Selebian's list of America's reasons for blowing the pipeline seems extremely lacking on the main point - it benefits their own gas exports vastly. This is a country that is prepared to try to interfere with the UK opening a coal mine (when they have hundreds) because we currently import US coal. And prepared to take issue when we reduce the top rate of tax (when their's is lower). The US as a polity is venal and aggressive with it.
Personally I think it'll be one of the Baltic states with US arms length support. Or maybe even (hopefully not) Britain following a US request. It's the sort of fuckwittery that Boris or Truss would have been tickled pink to be asked to do.
In fairness, my 'list' (SLARP?) was only one point long. You may be making it out to be a bit grander than it was.
There's a potential long term gain for the US, I guess, but with no customers for the gas in the pipelines anyway at present and the reliance on Russian gas being demonstrably foolish now, I'm not convinced it's a massive gain for the US. When the new UK coal mine mysteriously catches fire before it begins producing, we can talk again.
Well, US Secretary of State Tony Blinken doesn't seem to agree with you. He seems quite pleased about Nordstream, from an American perspective
"US @SecBlinken offers motive for #NordStream's destruction: "A tremendous opportunity to remove the dependence on Russian energy.""
A tremendous opportunity? For whom? Who has been doing new gas deals with Europe?
If I'd done it (spoiler: it wasn't me) then I'd be all stony-faced about this very serious attack on vital infrastructure which must be extensively investigated, probably by me. I wouldn't be going "hey, isn't this great, it's an ill wind etc etc".
But then, maybe they know I think like that and so they double bluff to fool me?
What I'm bascially saying is that the response is pretty irrelevant, imho. The US didn't like NS2. They will be pleased at the demise of NS2, whoever did it.
(And, for avoidance of the apparent doubt, the US may well have done it. Covid may well have originated in a lab leak. I'm just not convinced of either of those positions; I don't really think either is the most likely, though certainly possible.)
The point is that there is nobody on the Western side of the axis who would have done this without US assent. I suppose there's a tiny chance a Ukrainian faction thought fuck it, but it seems unlikely. And since it's very unlikely that such assent would have been given without it being part of the overall foreign policy plan, it's effectively either the US or Russia, whoever had their physical hands on it.
Yep, no disagreement there.
Or the Octonauts. They have the equipment. Do they have the motive?
Selebian's list of America's reasons for blowing the pipeline seems extremely lacking on the main point - it benefits their own gas exports vastly. This is a country that is prepared to try to interfere with the UK opening a coal mine (when they have hundreds) because we currently import US coal. And prepared to take issue when we reduce the top rate of tax (when their's is lower). The US as a polity is venal and aggressive with it.
Personally I think it'll be one of the Baltic states with US arms length support. Or maybe even (hopefully not) Britain following a US request. It's the sort of fuckwittery that Boris or Truss would have been tickled pink to be asked to do.
In fairness, my 'list' (SLARP?) was only one point long. You may be making it out to be a bit grander than it was.
There's a potential long term gain for the US, I guess, but with no customers for the gas in the pipelines anyway at present and the reliance on Russian gas being demonstrably foolish now, I'm not convinced it's a massive gain for the US. When the new UK coal mine mysteriously catches fire before it begins producing, we can talk again.
Well, US Secretary of State Tony Blinken doesn't seem to agree with you. He seems quite pleased about Nordstream, from an American perspective
"US @SecBlinken offers motive for #NordStream's destruction: "A tremendous opportunity to remove the dependence on Russian energy.""
A tremendous opportunity? For whom? Who has been doing new gas deals with Europe?
If I'd done it (spoiler: it wasn't me) then I'd be all stony-faced about this very serious attack on vital infrastructure which must be extensively investigated, probably by me. I wouldn't be going "hey, isn't this great, it's an ill wind etc etc".
But then, maybe they know I think like that and so they double bluff to fool me?
What I'm bascially saying is that the response is pretty irrelevant, imho. The US didn't like NS2. They will be pleased at the demise of NS2, whoever did it.
(And, for avoidance of the apparent doubt, the US may well have done it. Covid may well have originated in a lab leak. I'm just not convinced of either of those positions; I don't really think either is the most likely, though certainly possible.)
The point is that there is nobody on the Western side of the axis who would have done this without US assent. I suppose there's a tiny chance a Ukrainian faction thought fuck it, but it seems unlikely. And since it's very unlikely that such assent would have been given without it being part of the overall foreign policy plan, it's effectively either the US or Russia, whoever had their physical hands on it.
Yep, no disagreement there.
Or the Octonauts. They have the equipment. Do they have the motive?
The kick must be taken within 60 seconds (playing time) from the time the team indicated their intention to do so, even if the ball rolls over and has to be placed again
I am prepared to pay for ChatGPT if they take the guard rails off.
But if they take the guard rails off it becomes quite dangerous, surely even more so with GPT4.
I’m not sure what the solution is here.
The solution I've seen on a lot of IT chatrooms is 'Quick - burn this thing before we're all out of jobs!'
It's not ever going to be perfect so there will always be a need for people to debug it when it goes wrong, as well as to understand what it needs to be asked to do. But those gaps will shrink over time.
Bearing in mind that I've come across a lot of people working in IT who can't use Google to find the solution to their problem on stackoverflow and I think I can outrun some of the other coders being chased by the lion of GPT for a while yet.
Oh - indeed. I certainly would expect to be able to ask it something 'novel' yet. And certainly wouldn't trust it with something like 'Could you write some microcontroller code for this new heart monitor?'.
But already it's snapping at the heels of the 1000s and 1000s of people who do a bit of custom Wordpress and 'we need to add stripe as well as paypal to our cart'. Even things like 'could you modify this Flask API to return this slightly different JSON structure under a v2/ prefixed route?' - it can manage perfectly well. It'll even write unit tests for it if you ask it nicely...
Selebian's list of America's reasons for blowing the pipeline seems extremely lacking on the main point - it benefits their own gas exports vastly. This is a country that is prepared to try to interfere with the UK opening a coal mine (when they have hundreds) because we currently import US coal. And prepared to take issue when we reduce the top rate of tax (when their's is lower). The US as a polity is venal and aggressive with it.
Personally I think it'll be one of the Baltic states with US arms length support. Or maybe even (hopefully not) Britain following a US request. It's the sort of fuckwittery that Boris or Truss would have been tickled pink to be asked to do.
In fairness, my 'list' (SLARP?) was only one point long. You may be making it out to be a bit grander than it was.
There's a potential long term gain for the US, I guess, but with no customers for the gas in the pipelines anyway at present and the reliance on Russian gas being demonstrably foolish now, I'm not convinced it's a massive gain for the US. When the new UK coal mine mysteriously catches fire before it begins producing, we can talk again.
Well, US Secretary of State Tony Blinken doesn't seem to agree with you. He seems quite pleased about Nordstream, from an American perspective
"US @SecBlinken offers motive for #NordStream's destruction: "A tremendous opportunity to remove the dependence on Russian energy.""
A tremendous opportunity? For whom? Who has been doing new gas deals with Europe?
It is a tremendous opportunity for world peace, given Putin seems to have thought that Europe's (and especially Gemany's) reliance on Russian gas would stop them interfering in his war. People buying gas and oil from Russia prolong the war.
Then, when Putin realised that Europe were reducing their dependence on 'his' energy, he started threatening us with a cold winter. I wonder what he would do when he realised Germany and the EU would not change their mind? Try to ensure that cold winter?
You seem to deal in certainties where there are not any. Or, as Mrs j would put it, you deal in cretinities with the zeal of a religious fundamentalist.
It's Putin's pipeline. He doesn't need to blow it up. He can simply turn it off: if he wants us to be cold. Then, when we are cold, he can offer to turn it on again, to tempt us to his side. He can't do that now it's all blown up, can he?
There are four reasons why it was in Putin's interest to blow up the pipeline:
(1) It meant there "return to the status quo" option for the oligarchs. Get rid of Putin, and you still don't get all that nice German gas money.
(2) It means that Germany (and the rest of Europe) was in serious danger of running out of gas this winter, and that it could be done without Russia reneging on contracts (and therefore seeing the forced expropriation of Gazprom assets).
(3) It mean that useful idiots would start speculating that it was the Americans, potentially blowing up the whole Western anti-Russian alliance.
(4) It sent a message to the world about the ability of Russia to damage strategic assets, without detection.
3. And intelligent free thinkers too.
Nordstream should be considered in the context of other unexplained destructive incidents in the Russian energy sector, such as
* the explosion at the Volkhov-Petrozavodsk gas pipeline just over the border from Finland, and
* the explosion at the oil refinery in Angarsk in Siberia.
Look at Nordstream in this context, and the probability of the Russian government being the perps decreases. What Bayesian inference would you draw?
Changing "Russia" to "the United States" in point 4 seems to be suggested.
Not really. Hydrocarbon facilities and infrastructure explode all the time all over the world - particularly when they are badly maintained. Indeed there were seven such events at refineries or on pipelines in Russia in 2021 alone. There have also been several in the US in recent years (the most recent in June) and no one is accusing anyone of sabotage over those.
Come on. Own up. Who believed that Putin blew up his own pipeline?
What was the argument for Russia having done it? I didn't follow the story closely, but I thought the discussion was over whether or not it was sabotage or something else.
There was no argument. It was just ‘Putin is mad and this is a mad thing so mad dog Putin did this mad thing even tho it hurts him’ - ignoring the obvious candidates with means, money and motivation, who actually told us they were going to do it a year before
The Americans didn't say a year before that they were going to do it. You are so full of shit.
lol
Biden in early 2022, talking of ending Nordstream
"There will no longer be a Nordstream 2. We will bring an end to it. We will be able to do that"
I mean, I know you're not the brightest pfennig in the kartoffelsalat, but he ACTUALLY FUCKING SAYS IT
"We will bring an end to Nordstream 2"
No surprise that you are so brain damaged that you don't even have a clue how long a year is.
What kind of bottom-of-the-fridge mental vegetable listens to Joe Biden saying "we will bring an end to Nordstream 2, we will do that, we will get it done", then watches the Nordstream 2 pipeline violently coming to an end, an ending which suits the USA probably more than anyone, and THEN thinks: "Ah, the Russians did it!"
Well, I guess you do. You went through that process. And also @JosiasJessop
Wait, why would the US announce they're going to do something, do it, then deny it?
Previously I didn't care about this, at all, but now you've convinced me it was a false flag operation that could've been performed by anyone except the US.
The US didn't actually deny it. Biden said "it was a deliberate act of sabotage, and now the Russians are pumping out disinformation and lies".
Not just disinformation and lies. They also continued to pump gas through the pipelines for 3 days after the leak had been confirmed.
Which, IIRC, slowed down any immediate investigation of the cause. Seems a very odd thing to do if you think you have just been attacked by the Americans and have the opportunity to blow the western alliance to smithereens.
The next Tory leader will be one of the younger rising stars of the current cabinet. A top performer, who cuts through the noise, is effective and likeable. I know! I can’t think of anyone either.
Steve Barclay
Great bantz
Don’t misunderestimate a Cambridge educated solicitor.
The next Tory leader will be one of the younger rising stars of the current cabinet. A top performer, who cuts through the noise, is effective and likeable. I know! I can’t think of anyone either.
Steve Barclay
Great bantz
Don’t misunderestimate a Cambridge educated solicitor.
They are noted for their brilliance.
But they are so modest about themselves how can one not misunderestimate?
The next Tory leader will be one of the younger rising stars of the current cabinet. A top performer, who cuts through the noise, is effective and likeable. I know! I can’t think of anyone either.
Steve Barclay
Great bantz
Don’t misunderestimate a Cambridge educated solicitor.
They are noted for their brilliance.
Barclay also did history at Peterhouse, like Portillo
Come on. Own up. Who believed that Putin blew up his own pipeline?
What was the argument for Russia having done it? I didn't follow the story closely, but I thought the discussion was over whether or not it was sabotage or something else.
There was no argument. It was just ‘Putin is mad and this is a mad thing so mad dog Putin did this mad thing even tho it hurts him’ - ignoring the obvious candidates with means, money and motivation, who actually told us they were going to do it a year before
The Americans didn't say a year before that they were going to do it. You are so full of shit.
lol
Biden in early 2022, talking of ending Nordstream
"There will no longer be a Nordstream 2. We will bring an end to it. We will be able to do that"
I mean, I know you're not the brightest pfennig in the kartoffelsalat, but he ACTUALLY FUCKING SAYS IT
"We will bring an end to Nordstream 2"
No surprise that you are so brain damaged that you don't even have a clue how long a year is.
What kind of bottom-of-the-fridge mental vegetable listens to Joe Biden saying "we will bring an end to Nordstream 2, we will do that, we will get it done", then watches the Nordstream 2 pipeline violently coming to an end, an ending which suits the USA probably more than anyone, and THEN thinks: "Ah, the Russians did it!"
Well, I guess you do. You went through that process. And also @JosiasJessop
Wait, why would the US announce they're going to do something, do it, then deny it?
