probably others have intel into the heart of the Kremlin (eg detailed advance knowledge of the Ukraine invasion) how do you think Russia will get away with this? Sure, there will be a gazillion Twitter twats who will go "Ooh, look, Ukrainian bastards!" but the higher levels of diplomacy will know exactly what gas gone on.
And Ukraine would lose its military and financial support overnight if they actually did it themselves. So it is beyond any credulity for it to work as the Russians suggest "it was Ukraine wot did it...."
Russia doesn't care about the truth, here, it cares about perceptions
If they set off a small dirty bomb and manage to at least temporarily blur the truth of who did it, then that is job done. Everyone will know it was probably Russia - probably - but won't be entirely sure. And everyone will be scared shitless and probably pushing Ukraine to back down
See the Kerch bombing, the Nordstream bombing, and the Dugin bombing. Each has been successfully blamed on various actors, even though we have a good idea in all cases who did it (Ukraine, USA, Ukraine)
You think US did nordstream? Interesting. I imagine any nuclear incident would lead to enormous pressure on China and India not to buy Russian oil. China is already alleged to be pretty furious with Putin and their economy is in trouble.
I am fairly confident the USA did Nordstream, tho they might have used a proxy to get it done yet avoid the blame (Ukraine itself, or maybe the Poles or Finns)
The strategic prize of keeping Germany on the western side, reliant on America, and also of cutting off Putin's options - one day selling more gas to Europe - was irresistible for Washington. And recall we have several vids of Biden and aides months ago saying the USA would do exactly this: cut Nordsream (one way or another)
But we cannot be sure. The fog of war obscures the truth. And that fog is what Putin might rely on, if he "does something radioactive"
I'm no conspiracy theorist, and I agree that the US is the most likely culprit for the Nordstream sabotage, on the "cui bono" principle. I don't understand what Russia got out of the sabotage, other than saying "look at what we did here, we can do it to something that matters, e.g. the north sea pipeline or a transatlantic communications cable.
America however benefits enormously from ensuring that Russian gas is cut off and stays cut off. Prevents waverers in Europe if there is a very cold winter. Add to that the fact that Biden literally said the US would "put an end" to Nordstream 2 if Russia attacked Ukraine, back in January.
1) The Russians send exactly the message you say.
2) Europe has learnt the hard way the problems with relying on Russia for energy. There was virtually no chance of (say) Germany going back to using it - which is why they've refused once Russia offered a week or so ago.
3) The implications if the Americans get caught doing it are massive, and not good for them.
4) For Russia, it adds to the 'Russia stronk!' pathetic meme they like to sell to their population and silly people outside Russia.
5) The spate of recent cable breaks are *not* to the US's advantage. They are to Russia's.
It makes far more sense to blame the Russians for the Shetland cable sabotage. Why would they start with something huge (Nordstream) then follow it up with something small like telephones in Shetland?
My view is that by blowing up Nordstream, the US (assuming they are the culprits) ensure that there can be no normalisation of relations in the event of a complete Russian collapse and regime change - thus protecting their long term strategic interests. Put simply, they have the most to benefit from doing it. Especially if they believe a regime change is possible or even near (which they might). If I were America and expected Russia to lose this war quickly, but wanted to prevent a normalisation of relations and a resumption of gas supplies once the new regime was in place, this is *exactly* what I would do. This is simply realpolitik, and every nation state engages in it.
I don't get what the Russians get out of blowing up Nordstream that they can't get out of snipping a few phone lines in Shetland. The former effs up their income stream from gas for decades, the latter inconveniences a few shepherds while sending a message.
I really don't understand how America could get "caught" here. Even if there were photos of a grinning Joe Biden planting plastic explosives, while wearing an old-timey diving suit, and giving the thumbs up, the Americans would deny all knowledge, as they always do, and we would still be in "conspiracy theory" territory.
"It makes far more sense to blame the Russians for the Shetland cable sabotage. Why would they start with something huge (Nordstream) then follow it up with something small like telephones in Shetland?"
To send the message that all out underwater infrastructure is vulnerable. If it was just gas pipelines we *might* be able to protect them; having to protect the vast network of cables as well is orders of magnitude more difficult because of the numbers involved. See https://www.submarinecablemap.com/
And attacking underwater cables might be much more immediately disruptive than even the gas pipelines. One of the most important acts we did in WW1 was cutting the German international cables - and we did that in the first few weeks.
