"I want to reassure you that none of the bill increase will go towards executive director bonuses. Customers do not pay for bonuses; they are entirely funded by our investors."
I hold no candle for Reform but let's not pretend they're exactly the same as the praetorian guard of MAGA.
Only 67% think Russia entirely or mostly responsible for the war.
Reform in noticeably more pro-putin than the other parties.
Russia isn’t entirely responsible for the war
NATO and the West promised not to push NATO to the frontiers of Russia, then we did exactly that. Then we wrestled over Ukraine itself, part of which is regarded as sacred Russia by Russians
Is Putin an evil murderous autocrat who launched a barbarous invasion causing a European tragedy and killing half a million purple? Yes yes yes. Does the west have *some* responsibility for stupidly goading and mishandling Russia? Also yes
ISTR you raising the idea of terrorist attacks in Red Square in a way that suggested they wouldn't exactly be abhorrent:
@Leon repeating the nonsense that "NATO promised not to expand". It did no such thing, indeed Russia itself seriously discussed joining.
Assurances were given by Germany, the US and others at the time of German reunification that NATO would not expand eastwards, but there was no formal promise.
Even if that were true, so what?
Just because some people in the past had a different view to some people currently in existence doesn't -say- justify, rape, murder, invasion and the like.
Well no of course not. But there is some truth in the idea that NATO promised not to expand in 1990
I hold no candle for Reform but let's not pretend they're exactly the same as the praetorian guard of MAGA.
Only 67% think Russia entirely or mostly responsible for the war.
Reform in noticeably more pro-putin than the other parties.
Russia isn’t entirely responsible for the war
NATO and the West promised not to push NATO to the frontiers of Russia, then we did exactly that. Then we wrestled over Ukraine itself, part of which is regarded as sacred Russia by Russians
Is Putin an evil murderous autocrat who launched a barbarous invasion causing a European tragedy and killing half a million purple? Yes yes yes. Does the west have *some* responsibility for stupidly goading and mishandling Russia? Also yes
ISTR you raising the idea of terrorist attacks in Red Square in a way that suggested they wouldn't exactly be abhorrent:
@Leon repeating the nonsense that "NATO promised not to expand". It did no such thing, indeed Russia itself seriously discussed joining.
Assurances were given by Germany, the US and others at the time of German reunification that NATO would not expand eastwards, but there was no formal promise.
AIR the very specific promise was that NATO forces would not be stationed in East Germany without the prior agreement of the USSR.
Which point became moot on the 31st December 1991.
U.S. Secretary of State James Baker’s famous “not one inch eastward” assurance about NATO expansion in his meeting with Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev on February 9, 1990, was part of a cascade of assurances about Soviet security given by Western leaders to Gorbachev and other Soviet officials throughout the process of German unification in 1990 and on into 1991, according to declassified U.S., Soviet, German, British and French documents posted today by the National Security Archive at George Washington University (http://nsarchive.gwu.edu).
The documents show that multiple national leaders were considering and rejecting Central and Eastern European membership in NATO as of early 1990 and through 1991, that discussions of NATO in the context of German unification negotiations in 1990 were not at all narrowly limited to the status of East German territory, and that subsequent Soviet and Russian complaints about being misled about NATO expansion were founded in written contemporaneous memcons and telcons at the highest levels.
The documents reinforce former CIA Director Robert Gates’s criticism of “pressing ahead with expansion of NATO eastward [in the 1990s], when Gorbachev and others were led to believe that wouldn’t happen.”[1] The key phrase, buttressed by the documents, is “led to believe.”