Previously I didn't care about this, at all, but now you've convinced me it was a false flag operation that could've been performed by anyone except the US.
The US didn't actually deny it. Biden said "it was a deliberate act of sabotage, and now the Russians are pumping out disinformation and lies".
Not just disinformation and lies. They also continued to pump gas through the pipelines for 3 days after the leak had been confirmed.
Which, IIRC, slowed down any immediate investigation of the cause. Seems a very odd thing to do if you think you have just been attacked by the Americans and have the opportunity to blow the western alliance to smithereens.
Very much my view.
Why is there even a view it has to be a state actor here. The pipeline was not that deep and plenty of companies that are capable of fielding underwater demolition at the depth either by diver or uav would profit from NS2 being non functional.
Plenty of multinationals now are getting to the point where they are no longer governed by anyone. Expect increases in corporate action where we would expect it to be state only
…Had the Russian plan been carried out as it was written, Kyiv would have been conquered in just a few days. Zelensky, his wife, and his children would have been murdered by one of the hit squads that roamed the capital city. The Ukrainian state would have been taken over by the collaborators who had already chosen their Kyiv apartments. Then, city by city, region by region, the Russian army would have fought the remnants of the Ukrainian army until it finally conquered the entire country. Originally, the Russian general staff imagined that this victory would require six weeks. Had all of that happened as planned, Ukraine would now be pockmarked with the concentration camps, torture chambers, and makeshift prisons that have been discovered in Bucha, Izyum, Kherson, and all the other territories temporarily occupied by Russia and liberated by the Ukrainian army. A generation of Ukrainian writers, artists, politicians, journalists, and civic leaders would already be buried in mass graves. Ukrainian books would have been removed from schools and libraries. The Ukrainian language would have been suppressed in all public spaces. Hundreds of thousands more Ukrainian children would have been kidnapped and transported to Russia or trafficked farther around the world.…
Not sure I buy the central conceit about this year in particular being about billionaires showing who they are, but there's certainly some choice lines.
These billionaires, who are among the wealthiest and most well-connected people in the world, would have their audience believe that they’re persecuted and speaking truth to power
Selebian's list of America's reasons for blowing the pipeline seems extremely lacking on the main point - it benefits their own gas exports vastly. This is a country that is prepared to try to interfere with the UK opening a coal mine (when they have hundreds) because we currently import US coal. And prepared to take issue when we reduce the top rate of tax (when their's is lower). The US as a polity is venal and aggressive with it.
Personally I think it'll be one of the Baltic states with US arms length support. Or maybe even (hopefully not) Britain following a US request. It's the sort of fuckwittery that Boris or Truss would have been tickled pink to be asked to do.
In fairness, my 'list' (SLARP?) was only one point long. You may be making it out to be a bit grander than it was.
There's a potential long term gain for the US, I guess, but with no customers for the gas in the pipelines anyway at present and the reliance on Russian gas being demonstrably foolish now, I'm not convinced it's a massive gain for the US. When the new UK coal mine mysteriously catches fire before it begins producing, we can talk again.
Well, US Secretary of State Tony Blinken doesn't seem to agree with you. He seems quite pleased about Nordstream, from an American perspective
"US @SecBlinken offers motive for #NordStream's destruction: "A tremendous opportunity to remove the dependence on Russian energy.""
A tremendous opportunity? For whom? Who has been doing new gas deals with Europe?
It is a tremendous opportunity for world peace, given Putin seems to have thought that Europe's (and especially Gemany's) reliance on Russian gas would stop them interfering in his war. People buying gas and oil from Russia prolong the war.
Then, when Putin realised that Europe were reducing their dependence on 'his' energy, he started threatening us with a cold winter. I wonder what he would do when he realised Germany and the EU would not change their mind? Try to ensure that cold winter?
You seem to deal in certainties where there are not any. Or, as Mrs j would put it, you deal in cretinities with the zeal of a religious fundamentalist.
It's Putin's pipeline. He doesn't need to blow it up. He can simply turn it off: if he wants us to be cold. Then, when we are cold, he can offer to turn it on again, to tempt us to his side. He can't do that now it's all blown up, can he?
There are four reasons why it was in Putin's interest to blow up the pipeline:
(1) It meant there "return to the status quo" option for the oligarchs. Get rid of Putin, and you still don't get all that nice German gas money.
(2) It means that Germany (and the rest of Europe) was in serious danger of running out of gas this winter, and that it could be done without Russia reneging on contracts (and therefore seeing the forced expropriation of Gazprom assets).
(3) It mean that useful idiots would start speculating that it was the Americans, potentially blowing up the whole Western anti-Russian alliance.
(4) It sent a message to the world about the ability of Russia to damage strategic assets, without detection.
I too had wondered what was in it for Putin, but those are pretty good reasons. I've gone from thinking there was a fair chance it was the US (or a proxy) to being fairly convinced it was the Russians (or a proxy).
Selebian's list of America's reasons for blowing the pipeline seems extremely lacking on the main point - it benefits their own gas exports vastly. This is a country that is prepared to try to interfere with the UK opening a coal mine (when they have hundreds) because we currently import US coal. And prepared to take issue when we reduce the top rate of tax (when their's is lower). The US as a polity is venal and aggressive with it.
Personally I think it'll be one of the Baltic states with US arms length support. Or maybe even (hopefully not) Britain following a US request. It's the sort of fuckwittery that Boris or Truss would have been tickled pink to be asked to do.
In fairness, my 'list' (SLARP?) was only one point long. You may be making it out to be a bit grander than it was.
There's a potential long term gain for the US, I guess, but with no customers for the gas in the pipelines anyway at present and the reliance on Russian gas being demonstrably foolish now, I'm not convinced it's a massive gain for the US. When the new UK coal mine mysteriously catches fire before it begins producing, we can talk again.
Well, US Secretary of State Tony Blinken doesn't seem to agree with you. He seems quite pleased about Nordstream, from an American perspective
"US @SecBlinken offers motive for #NordStream's destruction: "A tremendous opportunity to remove the dependence on Russian energy.""
A tremendous opportunity? For whom? Who has been doing new gas deals with Europe?
It is a tremendous opportunity for world peace, given Putin seems to have thought that Europe's (and especially Gemany's) reliance on Russian gas would stop them interfering in his war. People buying gas and oil from Russia prolong the war.
Then, when Putin realised that Europe were reducing their dependence on 'his' energy, he started threatening us with a cold winter. I wonder what he would do when he realised Germany and the EU would not change their mind? Try to ensure that cold winter?
You seem to deal in certainties where there are not any. Or, as Mrs j would put it, you deal in cretinities with the zeal of a religious fundamentalist.
It's Putin's pipeline. He doesn't need to blow it up. He can simply turn it off: if he wants us to be cold. Then, when we are cold, he can offer to turn it on again, to tempt us to his side. He can't do that now it's all blown up, can he?
There are four reasons why it was in Putin's interest to blow up the pipeline:
(1) It meant there "return to the status quo" option for the oligarchs. Get rid of Putin, and you still don't get all that nice German gas money.
(2) It means that Germany (and the rest of Europe) was in serious danger of running out of gas this winter, and that it could be done without Russia reneging on contracts (and therefore seeing the forced expropriation of Gazprom assets).
(3) It mean that useful idiots would start speculating that it was the Americans, potentially blowing up the whole Western anti-Russian alliance.
(4) It sent a message to the world about the ability of Russia to damage strategic assets, without detection.
I too had wondered what was in it for Putin, but those are pretty good reasons. I've gone from thinking there was a fair chance it was the US (or a proxy) to being fairly convinced it was the Russians (or a proxy).
Did you express your initial assessment anywhere, such as on PB?
Selebian's list of America's reasons for blowing the pipeline seems extremely lacking on the main point - it benefits their own gas exports vastly. This is a country that is prepared to try to interfere with the UK opening a coal mine (when they have hundreds) because we currently import US coal. And prepared to take issue when we reduce the top rate of tax (when their's is lower). The US as a polity is venal and aggressive with it.
Personally I think it'll be one of the Baltic states with US arms length support. Or maybe even (hopefully not) Britain following a US request. It's the sort of fuckwittery that Boris or Truss would have been tickled pink to be asked to do.
In fairness, my 'list' (SLARP?) was only one point long. You may be making it out to be a bit grander than it was.
There's a potential long term gain for the US, I guess, but with no customers for the gas in the pipelines anyway at present and the reliance on Russian gas being demonstrably foolish now, I'm not convinced it's a massive gain for the US. When the new UK coal mine mysteriously catches fire before it begins producing, we can talk again.
Well, US Secretary of State Tony Blinken doesn't seem to agree with you. He seems quite pleased about Nordstream, from an American perspective
"US @SecBlinken offers motive for #NordStream's destruction: "A tremendous opportunity to remove the dependence on Russian energy.""
A tremendous opportunity? For whom? Who has been doing new gas deals with Europe?
It is a tremendous opportunity for world peace, given Putin seems to have thought that Europe's (and especially Gemany's) reliance on Russian gas would stop them interfering in his war. People buying gas and oil from Russia prolong the war.
Then, when Putin realised that Europe were reducing their dependence on 'his' energy, he started threatening us with a cold winter. I wonder what he would do when he realised Germany and the EU would not change their mind? Try to ensure that cold winter?
You seem to deal in certainties where there are not any. Or, as Mrs j would put it, you deal in cretinities with the zeal of a religious fundamentalist.
It's Putin's pipeline. He doesn't need to blow it up. He can simply turn it off: if he wants us to be cold. Then, when we are cold, he can offer to turn it on again, to tempt us to his side. He can't do that now it's all blown up, can he?
There are four reasons why it was in Putin's interest to blow up the pipeline:
(1) It meant there "return to the status quo" option for the oligarchs. Get rid of Putin, and you still don't get all that nice German gas money.
(2) It means that Germany (and the rest of Europe) was in serious danger of running out of gas this winter, and that it could be done without Russia reneging on contracts (and therefore seeing the forced expropriation of Gazprom assets).
(3) It mean that useful idiots would start speculating that it was the Americans, potentially blowing up the whole Western anti-Russian alliance.
(4) It sent a message to the world about the ability of Russia to damage strategic assets, without detection.
I too had wondered what was in it for Putin, but those are pretty good reasons. I've gone from thinking there was a fair chance it was the US (or a proxy) to being fairly convinced it was the Russians (or a proxy).
Did you express your initial assessment anywhere, such as on PB?
Yes, I'm pretty sure I did. I'm sure I wrote a post at the time in which I wondered what on earth Putin had to gain from blowing up the pipeline.
Those don't look like very good reasons at all. Look at 3 and 4, for example. Putin can just as easily put pressure on Europe by simply switching off the gas. Blowing up the pipeline just takes away his ability to switch turn it on again, thus reducing the leverage he would otherwise have had.
Those who stand to gain the most from damaging the pipeline are those who opposed it in the first place - the Eastern European countries through with the gas would otherwise have passed, e.g. Poland, Czech Republic, Hungary and yes, Ukraine.
I've no idea who did it, but I do think Leon has a point. It seems a very odd thing for Russia to have done.
The next Tory leader will be one of the younger rising stars of the current cabinet. A top performer, who cuts through the noise, is effective and likeable. I know! I can’t think of anyone either.
Steve Barclay
LOL!
Steve Barclay has visibly been rebranding himself as sane, presumably to position himself for a leadership run. Shame about the nurses.
Selebian's list of America's reasons for blowing the pipeline seems extremely lacking on the main point - it benefits their own gas exports vastly. This is a country that is prepared to try to interfere with the UK opening a coal mine (when they have hundreds) because we currently import US coal. And prepared to take issue when we reduce the top rate of tax (when their's is lower). The US as a polity is venal and aggressive with it.
Personally I think it'll be one of the Baltic states with US arms length support. Or maybe even (hopefully not) Britain following a US request. It's the sort of fuckwittery that Boris or Truss would have been tickled pink to be asked to do.
In fairness, my 'list' (SLARP?) was only one point long. You may be making it out to be a bit grander than it was.
There's a potential long term gain for the US, I guess, but with no customers for the gas in the pipelines anyway at present and the reliance on Russian gas being demonstrably foolish now, I'm not convinced it's a massive gain for the US. When the new UK coal mine mysteriously catches fire before it begins producing, we can talk again.
Well, US Secretary of State Tony Blinken doesn't seem to agree with you. He seems quite pleased about Nordstream, from an American perspective
"US @SecBlinken offers motive for #NordStream's destruction: "A tremendous opportunity to remove the dependence on Russian energy.""
A tremendous opportunity? For whom? Who has been doing new gas deals with Europe?
It is a tremendous opportunity for world peace, given Putin seems to have thought that Europe's (and especially Gemany's) reliance on Russian gas would stop them interfering in his war. People buying gas and oil from Russia prolong the war.
Then, when Putin realised that Europe were reducing their dependence on 'his' energy, he started threatening us with a cold winter. I wonder what he would do when he realised Germany and the EU would not change their mind? Try to ensure that cold winter?