How could Americans get caught? People talking. Other countries (perhaps those who might want to use pipelines) detecting submarines or ships that did it. Other intelligence means.
Exactly my point.
So the Russians are most likely to blame for Shetland - it sends a powerful message, at little cost to them. Whereas blowing up a gas pipeline sends a message "you can't rely on Russia for your gas" at an extraordinary cost to them. Which would be a message the Americans would dearly like to send, especially if they think Putin is about to lose, and they want to set the geopolitical agenda for another 30 years or more.
So on the cui bono principle, the Russians are obviously responsible for Shetland, but they'd have to be barking mad, and cutting off their own noses to spite their face, to blow up Nordstream.
Some little time later, the Russians offered to sell gas to Germany via Nordstream 2, if it was activated.
Which might suggest a motive for damaging the original Nordstream.
Only one country is desperate and ready to escalate beyond common sense, and only one has anything meaningful to gain from scaring the Europeans about gas supplies. The Americans didn’t even want to to export LNG until a couple of years ago, for national security reasons. Cheap American gas is more important than exports.
Only one country has been persistently hovering around both gas pipelines and telecoms cables for years, acting menacing.
It was a warning to Europe, with the added benefit of hoping to bring NS2 back on the table. A warning that didn’t work.
Aww. Bless. You really believe that
“US Secretary of State #Blinken on the destruction of #NordStream2 in the text:
"This presents a tremendous strategic opportunity for years to come. It is a tremendous opportunity to end dependence on Russian energy once and for all."
Yes I believe that. I see decidedly marginal gains and major potential losses to any American administration attempting something like this.
There aren't players in Europe who would take unilateral action of this type - no EU/NATO countries would act out of step with the US. That leaves Russia, for what still seem to me to be extremely obscure reasons, or America/someone acting on their behalf.
Russia has just claimed that Ukraine plan to shoot down a rocket filled with radioactive material over the Chernobyl exclusion zone.
So, going by Russian logic, that is exactly what Russia will now do. Then they can say Told you so, while scaring the shit out of everyone
Given the U?S at least and probably others have intel into the heart of the Kremlin (eg detailed advance knowledge of the Ukraine invasion) how do you think Russia will get away with this? Sure, there will be a gazillion Twitter twats who will go "Ooh, look, Ukrainian bastards!" but the higher levels of diplomacy will know exactly what gas gone on.
And Ukraine would lose its military and financial support overnight if they actually did it themselves. So it is beyond any credulity for it to work as the Russians suggest "it was Ukraine wot did it...."
Russia doesn't care about the truth, here, it cares about perceptions
If they set off a small dirty bomb and manage to at least temporarily blur the truth of who did it, then that is job done. Everyone will know it was probably Russia - probably - but won't be entirely sure. And everyone will be scared shitless and probably pushing Ukraine to back down
See the Kerch bombing, the Nordstream bombing, and the Dugin bombing. Each has been successfully blamed on various actors, even though we have a good idea in all cases who did it (Ukraine, USA, Ukraine)
You think US did nordstream? Interesting. I imagine any nuclear incident would lead to enormous pressure on China and India not to buy Russian oil. China is already alleged to be pretty furious with Putin and their economy is in trouble.
I am fairly confident the USA did Nordstream, tho they might have used a proxy to get it done yet avoid the blame (Ukraine itself, or maybe the Poles or Finns)
The strategic prize of keeping Germany on the western side, reliant on America, and also of cutting off Putin's options - one day selling more gas to Europe - was irresistible for Washington. And recall we have several vids of Biden and aides months ago saying the USA would do exactly this: cut Nordsream (one way or another)
But we cannot be sure. The fog of war obscures the truth. And that fog is what Putin might rely on, if he "does something radioactive"
I'm no conspiracy theorist, and I agree that the US is the most likely culprit for the Nordstream sabotage, on the "cui bono" principle. I don't understand what Russia got out of the sabotage, other than saying "look at what we did here, we can do it to something that matters, e.g. the north sea pipeline or a transatlantic communications cable.
America however benefits enormously from ensuring that Russian gas is cut off and stays cut off. Prevents waverers in Europe if there is a very cold winter. Add to that the fact that Biden literally said the US would "put an end" to Nordstream 2 if Russia attacked Ukraine, back in January.
1) The Russians send exactly the message you say.
2) Europe has learnt the hard way the problems with relying on Russia for energy. There was virtually no chance of (say) Germany going back to using it - which is why they've refused once Russia offered a week or so ago.