President George H.W. Bush had assured Gorbachev during the Malta summit in December 1989 that the U.S. would not take advantage (“I have not jumped up and down on the Berlin Wall”) of the revolutions in Eastern Europe to harm Soviet interests; but neither Bush nor Gorbachev at that point (or for that matter, West German Chancellor Helmut Kohl) expected so soon the collapse of East Germany or the speed of German unification.[2]
The first concrete assurances by Western leaders on NATO began on January 31, 1990, when West German Foreign Minister Hans-Dietrich Genscher opened the bidding with a major public speech at Tutzing, in Bavaria, on German unification. The U.S. Embassy in Bonn (see Document 1) informed Washington that Genscher made clear “that the changes in Eastern Europe and the German unification process must not lead to an ‘impairment of Soviet security interests.’ Therefore, NATO should rule out an ‘expansion of its territory towards the east, i.e. moving it closer to the Soviet borders.’”
Even if those documents are accepted, and there are question marks over some of them, again the key word is ‘Soviet.’ After 1991 there was no Soviet Union to threaten.
Any assurances on NATO beyond East Germany would have been about de-escalating the Cold War. But by 1991 the Russians hated Communism more than the Americans did and there was no reason to expect it would recur.
The FSB coup that put Putin into power was the result of a combination of factors, but suggesting NATO expansion was critical is I think to underplay the role of economics and especially megalomania.
"Even if those documents are accepted,"
Listen to yourselves
On rare occasions Leon is right.
People denying that any assurances were ever given that NATO wouldn't expand eastwards are actually helping Kremlin propaganda.
But, as they say, truth is the first casualty of war.
Again, I think you are misunderstanding what was said and why.
Nobody disputes that NATO promised no NATO soldiers would be stationed in East Germany without Soviet agreement in the event of reunification, and that Soviet agreement would not be presumed. That was due to the very sensitive position of Germany at the time and the diplomatic complexities of reunification.
Similarly, nobody disputes that there were discussions about what would happen were other countries to leave the Warsaw Pact. It was agreed the Soviet Union as a Pact member had an interest in those proceedings if they came about. This was, again, so as not to startle the horses over Soviet withdrawal from Eastern Europe which Gorbachev was having enough trouble getting past his hardliners as it was.
The issue is that some of those people you quote re-read those as a cast iron guarantee that NATO would not seek eastward expansion ever under any circumstances. Which they were not.
Had the USSR survived it may have been different, but Russia was a separate state (it actually declared independence from the USSR) and so were the countries surrounding it. The diplomatic discussions referred to, which again were not guarantees, became moot.
To give you another example, the position of American troops in Europe as a whole was discussed. America was actually willing to withdraw from Europe entirely in exchange for a diplomatic settlement, if that was needed. But it wasn’t (and Gorbachev said, in fact, he thought that would be unwise anyway for a whole host of reasons). If American forces had left under such a deal and there was a civil war in Italy or Germany, or indeed American peacekeepers needed in Northern Ireland, would that have been a reason to refuse them?
Russia did not object to the expansion of NATO until Kosovo, by which time it was experiencing major financial turmoil. And Ukraine wouldn’t have talked of joining but for Russian meddling in its politics and economy from as long ago as 2003. It’s really not true to say that cast iron pledges were broken and that security concerns were a factor. This is about the Russian government’s greed for an empire.
So no, Leon is not right in this, and we can all relax until the Orange Haired one goes off again.
It's a simple yes/no question: were promises (however non-binding and however different the context then) given to the USSR that NATO wouldn't expand eastward? Answer: yes.
If we start lying out of convenience, or just to disagree with Leon how does that help us?
That’s a very selective wording of a question.
I don't see what the problem is, but go ahead and put the question in a way you're happy with. It's just a matter of historical record.
Does Ukraine being interested in joining NATO and NATO being willing to consider the possibility constitute a legitimate casus belli for Russia to invade and annex territory?
that's a completely different, indeed unrelated (except for Putin and apologists), question.
Still not much on X or anywhere I have noticed from Reform or Farage. And nothing at all on the great Trumpian issue of the day. This is a very large non barking dog.