You seem to deal in certainties where there are not any. Or, as Mrs j would put it, you deal in cretinities with the zeal of a religious fundamentalist.
It's Putin's pipeline. He doesn't need to blow it up. He can simply turn it off: if he wants us to be cold. Then, when we are cold, he can offer to turn it on again, to tempt us to his side. He can't do that now it's all blown up, can he?
There are four reasons why it was in Putin's interest to blow up the pipeline:
(1) It meant there "return to the status quo" option for the oligarchs. Get rid of Putin, and you still don't get all that nice German gas money.
(2) It means that Germany (and the rest of Europe) was in serious danger of running out of gas this winter, and that it could be done without Russia reneging on contracts (and therefore seeing the forced expropriation of Gazprom assets).
(3) It mean that useful idiots would start speculating that it was the Americans, potentially blowing up the whole Western anti-Russian alliance.
(4) It sent a message to the world about the ability of Russia to damage strategic assets, without detection.
I too had wondered what was in it for Putin, but those are pretty good reasons. I've gone from thinking there was a fair chance it was the US (or a proxy) to being fairly convinced it was the Russians (or a proxy).
It’s a reach. If Nordstream was still open Putin could now say to freezing recessiony Europeans “ok I will turn it back on just let me keep Crimea and a chunk of Donbas and Ukraine stays neutral” etc etc - and many Europeans would clamour for peace on these terms. But Putin has lost that crucial leverage - because he did this stupid thing to himself?!
It just doesn’t add up. It’s not impossible of course but ockhams razor says Nyet
More likely is the USA but probably at arm’s length for deniability. Maybe actually done by Poland (proximity, motive) or UK (skill set, motive)
Someone on here made a good point. This is the exact kind of thing that would appeal to Boris. Wartime gallantry. Plucky clever British. Derring do. Churchill
Selebian's list of America's reasons for blowing the pipeline seems extremely lacking on the main point - it benefits their own gas exports vastly. This is a country that is prepared to try to interfere with the UK opening a coal mine (when they have hundreds) because we currently import US coal. And prepared to take issue when we reduce the top rate of tax (when their's is lower). The US as a polity is venal and aggressive with it.
Personally I think it'll be one of the Baltic states with US arms length support. Or maybe even (hopefully not) Britain following a US request. It's the sort of fuckwittery that Boris or Truss would have been tickled pink to be asked to do.
In fairness, my 'list' (SLARP?) was only one point long. You may be making it out to be a bit grander than it was.
There's a potential long term gain for the US, I guess, but with no customers for the gas in the pipelines anyway at present and the reliance on Russian gas being demonstrably foolish now, I'm not convinced it's a massive gain for the US. When the new UK coal mine mysteriously catches fire before it begins producing, we can talk again.
Well, US Secretary of State Tony Blinken doesn't seem to agree with you. He seems quite pleased about Nordstream, from an American perspective
"US @SecBlinken offers motive for #NordStream's destruction: "A tremendous opportunity to remove the dependence on Russian energy.""
A tremendous opportunity? For whom? Who has been doing new gas deals with Europe?
It is a tremendous opportunity for world peace, given Putin seems to have thought that Europe's (and especially Gemany's) reliance on Russian gas would stop them interfering in his war. People buying gas and oil from Russia prolong the war.
Then, when Putin realised that Europe were reducing their dependence on 'his' energy, he started threatening us with a cold winter. I wonder what he would do when he realised Germany and the EU would not change their mind? Try to ensure that cold winter?
You seem to deal in certainties where there are not any. Or, as Mrs j would put it, you deal in cretinities with the zeal of a religious fundamentalist.
It's Putin's pipeline. He doesn't need to blow it up. He can simply turn it off: if he wants us to be cold. Then, when we are cold, he can offer to turn it on again, to tempt us to his side. He can't do that now it's all blown up, can he?
There are four reasons why it was in Putin's interest to blow up the pipeline:
(1) It meant there "return to the status quo" option for the oligarchs. Get rid of Putin, and you still don't get all that nice German gas money.
(2) It means that Germany (and the rest of Europe) was in serious danger of running out of gas this winter, and that it could be done without Russia reneging on contracts (and therefore seeing the forced expropriation of Gazprom assets).
(3) It mean that useful idiots would start speculating that it was the Americans, potentially blowing up the whole Western anti-Russian alliance.
(4) It sent a message to the world about the ability of Russia to damage strategic assets, without detection.
I too had wondered what was in it for Putin, but those are pretty good reasons. I've gone from thinking there was a fair chance it was the US (or a proxy) to being fairly convinced it was the Russians (or a proxy).
Did you express your initial assessment anywhere, such as on PB?
Have you ever changed your mind about russia not being responsible for the airliner? It doesn't matter if he ever posted he believed it was america. What matters is what people believe currently why should they have to prove the believed differently once upon a time. As it happens I don't believe it was russia but no one has to justify some russian lickspittle any view
Selebian's list of America's reasons for blowing the pipeline seems extremely lacking on the main point - it benefits their own gas exports vastly. This is a country that is prepared to try to interfere with the UK opening a coal mine (when they have hundreds) because we currently import US coal. And prepared to take issue when we reduce the top rate of tax (when their's is lower). The US as a polity is venal and aggressive with it.
Personally I think it'll be one of the Baltic states with US arms length support. Or maybe even (hopefully not) Britain following a US request. It's the sort of fuckwittery that Boris or Truss would have been tickled pink to be asked to do.
In fairness, my 'list' (SLARP?) was only one point long. You may be making it out to be a bit grander than it was.
There's a potential long term gain for the US, I guess, but with no customers for the gas in the pipelines anyway at present and the reliance on Russian gas being demonstrably foolish now, I'm not convinced it's a massive gain for the US. When the new UK coal mine mysteriously catches fire before it begins producing, we can talk again.
Well, US Secretary of State Tony Blinken doesn't seem to agree with you. He seems quite pleased about Nordstream, from an American perspective
"US @SecBlinken offers motive for #NordStream's destruction: "A tremendous opportunity to remove the dependence on Russian energy.""
A tremendous opportunity? For whom? Who has been doing new gas deals with Europe?
It is a tremendous opportunity for world peace, given Putin seems to have thought that Europe's (and especially Gemany's) reliance on Russian gas would stop them interfering in his war. People buying gas and oil from Russia prolong the war.
Then, when Putin realised that Europe were reducing their dependence on 'his' energy, he started threatening us with a cold winter. I wonder what he would do when he realised Germany and the EU would not change their mind? Try to ensure that cold winter?
You seem to deal in certainties where there are not any. Or, as Mrs j would put it, you deal in cretinities with the zeal of a religious fundamentalist.
It's Putin's pipeline. He doesn't need to blow it up. He can simply turn it off: if he wants us to be cold. Then, when we are cold, he can offer to turn it on again, to tempt us to his side. He can't do that now it's all blown up, can he?
There are four reasons why it was in Putin's interest to blow up the pipeline:
(1) It meant there "return to the status quo" option for the oligarchs. Get rid of Putin, and you still don't get all that nice German gas money.
(2) It means that Germany (and the rest of Europe) was in serious danger of running out of gas this winter, and that it could be done without Russia reneging on contracts (and therefore seeing the forced expropriation of Gazprom assets).
(3) It mean that useful idiots would start speculating that it was the Americans, potentially blowing up the whole Western anti-Russian alliance.
(4) It sent a message to the world about the ability of Russia to damage strategic assets, without detection.
I too had wondered what was in it for Putin, but those are pretty good reasons. I've gone from thinking there was a fair chance it was the US (or a proxy) to being fairly convinced it was the Russians (or a proxy).
It’s still completely uncertain.
The strongest argument against it being the US is the Biden administration’s strategic caution, and deep reluctance for direct confrontation with Russia, which has been evident from the start of the invasion.
It’s still possible that it was the US, since it’s something that’s at least temporarily deniable (though not forever), but it would be out of character with everything else they have done.
But these are all exactly the same arguments we had back then. Why today’s news should prompt another round of it is an odd one. Prompted by Twitter again ?
I had found it a bit underwhelming, but I kind of get this, plus it was more realistic. I don't understand how, with the year the UK has had, people still think 'it's all unresolved, it's not just about some guy finding the single man pressing the button marked 'Corruption' and arresting him' was anything other than a perfect ending. 1h Line of Duty could be back on BBC1 for a surprise three-part special with insiders describing “unfinished business” with the police series https://standard.co.uk/news/uk/line-o
Selebian's list of America's reasons for blowing the pipeline seems extremely lacking on the main point - it benefits their own gas exports vastly. This is a country that is prepared to try to interfere with the UK opening a coal mine (when they have hundreds) because we currently import US coal. And prepared to take issue when we reduce the top rate of tax (when their's is lower). The US as a polity is venal and aggressive with it.
Personally I think it'll be one of the Baltic states with US arms length support. Or maybe even (hopefully not) Britain following a US request. It's the sort of fuckwittery that Boris or Truss would have been tickled pink to be asked to do.
In fairness, my 'list' (SLARP?) was only one point long. You may be making it out to be a bit grander than it was.
There's a potential long term gain for the US, I guess, but with no customers for the gas in the pipelines anyway at present and the reliance on Russian gas being demonstrably foolish now, I'm not convinced it's a massive gain for the US. When the new UK coal mine mysteriously catches fire before it begins producing, we can talk again.
Well, US Secretary of State Tony Blinken doesn't seem to agree with you. He seems quite pleased about Nordstream, from an American perspective
"US @SecBlinken offers motive for #NordStream's destruction: "A tremendous opportunity to remove the dependence on Russian energy.""
A tremendous opportunity? For whom? Who has been doing new gas deals with Europe?
It is a tremendous opportunity for world peace, given Putin seems to have thought that Europe's (and especially Gemany's) reliance on Russian gas would stop them interfering in his war. People buying gas and oil from Russia prolong the war.
Then, when Putin realised that Europe were reducing their dependence on 'his' energy, he started threatening us with a cold winter. I wonder what he would do when he realised Germany and the EU would not change their mind? Try to ensure that cold winter?
You seem to deal in certainties where there are not any. Or, as Mrs j would put it, you deal in cretinities with the zeal of a religious fundamentalist.
It's Putin's pipeline. He doesn't need to blow it up. He can simply turn it off: if he wants us to be cold. Then, when we are cold, he can offer to turn it on again, to tempt us to his side. He can't do that now it's all blown up, can he?
There are four reasons why it was in Putin's interest to blow up the pipeline:
(1) It meant there "return to the status quo" option for the oligarchs. Get rid of Putin, and you still don't get all that nice German gas money.
(2) It means that Germany (and the rest of Europe) was in serious danger of running out of gas this winter, and that it could be done without Russia reneging on contracts (and therefore seeing the forced expropriation of Gazprom assets).
(3) It mean that useful idiots would start speculating that it was the Americans, potentially blowing up the whole Western anti-Russian alliance.
(4) It sent a message to the world about the ability of Russia to damage strategic assets, without detection.
I too had wondered what was in it for Putin, but those are pretty good reasons. I've gone from thinking there was a fair chance it was the US (or a proxy) to being fairly convinced it was the Russians (or a proxy).
It’s still completely uncertain.
The strongest argument against it being the US is the Biden administration’s strategic caution, and deep reluctance for direct confrontation with Russia, which has been evident from the start of the invasion.
It’s still possible that it was the US, since it’s something that’s at least temporarily deniable (though not forever), but it would be out of character with everything else they have done.
But these are all exactly the same arguments we had back then. Why today’s news should prompt another round of it is an odd one. Prompted by Twitter again ?
Because the Washington Post has today admitted there is no evidence against Russia - and is also saying that European diplomats no longer believe it was Putin. Because there is no apparent benefit to Putin
You display astonishing naivety if you really think an act of brutal realpolitik like this “out of character for America”
Selebian's list of America's reasons for blowing the pipeline seems extremely lacking on the main point - it benefits their own gas exports vastly. This is a country that is prepared to try to interfere with the UK opening a coal mine (when they have hundreds) because we currently import US coal. And prepared to take issue when we reduce the top rate of tax (when their's is lower). The US as a polity is venal and aggressive with it.
Personally I think it'll be one of the Baltic states with US arms length support. Or maybe even (hopefully not) Britain following a US request. It's the sort of fuckwittery that Boris or Truss would have been tickled pink to be asked to do.
In fairness, my 'list' (SLARP?) was only one point long. You may be making it out to be a bit grander than it was.
There's a potential long term gain for the US, I guess, but with no customers for the gas in the pipelines anyway at present and the reliance on Russian gas being demonstrably foolish now, I'm not convinced it's a massive gain for the US. When the new UK coal mine mysteriously catches fire before it begins producing, we can talk again.
Well, US Secretary of State Tony Blinken doesn't seem to agree with you. He seems quite pleased about Nordstream, from an American perspective
"US @SecBlinken offers motive for #NordStream's destruction: "A tremendous opportunity to remove the dependence on Russian energy.""