3) The implications if the Americans get caught doing it are massive, and not good for them.
4) For Russia, it adds to the 'Russia stronk!' pathetic meme they like to sell to their population and silly people outside Russia.
5) The spate of recent cable breaks are *not* to the US's advantage. They are to Russia's.
It makes far more sense to blame the Russians for the Shetland cable sabotage. Why would they start with something huge (Nordstream) then follow it up with something small like telephones in Shetland?
My view is that by blowing up Nordstream, the US (assuming they are the culprits) ensure that there can be no normalisation of relations in the event of a complete Russian collapse and regime change - thus protecting their long term strategic interests. Put simply, they have the most to benefit from doing it. Especially if they believe a regime change is possible or even near (which they might). If I were America and expected Russia to lose this war quickly, but wanted to prevent a normalisation of relations and a resumption of gas supplies once the new regime was in place, this is *exactly* what I would do. This is simply realpolitik, and every nation state engages in it.
I don't get what the Russians get out of blowing up Nordstream that they can't get out of snipping a few phone lines in Shetland. The former effs up their income stream from gas for decades, the latter inconveniences a few shepherds while sending a message.
I really don't understand how America could get "caught" here. Even if there were photos of a grinning Joe Biden planting plastic explosives, while wearing an old-timey diving suit, and giving the thumbs up, the Americans would deny all knowledge, as they always do, and we would still be in "conspiracy theory" territory.
"It makes far more sense to blame the Russians for the Shetland cable sabotage. Why would they start with something huge (Nordstream) then follow it up with something small like telephones in Shetland?"
To send the message that all out underwater infrastructure is vulnerable. If it was just gas pipelines we *might* be able to protect them; having to protect the vast network of cables as well is orders of magnitude more difficult because of the numbers involved. See https://www.submarinecablemap.com/
And attacking underwater cables might be much more immediately disruptive than even the gas pipelines. One of the most important acts we did in WW1 was cutting the German international cables - and we did that in the first few weeks.
How could Americans get caught? People talking. Other countries (perhaps those who might want to use pipelines) detecting submarines or ships that did it. Other intelligence means.
Exactly my point.
So the Russians are most likely to blame for Shetland - it sends a powerful message, at little cost to them. Whereas blowing up a gas pipeline sends a message "you can't rely on Russia for your gas" at an extraordinary cost to them. Which would be a message the Americans would dearly like to send, especially if they think Putin is about to lose, and they want to set the geopolitical agenda for another 30 years or more.
So on the cui bono principle, the Russians are obviously responsible for Shetland, but they'd have to be barking mad, and cutting off their own noses to spite their face, to blow up Nordstream.
Some little time later, the Russians offered to sell gas to Germany via Nordstream 2, if it was activated.
Which might suggest a motive for damaging the original Nordstream.
Only one country is desperate and ready to escalate beyond common sense, and only one has anything meaningful to gain from scaring the Europeans about gas supplies. The Americans didn’t even want to to export LNG until a couple of years ago, for national security reasons. Cheap American gas is more important than exports.
Only one country has been persistently hovering around both gas pipelines and telecoms cables for years, acting menacing.
It was a warning to Europe, with the added benefit of hoping to bring NS2 back on the table. A warning that didn’t work.
Aww. Bless. You really believe that
“US Secretary of State #Blinken on the destruction of #NordStream2 in the text:
"This presents a tremendous strategic opportunity for years to come. It is a tremendous opportunity to end dependence on Russian energy once and for all."
Yes I believe that. I see decidedly marginal gains and major potential losses to any American administration attempting something like this.
So you’re confronted with a “criminal” who says “I’m going to do this thing” and then *this thing* happens and the criminal is one of the few who could have done this thing, and the criminal also has the most to gain from this thing happening… and then the criminal actually says “it’s brilliant that this thing happened”… and you blame the guy seven doors down
Thanks to the insights of my fellow PBers I am now comfortable in the knowledge that as soon as I left the restaurant yes, yes, no at the next table started to discuss how much they wanted to shag the loner in the cardigan.
You're not George from Drop the Dead Donkey, are you?
I always feel extremely self-conscious, and a bit of a loser, if I'm on my own in a restaurant, pub or cinema and have to make jokes about the wife or kids before awkwardly going back to my newspaper, book or browsing my phone.
What's the secret to being comfortable with this?