Marco Rubio: “For years to come, there are many people on the right…that are going to be having to explain and justify how they fell into this trap of supporting Donald Trump because this is not going to end well.” (2016)
This is why I could never be a politician, or diplomat, or really any job where you have to keep your opinions to yourself. I wouldn't even be able to bite my tongue, I'd be saying "I warned you all. I was right all along!"
At university I seriously considered becoming a diplomat because with my skills and talents I would have become an ambassador and I really wanted the title of Your Excellency, I also wanted the GCMG (God Call Me God).
Then I realised I could earn more in the private sector.
At university I seriously considered going into public service as an MP.
Then I realised I’d be a great minister but a crap politician. So I settled for a seat in the lords
Donald Trump on Air Force 1: “We had a rare earth deal, and Ukraine agreed to it, more or less.. ... And then Scott Besset actually went there and was treated rather rudely, because essentially they told him no. Zelenskyy was sleeping and unavailable to meet him (?) He traveled many hours on the train, which is a dangerous trip, and we're talking about the Secretary of the Treasury. He went there to get a document signed, and when he got there, he came back empty. They wouldn't sign the document. ... I think I'm going to resurrect the deal, or things are not going to make them too happy. And look, it's time for elections. Haven't had an election in a long time."
I know how Donald feels. I agreed to buy a house in Knightsbridge - sent my lawyer round and the owner was asleep and when he woke up he laughed in my lawyers face.
I said we had agreed to buy the house for £5.00 and the owner sort of said, go fuck yourself. So rude. My lawyer went all the way there and came back empty handed. I will resurect this deal, will offer £6.00.
I mean you didn’t even ask for his first born. Some people are rude.
The Times today: "As the Lords economic affairs committee wrote to Liz Kendall last month, the £65 billion incapacity and disability benefits bill is now 20 per cent higher than Britain’s entire defence budget – and is due to reach £100 billion by 2029-30."
This is mad.
Plausible. The Boomers (born between 1945 and Dec 1964) are now all in their 60s, with the oldest being 80. There's a lot of them and between 2030-35 they'll be between 65 and 90, or "peak old people". Keeping them in a decent state as they slip into the dark will be very expensive. I don't know how to fix this.
But this is the incapacity and disability benefits bill, so not the retired? (or not just the retired)
I hold no candle for Reform but let's not pretend they're exactly the same as the praetorian guard of MAGA.
Only 67% think Russia entirely or mostly responsible for the war.
Reform in noticeably more pro-putin than the other parties.
Russia isn’t entirely responsible for the war
NATO and the West promised not to push NATO to the frontiers of Russia, then we did exactly that. Then we wrestled over Ukraine itself, part of which is regarded as sacred Russia by Russians
Is Putin an evil murderous autocrat who launched a barbarous invasion causing a European tragedy and killing half a million purple? Yes yes yes. Does the west have *some* responsibility for stupidly goading and mishandling Russia? Also yes
ISTR you raising the idea of terrorist attacks in Red Square in a way that suggested they wouldn't exactly be abhorrent:
@Leon repeating the nonsense that "NATO promised not to expand". It did no such thing, indeed Russia itself seriously discussed joining.
Assurances were given by Germany, the US and others at the time of German reunification that NATO would not expand eastwards, but there was no formal promise.
Even if that were true, so what?
Just because some people in the past had a different view to some people currently in existence doesn't -say- justify, rape, murder, invasion and the like.
Well no of course not. But there is some truth in the idea that NATO promised not to expand in 1990
I hold no candle for Reform but let's not pretend they're exactly the same as the praetorian guard of MAGA.
Only 67% think Russia entirely or mostly responsible for the war.
Reform in noticeably more pro-putin than the other parties.