A tremendous opportunity? For whom? Who has been doing new gas deals with Europe?
It is a tremendous opportunity for world peace, given Putin seems to have thought that Europe's (and especially Gemany's) reliance on Russian gas would stop them interfering in his war. People buying gas and oil from Russia prolong the war.
Then, when Putin realised that Europe were reducing their dependence on 'his' energy, he started threatening us with a cold winter. I wonder what he would do when he realised Germany and the EU would not change their mind? Try to ensure that cold winter?
You seem to deal in certainties where there are not any. Or, as Mrs j would put it, you deal in cretinities with the zeal of a religious fundamentalist.
It's Putin's pipeline. He doesn't need to blow it up. He can simply turn it off: if he wants us to be cold. Then, when we are cold, he can offer to turn it on again, to tempt us to his side. He can't do that now it's all blown up, can he?
There are four reasons why it was in Putin's interest to blow up the pipeline:
(1) It meant there "return to the status quo" option for the oligarchs. Get rid of Putin, and you still don't get all that nice German gas money.
(2) It means that Germany (and the rest of Europe) was in serious danger of running out of gas this winter, and that it could be done without Russia reneging on contracts (and therefore seeing the forced expropriation of Gazprom assets).
(3) It mean that useful idiots would start speculating that it was the Americans, potentially blowing up the whole Western anti-Russian alliance.
(4) It sent a message to the world about the ability of Russia to damage strategic assets, without detection.
I too had wondered what was in it for Putin, but those are pretty good reasons. I've gone from thinking there was a fair chance it was the US (or a proxy) to being fairly convinced it was the Russians (or a proxy).
It’s still completely uncertain.
The strongest argument against it being the US is the Biden administration’s strategic caution, and deep reluctance for direct confrontation with Russia, which has been evident from the start of the invasion.
It’s still possible that it was the US, since it’s something that’s at least temporarily deniable (though not forever), but it would be out of character with everything else they have done.
But these are all exactly the same arguments we had back then. Why today’s news should prompt another round of it is an odd one. Prompted by Twitter again ?
Because the Washington Post has today admitted there is no evidence against Russia - and is also saying that European diplomats no longer believe it was Putin. Because there is no apparent benefit to Putin
You display astonishing naivety if you really think an act of brutal realpolitik like this “out of character for America”
“There is no evidence at this point that Russia was behind the sabotage,” said one European official
Is not the same as "people now admit it wasn't the Russians"
Selebian's list of America's reasons for blowing the pipeline seems extremely lacking on the main point - it benefits their own gas exports vastly. This is a country that is prepared to try to interfere with the UK opening a coal mine (when they have hundreds) because we currently import US coal. And prepared to take issue when we reduce the top rate of tax (when their's is lower). The US as a polity is venal and aggressive with it.
Personally I think it'll be one of the Baltic states with US arms length support. Or maybe even (hopefully not) Britain following a US request. It's the sort of fuckwittery that Boris or Truss would have been tickled pink to be asked to do.
In fairness, my 'list' (SLARP?) was only one point long. You may be making it out to be a bit grander than it was.
There's a potential long term gain for the US, I guess, but with no customers for the gas in the pipelines anyway at present and the reliance on Russian gas being demonstrably foolish now, I'm not convinced it's a massive gain for the US. When the new UK coal mine mysteriously catches fire before it begins producing, we can talk again.
Well, US Secretary of State Tony Blinken doesn't seem to agree with you. He seems quite pleased about Nordstream, from an American perspective
"US @SecBlinken offers motive for #NordStream's destruction: "A tremendous opportunity to remove the dependence on Russian energy.""
A tremendous opportunity? For whom? Who has been doing new gas deals with Europe?
It is a tremendous opportunity for world peace, given Putin seems to have thought that Europe's (and especially Gemany's) reliance on Russian gas would stop them interfering in his war. People buying gas and oil from Russia prolong the war.
Then, when Putin realised that Europe were reducing their dependence on 'his' energy, he started threatening us with a cold winter. I wonder what he would do when he realised Germany and the EU would not change their mind? Try to ensure that cold winter?
You seem to deal in certainties where there are not any. Or, as Mrs j would put it, you deal in cretinities with the zeal of a religious fundamentalist.
It's Putin's pipeline. He doesn't need to blow it up. He can simply turn it off: if he wants us to be cold. Then, when we are cold, he can offer to turn it on again, to tempt us to his side. He can't do that now it's all blown up, can he?
There are four reasons why it was in Putin's interest to blow up the pipeline:
(1) It meant there "return to the status quo" option for the oligarchs. Get rid of Putin, and you still don't get all that nice German gas money.
(2) It means that Germany (and the rest of Europe) was in serious danger of running out of gas this winter, and that it could be done without Russia reneging on contracts (and therefore seeing the forced expropriation of Gazprom assets).
(3) It mean that useful idiots would start speculating that it was the Americans, potentially blowing up the whole Western anti-Russian alliance.
(4) It sent a message to the world about the ability of Russia to damage strategic assets, without detection.
I too had wondered what was in it for Putin, but those are pretty good reasons. I've gone from thinking there was a fair chance it was the US (or a proxy) to being fairly convinced it was the Russians (or a proxy).
It’s still completely uncertain.
The strongest argument against it being the US is the Biden administration’s strategic caution, and deep reluctance for direct confrontation with Russia, which has been evident from the start of the invasion.
It’s still possible that it was the US, since it’s something that’s at least temporarily deniable (though not forever), but it would be out of character with everything else they have done.
But these are all exactly the same arguments we had back then. Why today’s news should prompt another round of it is an odd one. Prompted by Twitter again ?
Because the Washington Post has today admitted there is no evidence against Russia - and is also saying that European diplomats no longer believe it was Putin. Because there is no apparent benefit to Putin
You display astonishing naivety if you really think an act of brutal realpolitik like this “out of character for America”
Nice misquote there.
To resolve any ambiguity in what you take from my comment, it would be out of character for the Biden administration. And it’s not about whether or not they indulge in realpolitik, but what they consider prudent.
Selebian's list of America's reasons for blowing the pipeline seems extremely lacking on the main point - it benefits their own gas exports vastly. This is a country that is prepared to try to interfere with the UK opening a coal mine (when they have hundreds) because we currently import US coal. And prepared to take issue when we reduce the top rate of tax (when their's is lower). The US as a polity is venal and aggressive with it.
Personally I think it'll be one of the Baltic states with US arms length support. Or maybe even (hopefully not) Britain following a US request. It's the sort of fuckwittery that Boris or Truss would have been tickled pink to be asked to do.
In fairness, my 'list' (SLARP?) was only one point long. You may be making it out to be a bit grander than it was.
There's a potential long term gain for the US, I guess, but with no customers for the gas in the pipelines anyway at present and the reliance on Russian gas being demonstrably foolish now, I'm not convinced it's a massive gain for the US. When the new UK coal mine mysteriously catches fire before it begins producing, we can talk again.
Well, US Secretary of State Tony Blinken doesn't seem to agree with you. He seems quite pleased about Nordstream, from an American perspective
"US @SecBlinken offers motive for #NordStream's destruction: "A tremendous opportunity to remove the dependence on Russian energy.""
A tremendous opportunity? For whom? Who has been doing new gas deals with Europe?
It is a tremendous opportunity for world peace, given Putin seems to have thought that Europe's (and especially Gemany's) reliance on Russian gas would stop them interfering in his war. People buying gas and oil from Russia prolong the war.
Then, when Putin realised that Europe were reducing their dependence on 'his' energy, he started threatening us with a cold winter. I wonder what he would do when he realised Germany and the EU would not change their mind? Try to ensure that cold winter?
You seem to deal in certainties where there are not any. Or, as Mrs j would put it, you deal in cretinities with the zeal of a religious fundamentalist.
It's Putin's pipeline. He doesn't need to blow it up. He can simply turn it off: if he wants us to be cold. Then, when we are cold, he can offer to turn it on again, to tempt us to his side. He can't do that now it's all blown up, can he?
There are four reasons why it was in Putin's interest to blow up the pipeline:
(1) It meant there "return to the status quo" option for the oligarchs. Get rid of Putin, and you still don't get all that nice German gas money.
(2) It means that Germany (and the rest of Europe) was in serious danger of running out of gas this winter, and that it could be done without Russia reneging on contracts (and therefore seeing the forced expropriation of Gazprom assets).
(3) It mean that useful idiots would start speculating that it was the Americans, potentially blowing up the whole Western anti-Russian alliance.
(4) It sent a message to the world about the ability of Russia to damage strategic assets, without detection.
How clever of the Russians to destroy a pipeline in order to spread two completely conflicting messages that cancel each other out.
Selebian's list of America's reasons for blowing the pipeline seems extremely lacking on the main point - it benefits their own gas exports vastly. This is a country that is prepared to try to interfere with the UK opening a coal mine (when they have hundreds) because we currently import US coal. And prepared to take issue when we reduce the top rate of tax (when their's is lower). The US as a polity is venal and aggressive with it.
Personally I think it'll be one of the Baltic states with US arms length support. Or maybe even (hopefully not) Britain following a US request. It's the sort of fuckwittery that Boris or Truss would have been tickled pink to be asked to do.
In fairness, my 'list' (SLARP?) was only one point long. You may be making it out to be a bit grander than it was.
There's a potential long term gain for the US, I guess, but with no customers for the gas in the pipelines anyway at present and the reliance on Russian gas being demonstrably foolish now, I'm not convinced it's a massive gain for the US. When the new UK coal mine mysteriously catches fire before it begins producing, we can talk again.
Well, US Secretary of State Tony Blinken doesn't seem to agree with you. He seems quite pleased about Nordstream, from an American perspective
"US @SecBlinken offers motive for #NordStream's destruction: "A tremendous opportunity to remove the dependence on Russian energy.""
A tremendous opportunity? For whom? Who has been doing new gas deals with Europe?
It is a tremendous opportunity for world peace, given Putin seems to have thought that Europe's (and especially Gemany's) reliance on Russian gas would stop them interfering in his war. People buying gas and oil from Russia prolong the war.
Then, when Putin realised that Europe were reducing their dependence on 'his' energy, he started threatening us with a cold winter. I wonder what he would do when he realised Germany and the EU would not change their mind? Try to ensure that cold winter?
You seem to deal in certainties where there are not any. Or, as Mrs j would put it, you deal in cretinities with the zeal of a religious fundamentalist.
It's Putin's pipeline. He doesn't need to blow it up. He can simply turn it off: if he wants us to be cold. Then, when we are cold, he can offer to turn it on again, to tempt us to his side. He can't do that now it's all blown up, can he?
There are four reasons why it was in Putin's interest to blow up the pipeline:
(1) It meant there "return to the status quo" option for the oligarchs. Get rid of Putin, and you still don't get all that nice German gas money.
(2) It means that Germany (and the rest of Europe) was in serious danger of running out of gas this winter, and that it could be done without Russia reneging on contracts (and therefore seeing the forced expropriation of Gazprom assets).
(3) It mean that useful idiots would start speculating that it was the Americans, potentially blowing up the whole Western anti-Russian alliance.
(4) It sent a message to the world about the ability of Russia to damage strategic assets, without detection.
I too had wondered what was in it for Putin, but those are pretty good reasons. I've gone from thinking there was a fair chance it was the US (or a proxy) to being fairly convinced it was the Russians (or a proxy).
It’s still completely uncertain.
The strongest argument against it being the US is the Biden administration’s strategic caution, and deep reluctance for direct confrontation with Russia, which has been evident from the start of the invasion.
It’s still possible that it was the US, since it’s something that’s at least temporarily deniable (though not forever), but it would be out of character with everything else they have done.
But these are all exactly the same arguments we had back then. Why today’s news should prompt another round of it is an odd one. Prompted by Twitter again ?
Because the Washington Post has today admitted there is no evidence against Russia - and is also saying that European diplomats no longer believe it was Putin. Because there is no apparent benefit to Putin
You display astonishing naivety if you really think an act of brutal realpolitik like this “out of character for America”
“There is no evidence at this point that Russia was behind the sabotage,” said one European official
Is not the same as "people now admit it wasn't the Russians"
Selebian's list of America's reasons for blowing the pipeline seems extremely lacking on the main point - it benefits their own gas exports vastly. This is a country that is prepared to try to interfere with the UK opening a coal mine (when they have hundreds) because we currently import US coal. And prepared to take issue when we reduce the top rate of tax (when their's is lower). The US as a polity is venal and aggressive with it.
Personally I think it'll be one of the Baltic states with US arms length support. Or maybe even (hopefully not) Britain following a US request. It's the sort of fuckwittery that Boris or Truss would have been tickled pink to be asked to do.
In fairness, my 'list' (SLARP?) was only one point long. You may be making it out to be a bit grander than it was.
There's a potential long term gain for the US, I guess, but with no customers for the gas in the pipelines anyway at present and the reliance on Russian gas being demonstrably foolish now, I'm not convinced it's a massive gain for the US. When the new UK coal mine mysteriously catches fire before it begins producing, we can talk again.