Don't worry about it, I think. If you are in the cinema alone because you really want to see the film, that's why you are there; and if you are not bothered you do something else. Same with the pub and restaurant - do something you are comfortable with. If it's getting a takeaway meal and eating it in your room - do that instead.
It’s over 20C here in the Maconnais at 8.30 and I’m out on the terrace in the dark in short sleeves listening to crickets chirping. It’s nearly November. 25C forecast tomorrow.
#climatechange.
Incidentally I worked out the nearest nukeable location is St Yan air force base, 43km to our SW. reckon it would be a smallish warhead for that one rather than a megaton city-destroyer. Lyon 100km to the Soith gets one of them. Possibly Le Creusot or Montceau les Mines 50km to the NW get a small one. Dijon? Far enough away not to worry.
So I’d see the flash, possibly get a bit of fallout on a Westerly but not too much. Would be like the scene in Empire of the Sun when the boy sees the Nagasaki bomb and thinks it’s his mother going up to heaven.
Russia doesnt have enough 'megaton' nukes to nuke Lyon with one. They may have a handful of Avangard with a yiekd of 2 to 5mt, but no more than a dozen or so. The Satan 2 Sarmats are not yet operational and the alleged 100mt nuclear torpedo is complete fantasy horseshit. No such weapon exists, they might have a 2mt torpedo but that won't be anywhere near enough to create a tidal wave. Most if its arsenal is aging Sarmats with multiple 400 or 800 kt warheads that may or may not work, a few hundred sub launched that may or may not work or be in dock and a hundred air dropped on heavy long range bombers plus their battlefield collection. This ain't '62 but any exchange would be pretty grotesque even with all their dusty old crap. Some of it would get through
The fun bit about the 100 megaton torpedo is that it was a fantasy from the 1960s - previously proposed and developed in secret without the cooperation of the Soviet Navy. Who binned the project the moment they found out, on the grounds that it was a useless waste of time.
Cracking bedtime horror story for the incontinent though
Thanks to the insights of my fellow PBers I am now comfortable in the knowledge that as soon as I left the restaurant yes, yes, no at the next table started to discuss how much they wanted to shag the loner in the cardigan.
You're not George from Drop the Dead Donkey, are you?
I aspire to be him.
I once had a boss who we nicknamed Gus after his resemblance to Gus Hedges, and a woman in IT we called Joy as she was just as cheerful as the character of that name.
This was the cost of getting rid of Boris once and for all. I think we all need to recognise that Suella Braverman was the kingmaker in this race and was able to name her price, Rishi did the right thing by getting her on side.
Once again, I'd like for anyone to name a better alternative, as I see it we would have had Boris as PM on Monday and Braverman as HS on Tuesday has Rishi declined her offer.
Rishi, IMO, did what grown up politicians do and compromised to get over the line. Purity is invariably for losers and anyone who's saying that he should have rejected her is kidding themselves about the road not taken.
You’re assuming the necessity of the deal with Braverman is a proven fact. It isn’t.
Whereas the utter unsuitability of Braverman for reappointment is not a matter of dispute.
Anyway. A magical evening this evening. The Enchanted Forest on Pitlochry. I had never heard of it until.it was recommended a couple of months backby one of our friendly Scottish contingent - but it appears to be a big deal in these parts. "Oh, you're going to the enchanted forest" they'll say, with a smile, as if you've just discovered a big and wonderful secret. "You'll have a great time." And we did. The family - the wife especially - are connosseurs of a light show, but this was something else. Ethereal, trippy, mystical, spectacular. We walked round with big happy, soppy smiles on our faces. As a happy postscript, heading back down the A9 to Dunkeld the sky suddenly cleared. There was a "wow" from the daughter on the right as she saw the dazzling array of stars - and then when we got back to our accommodation the same noise from everyone as we piled out of the car. Utterly astonishing. The girls had never seen anything like it. You could see the Milky Way. You could see shooting stars. Even for adults who had seen one or two starry skies in the past it was astonishing.
I'm delighted that you enjoyed it.
Was it you who recommended it to me? Thanks if it was!
Comments
Thought I looked a bit odd but I'm sure most people don't care.
I have never gone to a cinema on my own, but cinema is not really my thing.
I'm a bit shy, most of the time.
Having said that, I did meet a very pleasant Canadian lass in the Pizza Hut in Cockburn Street, Edinburgh many moons ago. I was eating alone, and she asked if she could join me.