Russia isn’t entirely responsible for the war
NATO and the West promised not to push NATO to the frontiers of Russia, then we did exactly that. Then we wrestled over Ukraine itself, part of which is regarded as sacred Russia by Russians
Is Putin an evil murderous autocrat who launched a barbarous invasion causing a European tragedy and killing half a million purple? Yes yes yes. Does the west have *some* responsibility for stupidly goading and mishandling Russia? Also yes
ISTR you raising the idea of terrorist attacks in Red Square in a way that suggested they wouldn't exactly be abhorrent:
@Leon repeating the nonsense that "NATO promised not to expand". It did no such thing, indeed Russia itself seriously discussed joining.
Assurances were given by Germany, the US and others at the time of German reunification that NATO would not expand eastwards, but there was no formal promise.
AIR the very specific promise was that NATO forces would not be stationed in East Germany without the prior agreement of the USSR.
Which point became moot on the 31st December 1991.
U.S. Secretary of State James Baker’s famous “not one inch eastward” assurance about NATO expansion in his meeting with Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev on February 9, 1990, was part of a cascade of assurances about Soviet security given by Western leaders to Gorbachev and other Soviet officials throughout the process of German unification in 1990 and on into 1991, according to declassified U.S., Soviet, German, British and French documents posted today by the National Security Archive at George Washington University (http://nsarchive.gwu.edu).
The documents show that multiple national leaders were considering and rejecting Central and Eastern European membership in NATO as of early 1990 and through 1991, that discussions of NATO in the context of German unification negotiations in 1990 were not at all narrowly limited to the status of East German territory, and that subsequent Soviet and Russian complaints about being misled about NATO expansion were founded in written contemporaneous memcons and telcons at the highest levels.
The documents reinforce former CIA Director Robert Gates’s criticism of “pressing ahead with expansion of NATO eastward [in the 1990s], when Gorbachev and others were led to believe that wouldn’t happen.”[1] The key phrase, buttressed by the documents, is “led to believe.”
President George H.W. Bush had assured Gorbachev during the Malta summit in December 1989 that the U.S. would not take advantage (“I have not jumped up and down on the Berlin Wall”) of the revolutions in Eastern Europe to harm Soviet interests; but neither Bush nor Gorbachev at that point (or for that matter, West German Chancellor Helmut Kohl) expected so soon the collapse of East Germany or the speed of German unification.[2]
The first concrete assurances by Western leaders on NATO began on January 31, 1990, when West German Foreign Minister Hans-Dietrich Genscher opened the bidding with a major public speech at Tutzing, in Bavaria, on German unification. The U.S. Embassy in Bonn (see Document 1) informed Washington that Genscher made clear “that the changes in Eastern Europe and the German unification process must not lead to an ‘impairment of Soviet security interests.’ Therefore, NATO should rule out an ‘expansion of its territory towards the east, i.e. moving it closer to the Soviet borders.’”
Even if those documents are accepted, and there are question marks over some of them, again the key word is ‘Soviet.’ After 1991 there was no Soviet Union to threaten.
Any assurances on NATO beyond East Germany would have been about de-escalating the Cold War. But by 1991 the Russians hated Communism more than the Americans did and there was no reason to expect it would recur.
The FSB coup that put Putin into power was the result of a combination of factors, but suggesting NATO expansion was critical is I think to underplay the role of economics and especially megalomania.
"Even if those documents are accepted,"
Listen to yourselves
On rare occasions Leon is right.
People denying that any assurances were ever given that NATO wouldn't expand eastwards are actually helping Kremlin propaganda.
But, as they say, truth is the first casualty of war.
Again, I think you are misunderstanding what was said and why.
Nobody disputes that NATO promised no NATO soldiers would be stationed in East Germany without Soviet agreement in the event of reunification, and that Soviet agreement would not be presumed. That was due to the very sensitive position of Germany at the time and the diplomatic complexities of reunification.
Similarly, nobody disputes that there were discussions about what would happen were other countries to leave the Warsaw Pact. It was agreed the Soviet Union as a Pact member had an interest in those proceedings if they came about. This was, again, so as not to startle the horses over Soviet withdrawal from Eastern Europe which Gorbachev was having enough trouble getting past his hardliners as it was.