Well, US Secretary of State Tony Blinken doesn't seem to agree with you. He seems quite pleased about Nordstream, from an American perspective
"US @SecBlinken offers motive for #NordStream's destruction: "A tremendous opportunity to remove the dependence on Russian energy.""
A tremendous opportunity? For whom? Who has been doing new gas deals with Europe?
It is a tremendous opportunity for world peace, given Putin seems to have thought that Europe's (and especially Gemany's) reliance on Russian gas would stop them interfering in his war. People buying gas and oil from Russia prolong the war.
Then, when Putin realised that Europe were reducing their dependence on 'his' energy, he started threatening us with a cold winter. I wonder what he would do when he realised Germany and the EU would not change their mind? Try to ensure that cold winter?
You seem to deal in certainties where there are not any. Or, as Mrs j would put it, you deal in cretinities with the zeal of a religious fundamentalist.
It's Putin's pipeline. He doesn't need to blow it up. He can simply turn it off: if he wants us to be cold. Then, when we are cold, he can offer to turn it on again, to tempt us to his side. He can't do that now it's all blown up, can he?
There are four reasons why it was in Putin's interest to blow up the pipeline:
(1) It meant there "return to the status quo" option for the oligarchs. Get rid of Putin, and you still don't get all that nice German gas money.
(2) It means that Germany (and the rest of Europe) was in serious danger of running out of gas this winter, and that it could be done without Russia reneging on contracts (and therefore seeing the forced expropriation of Gazprom assets).
(3) It mean that useful idiots would start speculating that it was the Americans, potentially blowing up the whole Western anti-Russian alliance.
(4) It sent a message to the world about the ability of Russia to damage strategic assets, without detection.
I too had wondered what was in it for Putin, but those are pretty good reasons. I've gone from thinking there was a fair chance it was the US (or a proxy) to being fairly convinced it was the Russians (or a proxy).
It’s still completely uncertain.
The strongest argument against it being the US is the Biden administration’s strategic caution, and deep reluctance for direct confrontation with Russia, which has been evident from the start of the invasion.
It’s still possible that it was the US, since it’s something that’s at least temporarily deniable (though not forever), but it would be out of character with everything else they have done.
But these are all exactly the same arguments we had back then. Why today’s news should prompt another round of it is an odd one. Prompted by Twitter again ?
Because the Washington Post has today admitted there is no evidence against Russia - and is also saying that European diplomats no longer believe it was Putin. Because there is no apparent benefit to Putin
You display astonishing naivety if you really think an act of brutal realpolitik like this “out of character for America”
“There is no evidence at this point that Russia was behind the sabotage,” said one European official
Is not the same as "people now admit it wasn't the Russians"
I said Wapo has admitted “there is no evidence”
There's no *direct* evidence that it was the Russians. Just as there is no direct evidence that Covid was a lab leak.
Selebian's list of America's reasons for blowing the pipeline seems extremely lacking on the main point - it benefits their own gas exports vastly. This is a country that is prepared to try to interfere with the UK opening a coal mine (when they have hundreds) because we currently import US coal. And prepared to take issue when we reduce the top rate of tax (when their's is lower). The US as a polity is venal and aggressive with it.
Personally I think it'll be one of the Baltic states with US arms length support. Or maybe even (hopefully not) Britain following a US request. It's the sort of fuckwittery that Boris or Truss would have been tickled pink to be asked to do.
In fairness, my 'list' (SLARP?) was only one point long. You may be making it out to be a bit grander than it was.
There's a potential long term gain for the US, I guess, but with no customers for the gas in the pipelines anyway at present and the reliance on Russian gas being demonstrably foolish now, I'm not convinced it's a massive gain for the US. When the new UK coal mine mysteriously catches fire before it begins producing, we can talk again.
Well, US Secretary of State Tony Blinken doesn't seem to agree with you. He seems quite pleased about Nordstream, from an American perspective
"US @SecBlinken offers motive for #NordStream's destruction: "A tremendous opportunity to remove the dependence on Russian energy.""
A tremendous opportunity? For whom? Who has been doing new gas deals with Europe?
It is a tremendous opportunity for world peace, given Putin seems to have thought that Europe's (and especially Gemany's) reliance on Russian gas would stop them interfering in his war. People buying gas and oil from Russia prolong the war.
Then, when Putin realised that Europe were reducing their dependence on 'his' energy, he started threatening us with a cold winter. I wonder what he would do when he realised Germany and the EU would not change their mind? Try to ensure that cold winter?
You seem to deal in certainties where there are not any. Or, as Mrs j would put it, you deal in cretinities with the zeal of a religious fundamentalist.
It's Putin's pipeline. He doesn't need to blow it up. He can simply turn it off: if he wants us to be cold. Then, when we are cold, he can offer to turn it on again, to tempt us to his side. He can't do that now it's all blown up, can he?
There are four reasons why it was in Putin's interest to blow up the pipeline:
(1) It meant there "return to the status quo" option for the oligarchs. Get rid of Putin, and you still don't get all that nice German gas money.
(2) It means that Germany (and the rest of Europe) was in serious danger of running out of gas this winter, and that it could be done without Russia reneging on contracts (and therefore seeing the forced expropriation of Gazprom assets).
(3) It mean that useful idiots would start speculating that it was the Americans, potentially blowing up the whole Western anti-Russian alliance.
(4) It sent a message to the world about the ability of Russia to damage strategic assets, without detection.
I too had wondered what was in it for Putin, but those are pretty good reasons. I've gone from thinking there was a fair chance it was the US (or a proxy) to being fairly convinced it was the Russians (or a proxy).
It’s a reach. If Nordstream was still open Putin could now say to freezing recessiony Europeans “ok I will turn it back on just let me keep Crimea and a chunk of Donbas and Ukraine stays neutral” etc etc - and many Europeans would clamour for peace on these terms. But Putin has lost that crucial leverage - because he did this stupid thing to himself?!
It just doesn’t add up. It’s not impossible of course but ockhams razor says Nyet
More likely is the USA but probably at arm’s length for deniability. Maybe actually done by Poland (proximity, motive) or UK (skill set, motive)
Someone on here made a good point. This is the exact kind of thing that would appeal to Boris. Wartime gallantry. Plucky clever British. Derring do. Churchill
Yes, the motive for the UK and Poland is definitely there (same as the US) it eliminates Putin's ability to split European unity by offering cheap gas in the middle of January when it's -8 degrees in Northern Germany.
Selebian's list of America's reasons for blowing the pipeline seems extremely lacking on the main point - it benefits their own gas exports vastly. This is a country that is prepared to try to interfere with the UK opening a coal mine (when they have hundreds) because we currently import US coal. And prepared to take issue when we reduce the top rate of tax (when their's is lower). The US as a polity is venal and aggressive with it.
Personally I think it'll be one of the Baltic states with US arms length support. Or maybe even (hopefully not) Britain following a US request. It's the sort of fuckwittery that Boris or Truss would have been tickled pink to be asked to do.
In fairness, my 'list' (SLARP?) was only one point long. You may be making it out to be a bit grander than it was.
There's a potential long term gain for the US, I guess, but with no customers for the gas in the pipelines anyway at present and the reliance on Russian gas being demonstrably foolish now, I'm not convinced it's a massive gain for the US. When the new UK coal mine mysteriously catches fire before it begins producing, we can talk again.
Well, US Secretary of State Tony Blinken doesn't seem to agree with you. He seems quite pleased about Nordstream, from an American perspective
"US @SecBlinken offers motive for #NordStream's destruction: "A tremendous opportunity to remove the dependence on Russian energy.""
A tremendous opportunity? For whom? Who has been doing new gas deals with Europe?
It is a tremendous opportunity for world peace, given Putin seems to have thought that Europe's (and especially Gemany's) reliance on Russian gas would stop them interfering in his war. People buying gas and oil from Russia prolong the war.
Then, when Putin realised that Europe were reducing their dependence on 'his' energy, he started threatening us with a cold winter. I wonder what he would do when he realised Germany and the EU would not change their mind? Try to ensure that cold winter?
You seem to deal in certainties where there are not any. Or, as Mrs j would put it, you deal in cretinities with the zeal of a religious fundamentalist.
It's Putin's pipeline. He doesn't need to blow it up. He can simply turn it off: if he wants us to be cold. Then, when we are cold, he can offer to turn it on again, to tempt us to his side. He can't do that now it's all blown up, can he?
There are four reasons why it was in Putin's interest to blow up the pipeline:
(1) It meant there "return to the status quo" option for the oligarchs. Get rid of Putin, and you still don't get all that nice German gas money.
(2) It means that Germany (and the rest of Europe) was in serious danger of running out of gas this winter, and that it could be done without Russia reneging on contracts (and therefore seeing the forced expropriation of Gazprom assets).
(3) It mean that useful idiots would start speculating that it was the Americans, potentially blowing up the whole Western anti-Russian alliance.
(4) It sent a message to the world about the ability of Russia to damage strategic assets, without detection.
I too had wondered what was in it for Putin, but those are pretty good reasons. I've gone from thinking there was a fair chance it was the US (or a proxy) to being fairly convinced it was the Russians (or a proxy).
It’s still completely uncertain.
The strongest argument against it being the US is the Biden administration’s strategic caution, and deep reluctance for direct confrontation with Russia, which has been evident from the start of the invasion.
It’s still possible that it was the US, since it’s something that’s at least temporarily deniable (though not forever), but it would be out of character with everything else they have done.
But these are all exactly the same arguments we had back then. Why today’s news should prompt another round of it is an odd one. Prompted by Twitter again ?
Because the Washington Post has today admitted there is no evidence against Russia - and is also saying that European diplomats no longer believe it was Putin. Because there is no apparent benefit to Putin
You display astonishing naivety if you really think an act of brutal realpolitik like this “out of character for America”
Selebian's list of America's reasons for blowing the pipeline seems extremely lacking on the main point - it benefits their own gas exports vastly. This is a country that is prepared to try to interfere with the UK opening a coal mine (when they have hundreds) because we currently import US coal. And prepared to take issue when we reduce the top rate of tax (when their's is lower). The US as a polity is venal and aggressive with it.
Personally I think it'll be one of the Baltic states with US arms length support. Or maybe even (hopefully not) Britain following a US request. It's the sort of fuckwittery that Boris or Truss would have been tickled pink to be asked to do.
In fairness, my 'list' (SLARP?) was only one point long. You may be making it out to be a bit grander than it was.
There's a potential long term gain for the US, I guess, but with no customers for the gas in the pipelines anyway at present and the reliance on Russian gas being demonstrably foolish now, I'm not convinced it's a massive gain for the US. When the new UK coal mine mysteriously catches fire before it begins producing, we can talk again.
Well, US Secretary of State Tony Blinken doesn't seem to agree with you. He seems quite pleased about Nordstream, from an American perspective
"US @SecBlinken offers motive for #NordStream's destruction: "A tremendous opportunity to remove the dependence on Russian energy.""
A tremendous opportunity? For whom? Who has been doing new gas deals with Europe?
It is a tremendous opportunity for world peace, given Putin seems to have thought that Europe's (and especially Gemany's) reliance on Russian gas would stop them interfering in his war. People buying gas and oil from Russia prolong the war.
Then, when Putin realised that Europe were reducing their dependence on 'his' energy, he started threatening us with a cold winter. I wonder what he would do when he realised Germany and the EU would not change their mind? Try to ensure that cold winter?
You seem to deal in certainties where there are not any. Or, as Mrs j would put it, you deal in cretinities with the zeal of a religious fundamentalist.
It's Putin's pipeline. He doesn't need to blow it up. He can simply turn it off: if he wants us to be cold. Then, when we are cold, he can offer to turn it on again, to tempt us to his side. He can't do that now it's all blown up, can he?
There are four reasons why it was in Putin's interest to blow up the pipeline:
(1) It meant there "return to the status quo" option for the oligarchs. Get rid of Putin, and you still don't get all that nice German gas money.
(2) It means that Germany (and the rest of Europe) was in serious danger of running out of gas this winter, and that it could be done without Russia reneging on contracts (and therefore seeing the forced expropriation of Gazprom assets).
(3) It mean that useful idiots would start speculating that it was the Americans, potentially blowing up the whole Western anti-Russian alliance.
(4) It sent a message to the world about the ability of Russia to damage strategic assets, without detection.
I too had wondered what was in it for Putin, but those are pretty good reasons. I've gone from thinking there was a fair chance it was the US (or a proxy) to being fairly convinced it was the Russians (or a proxy).
It’s still completely uncertain.
The strongest argument against it being the US is the Biden administration’s strategic caution, and deep reluctance for direct confrontation with Russia, which has been evident from the start of the invasion.
It’s still possible that it was the US, since it’s something that’s at least temporarily deniable (though not forever), but it would be out of character with everything else they have done.
But these are all exactly the same arguments we had back then. Why today’s news should prompt another round of it is an odd one. Prompted by Twitter again ?