They open at 8 but who's getting out of bed for 8?
A relative who runs a building company finds no difficulty in getting his people to prove who they are.
So the Russians are most likely to blame for Shetland - it sends a powerful message, at little cost to them. Whereas blowing up a gas pipeline sends a message "you can't rely on Russia for your gas" at an extraordinary cost to them. Which would be a message the Americans would dearly like to send, especially if they think Putin is about to lose, and they want to set the geopolitical agenda for another 30 years or more.
So on the cui bono principle, the Russians are obviously responsible for Shetland, but they'd have to be barking mad, and cutting off their own noses to spite their face, to blow up Nordstream.
Remarkable pattern really. Warm water anomalies everywhere except a very marked and deep La Niña in the pacific.
If I were Truss and Kwarteng I'd have gone in two footed on the bank, and tested their determination to continue their bond sell off in the court of public opinion. They didn't, probably for good reason. And yes, the budget was poor, and poorly conceived, organised and presented.
Personally, I think the Tories may soon regret setting a precedent for changing the voting system without a referendum...
https://twitter.com/ElectionMapsUK/status/1585346703175344128
It turned out he recognised me from me website. It was his local pub, and he was a keen walker. It's the only time that's ever happened, and it felt weird.
Which might suggest a motive for damaging the original Nordstream.
It's the people watching thing.
Only one country has been persistently hovering around both gas pipelines and telecoms cables for years, acting menacing.
It was a warning to Europe, with the added benefit of hoping to bring NS2 back on the table. A warning that didn’t work.
My point would be, if Nordstream 1 blew up, why would you want to take delivery via Nordstream 2?
It's like Babylon 4 disappearing then immediately booking a room on Babylon 5.
https://www.cnbctv18.com/energy/russia-putin-gas-supply-europe-nord-stream-2-pipeline-germany-reject-14935701.htm
Also, the people sending the strongest message of "you can't rely on Russia for your gas" is Russia themselves. They were the ones massively restricting gas supplies earlier in the year on rather spurious grounds; they were the ones insisting on being paid in roubles.
Also, this does rather rely on assuming the Russians are acting in their own best interests. This entire war - and certainly the parts after the withdrawal from the gates of Kyiv - shows that is a big assumption.
As it's you, I recommend The Guardian crossword.
Most if its arsenal is aging Sarmats with multiple 400 or 800 kt warheads that may or may not work, a few hundred sub launched that may or may not work or be in dock and a hundred air dropped on heavy long range bombers plus their battlefield collection.
This ain't '62 but any exchange would be pretty grotesque even with all their dusty old crap. Some of it would get through
NOM 2.36
Lab Maj 2.36
Con Maj 5.9
I love Edinburgh...
On the other hand, if there's an exceptionally cold winter and the US sees the possibility of Germany, for example, wavering on Ukraine, in the face of people freezing or rioting because of freezing, there's still a reason to act.
There are a great number of possible motivations and potential beneficiaries. My view - and I'm far from a Putin stooge - is that the US stands to benefit the most, over the longer term, by preventing a normalisation in trade relations if Putin is overthrown. IMO Putin is clearly losing, and the US wants to prevent a return to "business as usual" in the event of regime change. However, there are plenty of other good, rational motivations for other actors, which is why we'll probably never know for sure.
Also if you are in a pub or restaurant on your own why give a toss what anyone else there thinks. You’re unlikely to see them again.
It also makes women more comfortable flirting with you, in a way they are not if you are with another women or a male friend.
I was AGREEING. A dry Martini after dinner would make me puke. Literally
Like a cup of warm vodka with Stilton
However, it may not matter. If Sunak can steady the Tory ship he should bring their vote share back from around 20% with Truss to the low 30's of latter Johnson. Sunak seems focused entirely on that task, so a PMQs that panders satisfactorily to the MPs on the benches behind him is a win. His sub-Johnsonian sound bytes may be more tired than a composted lettuce, but they clearly appeal to those thinking Johnson should still be there.
The Tories are just talking to themselves now.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-63393955
1 Are we going to die in a nuclear war in the next week?
2 Mental strategies for agreeable dining when alone
3 hahahahah you were SO wrong about Liz Truss
Yet for Russia, the potential rewards and messages are very immediate.
Also, America could achieve similar 'rewards' by other diplomatic means, if they wanted.