Because the Washington Post has today admitted there is no evidence against Russia - and is also saying that European diplomats no longer believe it was Putin. Because there is no apparent benefit to Putin
You display astonishing naivety if you really think an act of brutal realpolitik like this “out of character for America”
“There is no evidence at this point that Russia was behind the sabotage,” said one European official
Is not the same as "people now admit it wasn't the Russians"
What does 'best' mean in this instance? Fruit Shortcakes are delicious when dunked, but would indeed fall very low on the sustainability side. Biscuit breakdown is a crucial factor to consider, but not the only one - much as I enjoy a dunked hobnob, I'd suggest a ginger nut is the tops when it comes to dunking.
What does 'best' mean in this instance? Fruit Shortcakes are delicious when dunked, but would indeed fall very low on the sustainability side. Biscuit breakdown is a crucial factor to consider, but not the only one - much as I enjoy a dunked hobnob, I'd suggest a ginger nut is the tops when it comes to dunking.
What does 'best' mean in this instance? Fruit Shortcakes are delicious when dunked, but would indeed fall very low on the sustainability side. Biscuit breakdown is a crucial factor to consider, but not the only one - much as I enjoy a dunked hobnob, I'd suggest a ginger nut is the tops when it comes to dunking.
Choco Leibniz
You are a man of the world, but I must confess I have not yet dunked that particular delicacy.
Let’s not forget this either. The day after the bombing. The ex foreign minister of Poland. Swiftly deleted
Like he knows shit
It's one of those theories when random people speculating it on one side is compelling proof, other random people speculating another option is just speculation.
A Secret Report About a CEO’s Sexual Misconduct Was Just Made Public by Congress
https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2022/12/22/sexual-abuse-congress-lawsuit-00075061 … On Saturday, a day after this column reported on the formerly high-flying Washington business figure’s unusual legal move against an ex-employee who testified under oath, the House Judiciary Committee entered a sharply critical 2019 arbitration tribunal ruling about Chishti’s workplace behavior into the Congressional Record — instantaneously turning the heretofore secret report into a publicly-available document.
The release, quietly added to the record of an unrelated hearing on a late-December weekend afternoon, amounts to a tidy Washington-procedural way of saying: Don’t mess with our witness.
As it happens, the document appears utterly devastating for Chishti, a man who not long ago operated from an office a block from the White House and was able to attract politics and government A-listers like former British Prime Minister David Cameron, former French Prime Minister François Fillon and former U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Michael Mullen to Afiniti’s advisory board.
Though Chishti’s federal lawsuit alleges that former Afiniti staffer Tatiana Spottiswoode had “weaponized” a “consensual love affair” by “deliberately lying and misleading Congress under oath,” the report by independent arbitrator Ronald G. Birch reached the opposite conclusion, declaring that Chishti, now 51, had repeatedly sexually harassed an employee half his age, groped her in front of colleagues, insulted her for rejecting advances, brutally beaten her during a business-trip sexual encounter, and lied about it…
What does 'best' mean in this instance? Fruit Shortcakes are delicious when dunked, but would indeed fall very low on the sustainability side. Biscuit breakdown is a crucial factor to consider, but not the only one - much as I enjoy a dunked hobnob, I'd suggest a ginger nut is the tops when it comes to dunking.
Choco Leibniz
You are a man of the world, but I must confess I have not yet dunked that particular delicacy.
What does 'best' mean in this instance? Fruit Shortcakes are delicious when dunked, but would indeed fall very low on the sustainability side. Biscuit breakdown is a crucial factor to consider, but not the only one - much as I enjoy a dunked hobnob, I'd suggest a ginger nut is the tops when it comes to dunking.
Never mind dunking, you need to be sucking:
Tim Tam Slam
The Tim Tam Slam (also known as the Tim Tam Shotgun, Tim Tam Bomb, Tim Tam Explosion, Tim Tam Bong and Tim Tam Suck) is the practice of drinking a hot beverage through a Tim Tam. Opposite corners of the Tim Tam are bitten off, one end is submerged in the beverage, and the beverage is sucked through the biscuit as though the Tim Tam itself were a straw. The crisp interior biscuit is eventually softened and the outer chocolate coating begins to melt, at which point the biscuit is eaten.
The Arnott's company used the name Tim Tam Suck in a 2002 advertising campaign.
In February 2019, Arnott's released a "Slams"-branded version of the Tim Tam biscuit.
Selebian's list of America's reasons for blowing the pipeline seems extremely lacking on the main point - it benefits their own gas exports vastly. This is a country that is prepared to try to interfere with the UK opening a coal mine (when they have hundreds) because we currently import US coal. And prepared to take issue when we reduce the top rate of tax (when their's is lower). The US as a polity is venal and aggressive with it.
Personally I think it'll be one of the Baltic states with US arms length support. Or maybe even (hopefully not) Britain following a US request. It's the sort of fuckwittery that Boris or Truss would have been tickled pink to be asked to do.
In fairness, my 'list' (SLARP?) was only one point long. You may be making it out to be a bit grander than it was.
There's a potential long term gain for the US, I guess, but with no customers for the gas in the pipelines anyway at present and the reliance on Russian gas being demonstrably foolish now, I'm not convinced it's a massive gain for the US. When the new UK coal mine mysteriously catches fire before it begins producing, we can talk again.
Well, US Secretary of State Tony Blinken doesn't seem to agree with you. He seems quite pleased about Nordstream, from an American perspective
"US @SecBlinken offers motive for #NordStream's destruction: "A tremendous opportunity to remove the dependence on Russian energy.""
A tremendous opportunity? For whom? Who has been doing new gas deals with Europe?
It is a tremendous opportunity for world peace, given Putin seems to have thought that Europe's (and especially Gemany's) reliance on Russian gas would stop them interfering in his war. People buying gas and oil from Russia prolong the war.
Then, when Putin realised that Europe were reducing their dependence on 'his' energy, he started threatening us with a cold winter. I wonder what he would do when he realised Germany and the EU would not change their mind? Try to ensure that cold winter?
You seem to deal in certainties where there are not any. Or, as Mrs j would put it, you deal in cretinities with the zeal of a religious fundamentalist.
It's Putin's pipeline. He doesn't need to blow it up. He can simply turn it off: if he wants us to be cold. Then, when we are cold, he can offer to turn it on again, to tempt us to his side. He can't do that now it's all blown up, can he?
There are four reasons why it was in Putin's interest to blow up the pipeline:
(1) It meant there "return to the status quo" option for the oligarchs. Get rid of Putin, and you still don't get all that nice German gas money.
(2) It means that Germany (and the rest of Europe) was in serious danger of running out of gas this winter, and that it could be done without Russia reneging on contracts (and therefore seeing the forced expropriation of Gazprom assets).
(3) It mean that useful idiots would start speculating that it was the Americans, potentially blowing up the whole Western anti-Russian alliance.
(4) It sent a message to the world about the ability of Russia to damage strategic assets, without detection.
How clever of the Russians to destroy a pipeline in order to spread two completely conflicting messages that cancel each other out.
I mean... that fact you said this is quite hilarious.
You know what I'm going to say?
Of course you do.
When MH17 was shot down, you spread whatever contradictory message was emanating from Russia's backside, slurping it up and spitting it out on here. However contradictory those messages. Conflicting messages is how Russia works, as it allows them to sell at least one message to large potions of the population. And gullible foreigners as well.
What does 'best' mean in this instance? Fruit Shortcakes are delicious when dunked, but would indeed fall very low on the sustainability side. Biscuit breakdown is a crucial factor to consider, but not the only one - much as I enjoy a dunked hobnob, I'd suggest a ginger nut is the tops when it comes to dunking.
Choco Leibniz
You are a man of the world, but I must confess I have not yet dunked that particular delicacy.
I didn't know until today that Eric Stoltz was the original actor playing the protagonist in Back To The Future and that a lot of scenes were actually shot with him before it was decided to replace him with Michael J Fox.
Some trees can only germinate their seeds when subjected to a forest fire, some aliens obviously can only procreate when dunked in tea therefore they have evolved to appear to be biscuits....seems plausible nods
The Tim Tam Slam (also known as the Tim Tam Shotgun, Tim Tam Bomb, Tim Tam Explosion, Tim Tam Bong and Tim Tam Suck) is the practice of drinking a hot beverage through a Tim Tam. Opposite corners of the Tim Tam are bitten off, one end is submerged in the beverage, and the beverage is sucked through the biscuit as though the Tim Tam itself were a straw. The crisp interior biscuit is eventually softened and the outer chocolate coating begins to melt, at which point the biscuit is eaten.
The Arnott's company used the name Tim Tam Suck in a 2002 advertising campaign.
In February 2019, Arnott's released a "Slams"-branded version of the Tim Tam biscuit.
One of the things Mrs Stodge has always missed since "coming north" is or are Tim Tams. I've found them on the fifth floor at Harvey Nicks (no other reason to go there) but one of these American sweet shops in Kingston had all the flavours so I stocked up for Christmas.
She likes the Chewy Caramel flavour but as with so much else I'm a bluff old traditionalist and the originals are good enough for me.
Selebian's list of America's reasons for blowing the pipeline seems extremely lacking on the main point - it benefits their own gas exports vastly. This is a country that is prepared to try to interfere with the UK opening a coal mine (when they have hundreds) because we currently import US coal. And prepared to take issue when we reduce the top rate of tax (when their's is lower). The US as a polity is venal and aggressive with it.
Personally I think it'll be one of the Baltic states with US arms length support. Or maybe even (hopefully not) Britain following a US request. It's the sort of fuckwittery that Boris or Truss would have been tickled pink to be asked to do.
In fairness, my 'list' (SLARP?) was only one point long. You may be making it out to be a bit grander than it was.
There's a potential long term gain for the US, I guess, but with no customers for the gas in the pipelines anyway at present and the reliance on Russian gas being demonstrably foolish now, I'm not convinced it's a massive gain for the US. When the new UK coal mine mysteriously catches fire before it begins producing, we can talk again.
Well, US Secretary of State Tony Blinken doesn't seem to agree with you. He seems quite pleased about Nordstream, from an American perspective
"US @SecBlinken offers motive for #NordStream's destruction: "A tremendous opportunity to remove the dependence on Russian energy.""
A tremendous opportunity? For whom? Who has been doing new gas deals with Europe?
It is a tremendous opportunity for world peace, given Putin seems to have thought that Europe's (and especially Gemany's) reliance on Russian gas would stop them interfering in his war. People buying gas and oil from Russia prolong the war.
Then, when Putin realised that Europe were reducing their dependence on 'his' energy, he started threatening us with a cold winter. I wonder what he would do when he realised Germany and the EU would not change their mind? Try to ensure that cold winter?
You seem to deal in certainties where there are not any. Or, as Mrs j would put it, you deal in cretinities with the zeal of a religious fundamentalist.
It's Putin's pipeline. He doesn't need to blow it up. He can simply turn it off: if he wants us to be cold. Then, when we are cold, he can offer to turn it on again, to tempt us to his side. He can't do that now it's all blown up, can he?
There are four reasons why it was in Putin's interest to blow up the pipeline:
(1) It meant there "return to the status quo" option for the oligarchs. Get rid of Putin, and you still don't get all that nice German gas money.
(2) It means that Germany (and the rest of Europe) was in serious danger of running out of gas this winter, and that it could be done without Russia reneging on contracts (and therefore seeing the forced expropriation of Gazprom assets).
(3) It mean that useful idiots would start speculating that it was the Americans, potentially blowing up the whole Western anti-Russian alliance.
(4) It sent a message to the world about the ability of Russia to damage strategic assets, without detection.
I too had wondered what was in it for Putin, but those are pretty good reasons. I've gone from thinking there was a fair chance it was the US (or a proxy) to being fairly convinced it was the Russians (or a proxy).
Did you express your initial assessment anywhere, such as on PB?
Yes, I'm pretty sure I did. I'm sure I wrote a post at the time in which I wondered what on earth Putin had to gain from blowing up the pipeline.
Those don't look like very good reasons at all. Look at 3 and 4, for example. Putin can just as easily put pressure on Europe by simply switching off the gas. Blowing up the pipeline just takes away his ability to switch turn it on again, thus reducing the leverage he would otherwise have had.
Those who stand to gain the most from damaging the pipeline are those who opposed it in the first place - the Eastern European countries through with the gas would otherwise have passed, e.g. Poland, Czech Republic, Hungary and yes, Ukraine.
I've no idea who did it, but I do think Leon has a point. It seems a very odd thing for Russia to have done.
Ah, it was a Barty post. That would convince anyone of the opposite argument.
What does 'best' mean in this instance? Fruit Shortcakes are delicious when dunked, but would indeed fall very low on the sustainability side. Biscuit breakdown is a crucial factor to consider, but not the only one - much as I enjoy a dunked hobnob, I'd suggest a ginger nut is the tops when it comes to dunking.
The Tim Tam Slam (also known as the Tim Tam Shotgun, Tim Tam Bomb, Tim Tam Explosion, Tim Tam Bong and Tim Tam Suck) is the practice of drinking a hot beverage through a Tim Tam. Opposite corners of the Tim Tam are bitten off, one end is submerged in the beverage, and the beverage is sucked through the biscuit as though the Tim Tam itself were a straw. The crisp interior biscuit is eventually softened and the outer chocolate coating begins to melt, at which point the biscuit is eaten.
The Arnott's company used the name Tim Tam Suck in a 2002 advertising campaign.
In February 2019, Arnott's released a "Slams"-branded version of the Tim Tam biscuit.
One of the things Mrs Stodge has always missed since "coming north" is or are Tim Tams. I've found them on the fifth floor at Harvey Nicks (no other reason to go there) but one of these American sweet shops in Kingston had all the flavours so I stocked up for Christmas.
She likes the Chewy Caramel flavour but as with so much else I'm a bluff old traditionalist and the originals are good enough for me.
Apropos of nothing - can we not use the off-topic button as a surrogate dislike button and the flag button as a surrogate seriously dislike button please?
Yes, I've done it myself in the past, but I shouldn't have.
It makes the mods job harder - flooding them with notifications - and shouldn't be necessary in the first instance unless someone is seriously disruptive, or outwardly offensive and actually spamming in the second.
Just because you don't like what they're saying and want to register disapproval isn't enough, and it isn't appropriate.
What does 'best' mean in this instance? Fruit Shortcakes are delicious when dunked, but would indeed fall very low on the sustainability side. Biscuit breakdown is a crucial factor to consider, but not the only one - much as I enjoy a dunked hobnob, I'd suggest a ginger nut is the tops when it comes to dunking.
Choco Leibniz
You are a man of the world, but I must confess I have not yet dunked that particular delicacy.
Apropos of nothing - can we not use the off-topic button as a surrogate dislike button and the flag button as a surrogate seriously dislike button please?
Yes, I've done it myself in the past, but I shouldn't have.
It makes the mods job harder - flooding them with notifications - and shouldn't be necessary in the first instance unless someone is seriously disruptive, or outwardly offensive and actually spamming in the second.
Just because you don't like what they're saying and want to register disapproval isn't enough, and it isn't appropriate.
I'm fairly sure, based on my own experience of inoffensive posts being offtopicked and my own fat fingers, that 90% of offtopics are done by accident.
Martin Baxter of Electoral Calculus calculates that the Tories would have won a majority of 100 seats instead of 80 under the new proposed boundaries, with the party gaining 10 seats on the 365 they took at GE2019.
The Tim Tam Slam (also known as the Tim Tam Shotgun, Tim Tam Bomb, Tim Tam Explosion, Tim Tam Bong and Tim Tam Suck) is the practice of drinking a hot beverage through a Tim Tam. Opposite corners of the Tim Tam are bitten off, one end is submerged in the beverage, and the beverage is sucked through the biscuit as though the Tim Tam itself were a straw. The crisp interior biscuit is eventually softened and the outer chocolate coating begins to melt, at which point the biscuit is eaten.
The Arnott's company used the name Tim Tam Suck in a 2002 advertising campaign.
In February 2019, Arnott's released a "Slams"-branded version of the Tim Tam biscuit.
One of the things Mrs Stodge has always missed since "coming north" is or are Tim Tams. I've found them on the fifth floor at Harvey Nicks (no other reason to go there) but one of these American sweet shops in Kingston had all the flavours so I stocked up for Christmas.
She likes the Chewy Caramel flavour but as with so much else I'm a bluff old traditionalist and the originals are good enough for me.
Apropos of nothing - can we not use the off-topic button as a surrogate dislike button and the flag button as a surrogate seriously dislike button please?
Yes, I've done it myself in the past, but I shouldn't have.
It makes the mods job harder - flooding them with notifications - and shouldn't be necessary in the first instance unless someone is seriously disruptive, or outwardly offensive and actually spamming in the second.
Just because you don't like what they're saying and want to register disapproval isn't enough, and it isn't appropriate.
I can't imagine anyone doong something so puerile.
Apropos of nothing - can we not use the off-topic button as a surrogate dislike button and the flag button as a surrogate seriously dislike button please?
Yes, I've done it myself in the past, but I shouldn't have.
It makes the mods job harder - flooding them with notifications - and shouldn't be necessary in the first instance unless someone is seriously disruptive, or outwardly offensive and actually spamming in the second.
Just because you don't like what they're saying and want to register disapproval isn't enough, and it isn't appropriate.
Just to echo this.
If you disagree with something, argue about why it's wrong.
If you think something is libelous, and could get the site into trouble, then please drop me an email.
If you think someone has gone beyond the pale, and started accusing one of the mods of selling supermarket carpark software, then ditto drop me an email.
Badenoch combines the modesty of Boris Johnson, the common touch of Rishi Sunak, the level headedness of Truss and the pragmatism of Steve Baker.
Ah, you're worried about her.
Interesting.
I suppose if she's one of 50 Conservative survivors after the next election no one will be worrying about her very much.
I see @Heathener still hasn't taken me up on my offer of a bet on this.
I hope she does, as she seems so confident and I'm sure she'd be willing to back that with cash.
The more relevant question is what happens to the Conservatives if/when they lose?
Let's be honest - they were completely ineffective in Opposition from 1997-2005. The coming of Cameron, the change from Blair to Brown and the global financial crash got them back in first contention and then office (albeit in coalition).
A lot will depend on the scale of the disaster - 250 MPs will mean a real chance of a quick return so the post-Sunak leader would likely be someone fairly senior as the next prospective Prime Minister. 150 MPs means a minimum of two terms out so skip a generation and go for someone who can rebuild. 50 MPs is existential - it's a fight for survival against the LDs, Reform and others.
One of the few cheapo own-brand biscuits worth having, as I discovered at a friend's house once, after inquiring about the interesting buildings embossed in each chocolate:
Apropos of nothing - can we not use the off-topic button as a surrogate dislike button and the flag button as a surrogate seriously dislike button please?
Yes, I've done it myself in the past, but I shouldn't have.
It makes the mods job harder - flooding them with notifications - and shouldn't be necessary in the first instance unless someone is seriously disruptive, or outwardly offensive and actually spamming in the second.
Just because you don't like what they're saying and want to register disapproval isn't enough, and it isn't appropriate.
I'm fairly sure, based on my own experience of inoffensive posts being offtopicked and my own fat fingers, that 90% of offtopics are done by accident.
One of the few cheapo own-brand biscuits worth having, as I discovered at a friend's house once, after inquiring about the interesting buildings embossed in each chocolate:
Badenoch combines the modesty of Boris Johnson, the common touch of Rishi Sunak, the level headedness of Truss and the pragmatism of Steve Baker.
Ah, you're worried about her.
Interesting.
I suppose if she's one of 50 Conservative survivors after the next election no one will be worrying about her very much.
I see @Heathener still hasn't taken me up on my offer of a bet on this.
I hope she does, as she seems so confident and I'm sure she'd be willing to back that with cash.
The more relevant question is what happens to the Conservatives if/when they lose?
Let's be honest - they were completely ineffective in Opposition from 1997-2005. The coming of Cameron, the change from Blair to Brown and the global financial crash got them back in first contention and then office (albeit in coalition).
A lot will depend on the scale of the disaster - 250 MPs will mean a real chance of a quick return so the post-Sunak leader would likely be someone fairly senior as the next prospective Prime Minister. 150 MPs means a minimum of two terms out so skip a generation and go for someone who can rebuild. 50 MPs is existential - it's a fight for survival against the LDs, Reform and others.
50 MPs won't happen because at the end of the day the centre-right constituency in this country is far bigger than that.
I think political support these days is a mile wide but an inch deep. The key point to note is fluidity and change.
Badenoch combines the modesty of Boris Johnson, the common touch of Rishi Sunak, the level headedness of Truss and the pragmatism of Steve Baker.
Ah, you're worried about her.
Interesting.
I suppose if she's one of 50 Conservative survivors after the next election no one will be worrying about her very much.
I see @Heathener still hasn't taken me up on my offer of a bet on this.
I hope she does, as she seems so confident and I'm sure she'd be willing to back that with cash.
The more relevant question is what happens to the Conservatives if/when they lose?
Let's be honest - they were completely ineffective in Opposition from 1997-2005. The coming of Cameron, the change from Blair to Brown and the global financial crash got them back in first contention and then office (albeit in coalition).
A lot will depend on the scale of the disaster - 250 MPs will mean a real chance of a quick return so the post-Sunak leader would likely be someone fairly senior as the next prospective Prime Minister. 150 MPs means a minimum of two terms out so skip a generation and go for someone who can rebuild. 50 MPs is existential - it's a fight for survival against the LDs, Reform and others.
50 MPs won't happen because at the end of the day the centre-right constituency in this country is far bigger than that.
I think political support these days is a mile wide but an inch deep. The key point to note is fluidity and change.
But that cuts various ways, and cannot be a point in support of any particular outcome, nearly two years out.
The next Tory leader will be one of the younger rising stars of the current cabinet. A top performer, who cuts through the noise, is effective and likeable. I know! I can’t think of anyone either.
And that, in a nutshell is the problems the Tories will have in Opposition. The current crop of younger ministers are mostly either bonkers, or ineffective, or both. Don't forget that Tony Blair never even served as a Junior Minister before becoming PM.
Apropos of nothing - can we not use the off-topic button as a surrogate dislike button and the flag button as a surrogate seriously dislike button please?
Yes, I've done it myself in the past, but I shouldn't have.
It makes the mods job harder - flooding them with notifications - and shouldn't be necessary in the first instance unless someone is seriously disruptive, or outwardly offensive and actually spamming in the second.
Just because you don't like what they're saying and want to register disapproval isn't enough, and it isn't appropriate.
I can't imagine anyone doong something so puerile.
It happens a lot, and has to @Leon upthread, and even happened to me (a flag) when I said I'd watched Die Hard the other day and that I thought it was a Christmas movie.
It's almost certainly a poster with an axe to grind about you.
…Had the Russian plan been carried out as it was written, Kyiv would have been conquered in just a few days. Zelensky, his wife, and his children would have been murdered by one of the hit squads that roamed the capital city. The Ukrainian state would have been taken over by the collaborators who had already chosen their Kyiv apartments. Then, city by city, region by region, the Russian army would have fought the remnants of the Ukrainian army until it finally conquered the entire country. Originally, the Russian general staff imagined that this victory would require six weeks. Had all of that happened as planned, Ukraine would now be pockmarked with the concentration camps, torture chambers, and makeshift prisons that have been discovered in Bucha, Izyum, Kherson, and all the other territories temporarily occupied by Russia and liberated by the Ukrainian army. A generation of Ukrainian writers, artists, politicians, journalists, and civic leaders would already be buried in mass graves. Ukrainian books would have been removed from schools and libraries. The Ukrainian language would have been suppressed in all public spaces. Hundreds of thousands more Ukrainian children would have been kidnapped and transported to Russia or trafficked farther around the world.…
Genocide.
There are still too many idiots who even if not quite siding with Russia are bending way too far to try and understand the Russian point-of-view, such people are aligning themselves with this generation's Nazis. It's a black mark that they will never remove.
Badenoch combines the modesty of Boris Johnson, the common touch of Rishi Sunak, the level headedness of Truss and the pragmatism of Steve Baker.
Ah, you're worried about her.
Interesting.
I suppose if she's one of 50 Conservative survivors after the next election no one will be worrying about her very much.
I see @Heathener still hasn't taken me up on my offer of a bet on this.
I hope she does, as she seems so confident and I'm sure she'd be willing to back that with cash.
The more relevant question is what happens to the Conservatives if/when they lose?
Let's be honest - they were completely ineffective in Opposition from 1997-2005. The coming of Cameron, the change from Blair to Brown and the global financial crash got them back in first contention and then office (albeit in coalition).
A lot will depend on the scale of the disaster - 250 MPs will mean a real chance of a quick return so the post-Sunak leader would likely be someone fairly senior as the next prospective Prime Minister. 150 MPs means a minimum of two terms out so skip a generation and go for someone who can rebuild. 50 MPs is existential - it's a fight for survival against the LDs, Reform and others.
50 MPs won't happen because at the end of the day the centre-right constituency in this country is far bigger than that.
I think political support these days is a mile wide but an inch deep. The key point to note is fluidity and change.
But that cuts various ways, and cannot be a point in support of any particular outcome, nearly two years out.
I'm not saying it can't happen.
I am challenging the presumption that it's "nailed on" to happen.
Badenoch combines the modesty of Boris Johnson, the common touch of Rishi Sunak, the level headedness of Truss and the pragmatism of Steve Baker.
Ah, you're worried about her.
Interesting.
I suppose if she's one of 50 Conservative survivors after the next election no one will be worrying about her very much.
I see @Heathener still hasn't taken me up on my offer of a bet on this.