Anyway. A magical evening this evening. The Enchanted Forest on Pitlochry. I had never heard of it until.it was recommended a couple of months backby one of our friendly Scottish contingent - but it appears to be a big deal in these parts. "Oh, you're going to the enchanted forest" they'll say, with a smile, as if you've just discovered a big and wonderful secret. "You'll have a great time." And we did. The family - the wife especially - are connosseurs of a light show, but this was something else. Ethereal, trippy, mystical, spectacular. We walked round with big happy, soppy smiles on our faces.
As a happy postscript, heading back down the A9 to Dunkeld the sky suddenly cleared. There was a "wow" from the daughter on the right as she saw the dazzling array of stars - and then when we got back to our accommodation the same noise from everyone as we piled out of the car. Utterly astonishing. The girls had never seen anything like it. You could see the Milky Way. You could see shooting stars. Even for adults who had seen one or two starry skies in the past it was astonishing.
My view is that the US has a very clear understanding of its long term goals and doesn't want the situation to be normalised in the event of Putin being thrown out of a window next week. But your narrative is absolutely equally as valid.
We also need a discussion of the appropriate response to somebody who orders a pizza with pineapple on it.
While Radiohead is playing.
“US Secretary of State #Blinken on the destruction of #NordStream2 in the text:
"This presents a tremendous strategic opportunity for years to come. It is a tremendous opportunity to end dependence on Russian energy once and for all."
"tremendous" for whom?”
https://twitter.com/descolonizadora/status/1583934266517250049?s=46&t=EQOdPn76BnAzNBEguy889g
We need to put you in the Tower.
3 out of the 6 flights I have done with American so far this week have had maintenance issues with their planes
That’s a pretty high percentage
That's Tower worthy behaviour
I’m not even in the Midi, but the chirping crickets and long-fetch globally warmed Southerly demand it.
But I just heard my wife opening some Corsican red which I annoyingly can’t now drink, not after a pastis. And it seems she’s declared its time for scrabble which she always wins.
The other true (northern) French oddity I do love a bit of is Picon bière. Bought a bottle of
Picon yesterday which should last years and is probably nuclear Armageddon-proof.
I think Putin may have been trying for “I have altered the deal. Pray that I don’t alter it further.”
Forcing the Germans to fire up Nordstream 2 would be a victory for him.
In the Barking Road, it's perfectly possible to have a table to yourself yet still engage in animated conversation with the three tables near you so you get the benefits of solo dining along with convivial (to a point) conversation.
Back to politics - after three months of getting worked over more frequently than a (fill in the analogy) at a (fill in the rest of the analogy) the Conservatives have found the unity of desperation and have recognised the old maxim if they don't hang together they'll hang separately.
It'll be interesting to see how long this new unity holds but the baying and shouting at PMQs all sounded a bit forced, a bit desperate. Starmer and Labour still have a way to go to No.10 but they're much further down the road than seemed likely 12 months ago and even 6 months ago.
The best you can say is the Conservatives have probably stopped being mistakes - Braverman apart - and so Starmer will have to start earning his corn again by attacking the policies and the record and of course starting to give us a clue as to what a mid-2020s Labour Government might do and look like.
It may even be the coming winter isn't the dystopia some have predicted though it will be difficult for many and the margin for error is non existent. The delay of the financial statement suggests to this observer some very hard conversations within Government and the Sunak-Hunt relationship will be critical. It will be fascinating to see if what is produced in the middle of next month is Hunt's work or whether it has Sunak's fingerprints all over it.
Tax rises and spending cuts are rarely popular and the scope for the latter now isn't what it was in 2010 for example. The demands on public sector spending are and remain considerable and unrelenting. Knowing Sunak, he will seek all manner of clever ways to raise funds without it impacting too directly on people though business and some other sectors may not agree.
My entire life has been primary research. Hard to conceive of the alternative. Sad face.
I want to secretly slip a clause into the deal compelling them to honour the Treaty of Troyes.
Though look over now and my youngest is plugged into a screen. Time to get the bedtime stories out...
Modern life is great with heat and light and all, but there is something primal about seeing the night sky without any human made light intruding.
That’s the process. Treaty of Troyes etc.
NEW THREAD.
ON AV AND ELECTORAL REFORM
I once had a boss who we nicknamed Gus after his resemblance to Gus Hedges, and a woman in IT we called Joy as she was just as cheerful as the character of that name.
Whereas the utter unsuitability of Braverman for reappointment is not a matter of dispute.
Political betting to come in the US?