I hope she does, as she seems so confident and I'm sure she'd be willing to back that with cash.
The more relevant question is what happens to the Conservatives if/when they lose?
Let's be honest - they were completely ineffective in Opposition from 1997-2005. The coming of Cameron, the change from Blair to Brown and the global financial crash got them back in first contention and then office (albeit in coalition).
A lot will depend on the scale of the disaster - 250 MPs will mean a real chance of a quick return so the post-Sunak leader would likely be someone fairly senior as the next prospective Prime Minister. 150 MPs means a minimum of two terms out so skip a generation and go for someone who can rebuild. 50 MPs is existential - it's a fight for survival against the LDs, Reform and others.
50 MPs won't happen because at the end of the day the centre-right constituency in this country is far bigger than that.
I think political support these days is a mile wide but an inch deep. The key point to note is fluidity and change.
You're not wrong - call it volatility if you prefer.
I suspect the best hope for the Conservatives is for an uneventful 12-18 months - the best governance is often no governance (or at least nothing visible) and it's interesting to see Sunak seen much less than Truss or Johnson.
I agree 50 is very unlikely but I don't think 150 is inconceivable. This would, pace 1997, see the Party reduced to an English rural and suburban rump and the "way back" wouldn't be obvious.
I think the set of local elections in May which are barely four months away will be unpleasant for the Conservatives - less because they will lose large numbers of seats (they lost a lot last time these were contested in 2019) but because I suspect it will be a very good night for Labour (who also made a net loss in 2019 albeit much smaller).
Let’s not forget this either. The day after the bombing. The ex foreign minister of Poland. Swiftly deleted
Like he knows shit
It's one of those theories when random people speculating it on one side is compelling proof, other random people speculating another option is just speculation.
Couldn't we just ask an AI chat-bot to get the definitive answer?
Martin Baxter of Electoral Calculus calculates that the Tories would have won a majority of 100 seats instead of 80 under the new proposed boundaries, with the party gaining 10 seats on the 365 they took at GE2019.
The next Tory leader will be one of the younger rising stars of the current cabinet. A top performer, who cuts through the noise, is effective and likeable. I know! I can’t think of anyone either.
Steve Barclay
Great bantz
Don’t misunderestimate a Cambridge educated solicitor.
They are noted for their brilliance.
You mean, like Richard Burgon and Amanda Spielman?
Interestingly, only one solicitor has ever been a Prime Minister.
Martin Baxter of Electoral Calculus calculates that the Tories would have won a majority of 100 seats instead of 80 under the new proposed boundaries, with the party gaining 10 seats on the 365 they took at GE2019.
Comments
https://eandt.theiet.org/content/articles/2022/12/japan-to-invest-on-nuclear-energy-in-major-policy-shift/
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/jun/09/us-natural-gas-plant-explosion-freeport-lng-shortages-europe
They are noted for their brilliance.
Plenty of multinationals now are getting to the point where they are no longer governed by anyone. Expect increases in corporate action where we would expect it to be state only
Applebaum has had a shot at it in the Atlantic.
The Brutal Alternate World in Which the U.S. Abandoned Ukraine
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2022/12/zelensky-congress-speech-us-ukraine-support/672547/
…Had the Russian plan been carried out as it was written, Kyiv would have been conquered in just a few days. Zelensky, his wife, and his children would have been murdered by one of the hit squads that roamed the capital city. The Ukrainian state would have been taken over by the collaborators who had already chosen their Kyiv apartments. Then, city by city, region by region, the Russian army would have fought the remnants of the Ukrainian army until it finally conquered the entire country. Originally, the Russian general staff imagined that this victory would require six weeks.
Had all of that happened as planned, Ukraine would now be pockmarked with the concentration camps, torture chambers, and makeshift prisons that have been discovered in Bucha, Izyum, Kherson, and all the other territories temporarily occupied by Russia and liberated by the Ukrainian army. A generation of Ukrainian writers, artists, politicians, journalists, and civic leaders would already be buried in mass graves. Ukrainian books would have been removed from schools and libraries. The Ukrainian language would have been suppressed in all public spaces. Hundreds of thousands more Ukrainian children would have been kidnapped and transported to Russia or trafficked farther around the world.…
These billionaires, who are among the wealthiest and most well-connected people in the world, would have their audience believe that they’re persecuted and speaking truth to power
https://www.vox.com/the-goods/2022/12/20/23509726/billionaire-vibe-shift-elon-sbf-2022
Edit: Here:
https://vf.politicalbetting.com/discussion/comment/4145296#Comment_4145296
Those don't look like very good reasons at all. Look at 3 and 4, for example. Putin can just as easily put pressure on Europe by simply switching off the gas. Blowing up the pipeline just takes away his ability to switch turn it on again, thus reducing the leverage he would otherwise have had.
Those who stand to gain the most from damaging the pipeline are those who opposed it in the first place - the Eastern European countries through with the gas would otherwise have passed, e.g. Poland, Czech Republic, Hungary and yes, Ukraine.
I've no idea who did it, but I do think Leon has a point. It seems a very odd thing for Russia to have done.
It just doesn’t add up. It’s not impossible of course but ockhams razor says Nyet
More likely is the USA but probably at arm’s length for deniability. Maybe actually done by Poland (proximity, motive) or UK (skill set, motive)
Someone on here made a good point. This is the exact kind of thing that would appeal to Boris. Wartime gallantry. Plucky clever British. Derring do. Churchill
The strongest argument against it being the US is the Biden administration’s strategic caution, and deep reluctance for direct confrontation with Russia, which has been evident from the start of the invasion.
It’s still possible that it was the US, since it’s something that’s at least temporarily deniable (though not forever), but it would be out of character with everything else they have done.
But these are all exactly the same arguments we had back then.
Why today’s news should prompt another round of it is an odd one. Prompted by Twitter again ?
I don't understand how, with the year the UK has had, people still think 'it's all unresolved, it's not just about some guy finding the single man pressing the button marked 'Corruption' and arresting him' was anything other than a perfect ending.
1h
Line of Duty could be back on BBC1 for a surprise three-part special with insiders describing “unfinished business” with the police series https://standard.co.uk/news/uk/line-o
https://twitter.com/stephenkb/status/1605962265634684932?cxt=HHwWiICy3f-Kw8ksAAAA
You display astonishing naivety if you really think an act of brutal realpolitik like this “out of character for America”
Is not the same as "people now admit it wasn't the Russians"
To resolve any ambiguity in what you take from my comment, it would be out of character for the Biden administration.
And it’s not about whether or not they indulge in realpolitik, but what they consider prudent.
What more evidence do you need?
By the way, let me know when you have some evidence that it was anyone other than the Russians.
Tea dunking test finds Hobnob-style does the perfect job
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-64037994
What does 'best' mean in this instance? Fruit Shortcakes are delicious when dunked, but would indeed fall very low on the sustainability side. Biscuit breakdown is a crucial factor to consider, but not the only one - much as I enjoy a dunked hobnob, I'd suggest a ginger nut is the tops when it comes to dunking.
https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2022/12/22/sexual-abuse-congress-lawsuit-00075061
… On Saturday, a day after this column reported on the formerly high-flying Washington business figure’s unusual legal move against an ex-employee who testified under oath, the House Judiciary Committee entered a sharply critical 2019 arbitration tribunal ruling about Chishti’s workplace behavior into the Congressional Record — instantaneously turning the heretofore secret report into a publicly-available document.
The release, quietly added to the record of an unrelated hearing on a late-December weekend afternoon, amounts to a tidy Washington-procedural way of saying: Don’t mess with our witness.
As it happens, the document appears utterly devastating for Chishti, a man who not long ago operated from an office a block from the White House and was able to attract politics and government A-listers like former British Prime Minister David Cameron, former French Prime Minister François Fillon and former U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Michael Mullen to Afiniti’s advisory board.
Though Chishti’s federal lawsuit alleges that former Afiniti staffer Tatiana Spottiswoode had “weaponized” a “consensual love affair” by “deliberately lying and misleading Congress under oath,” the report by independent arbitrator Ronald G. Birch reached the opposite conclusion, declaring that Chishti, now 51, had repeatedly sexually harassed an employee half his age, groped her in front of colleagues, insulted her for rejecting advances, brutally beaten her during a business-trip sexual encounter, and lied about it…
https://www.tesco.com/groceries/en-GB/products/257510953
Nothing too posh. But they have a thick layer of nice chocolate which softly melts when you dunk
Tim Tam Slam
The Tim Tam Slam (also known as the Tim Tam Shotgun, Tim Tam Bomb, Tim Tam Explosion, Tim Tam Bong and Tim Tam Suck) is the practice of drinking a hot beverage through a Tim Tam. Opposite corners of the Tim Tam are bitten off, one end is submerged in the beverage, and the beverage is sucked through the biscuit as though the Tim Tam itself were a straw. The crisp interior biscuit is eventually softened and the outer chocolate coating begins to melt, at which point the biscuit is eaten.
The Arnott's company used the name Tim Tam Suck in a 2002 advertising campaign.
In February 2019, Arnott's released a "Slams"-branded version of the Tim Tam biscuit.
You know what I'm going to say?
Of course you do.
When MH17 was shot down, you spread whatever contradictory message was emanating from Russia's backside, slurping it up and spitting it out on here. However contradictory those messages. Conflicting messages is how Russia works, as it allows them to sell at least one message to large potions of the population. And gullible foreigners as well.
To help you, here are some documents from the criminal trial that showed Russia and Russians were responsible for MH17:
https://www.prosecutionservice.nl/topics/mh17-plane-crash I daresay you won't read them.
It was his Santa Clause 4 moment.
https://twitter.com/ErikAukan/status/1605905001272016896/photo/1
Though milk or dark chocolate … ?
Interesting.
Peace and goodwill abound.
She likes the Chewy Caramel flavour but as with so much else I'm a bluff old traditionalist and the originals are good enough for me.
I hope she does, as she seems so confident and I'm sure she'd be willing to back that with cash.
Yes, I've done it myself in the past, but I shouldn't have.
It makes the mods job harder - flooding them with notifications - and shouldn't be necessary in the first instance unless someone is seriously disruptive, or outwardly offensive and actually spamming in the second.
Just because you don't like what they're saying and want to register disapproval isn't enough, and it isn't appropriate.
These is an extraordinarily weird coincidence, I just had a Choco Liebniz with my cup of tea.
Albeit I didn't dunk.
https://www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/boundaries2023.html
https://www.goodfood.com.au/eat-out/news/tim-tams-or-penguins-the-australia-versus-britain-sweet-treat-taste-test-20200622-h1owzt#:~:text=The Tim Tam, top, is smaller than it's,of sugar makes the treat cloying and one-dimensional.
If you disagree with something, argue about why it's wrong.
If you think something is libelous, and could get the site into trouble, then please drop me an email.
If you think someone has gone beyond the pale, and started accusing one of the mods of selling supermarket carpark software, then ditto drop me an email.
But the bar should be a reasonably high one.
Let's be honest - they were completely ineffective in Opposition from 1997-2005. The coming of Cameron, the change from Blair to Brown and the global financial crash got them back in first contention and then office (albeit in coalition).
A lot will depend on the scale of the disaster - 250 MPs will mean a real chance of a quick return so the post-Sunak leader would likely be someone fairly senior as the next prospective Prime Minister. 150 MPs means a minimum of two terms out so skip a generation and go for someone who can rebuild. 50 MPs is existential - it's a fight for survival against the LDs, Reform and others.
https://groceries.aldi.co.uk/en-GB/p-belmont-memento-milk-chocolate-butter-biscuits-125g/4088600108445
69p vs £1.70 for Liebniz. No dark ones, alas.
I think political support these days is a mile wide but an inch deep. The key point to note is fluidity and change.
It's almost certainly a poster with an axe to grind about you.
There are still too many idiots who even if not quite siding with Russia are bending way too far to try and understand the Russian point-of-view, such people are aligning themselves with this generation's Nazis. It's a black mark that they will never remove.
I am challenging the presumption that it's "nailed on" to happen.
And Truss didn’t take long to wreak havoc, did she ?
I suspect the best hope for the Conservatives is for an uneventful 12-18 months - the best governance is often no governance (or at least nothing visible) and it's interesting to see Sunak seen much less than Truss or Johnson.
I agree 50 is very unlikely but I don't think 150 is inconceivable. This would, pace 1997, see the Party reduced to an English rural and suburban rump and the "way back" wouldn't be obvious.
I think the set of local elections in May which are barely four months away will be unpleasant for the Conservatives - less because they will lose large numbers of seats (they lost a lot last time these were contested in 2019) but because I suspect it will be a very good night for Labour (who also made a net loss in 2019 albeit much smaller).
They being the purveyors of ejection seats.
Though congratulations on being in the top 10% of earners!
Interestingly, only one solicitor has ever been a Prime Minister.
@Jim_Jordan threatens to retaliate against Joe Biden by releasing his tax returns.
What an idiot; they're all publicly available!
https://twitter.com/markmobility/status/1605988507884863492