The issue is that some of those people you quote re-read those as a cast iron guarantee that NATO would not seek eastward expansion ever under any circumstances. Which they were not.
Had the USSR survived it may have been different, but Russia was a separate state (it actually declared independence from the USSR) and so were the countries surrounding it. The diplomatic discussions referred to, which again were not guarantees, became moot.
To give you another example, the position of American troops in Europe as a whole was discussed. America was actually willing to withdraw from Europe entirely in exchange for a diplomatic settlement, if that was needed. But it wasn’t (and Gorbachev said, in fact, he thought that would be unwise anyway for a whole host of reasons). If American forces had left under such a deal and there was a civil war in Italy or Germany, or indeed American peacekeepers needed in Northern Ireland, would that have been a reason to refuse them?
Russia did not object to the expansion of NATO until Kosovo, by which time it was experiencing major financial turmoil. And Ukraine wouldn’t have talked of joining but for Russian meddling in its politics and economy from as long ago as 2003. It’s really not true to say that cast iron pledges were broken and that security concerns were a factor. This is about the Russian government’s greed for an empire.
So no, Leon is not right in this, and we can all relax until the Orange Haired one goes off again.
It's a simple yes/no question: were promises (however non-binding and however different the context then) given to the USSR that NATO wouldn't expand eastward? Answer: yes.
If we start lying out of convenience, or just to disagree with Leon how does that help us?
That’s a very selective wording of a question.
I don't see what the problem is, but go ahead and put the question in a way you're happy with. It's just a matter of historical record.
Does Ukraine being interested in joining NATO and NATO being willing to consider the possibility constitute a legitimate casus belli for Russia to invade and annex territory?
that's a completely different, indeed unrelated (except for Putin and apologists), question.
It's the question that matters. It's the issue that hangs over the entire discussion.
Still not much on X or anywhere I have noticed from Reform or Farage. And nothing at all on the great Trumpian issue of the day. This is a very large non barking dog.
Farage trying to work out how he extracts himself without his crazy friends trying to take his leadership away….
The Trump psychology is interesting. It's almost as if he wants to live up to the worst possible caricature of himself.
Why?
I think it's just what he is. You've got this unholy mix in a single individual of narcissism, malevolence, ignorance, immaturity - unmitigated by any redeeming features whatsoever - and unfortunately he's the President of the United States. Hopefully people are waking up and there'll be a bit less lofty shrugging and "lol, TDR" about the place.
The Times today: "As the Lords economic affairs committee wrote to Liz Kendall last month, the £65 billion incapacity and disability benefits bill is now 20 per cent higher than Britain’s entire defence budget – and is due to reach £100 billion by 2029-30."
This is mad.
Plausible. The Boomers (born between 1945 and Dec 1964) are now all in their 60s, with the oldest being 80. There's a lot of them and between 2030-35 they'll be between 65 and 90, or "peak old people". Keeping them in a decent state as they slip into the dark will be very expensive. I don't know how to fix this.
But this is the incapacity and disability benefits bill, so not the retired? (or not just the retired)
Would love to know how much of it is going on housing benefit as I suspect that going to be a very hefty chunk
There are 8 letters in the Telegraph today on the "negotiations" which are all pro- Zelensky and anti-Trump. The Tele has been increasingly pro-Reform and sympathetic to Trump and MAGA recently. Is this when the Tele withdraws support for Trump or when many of the readers withdraw subscriptions to the Tele?
"I want to reassure you that none of the bill increase will go towards executive director bonuses. Customers do not pay for bonuses; they are entirely funded by our investors."
Uh-huh.
This is done with tax efficiency by shareholders and other investors donating to the 'Poor and Indigent FTSE 100 Executive Benevolent Association' which is a registered charity founded in 1352 and can be done by gift aid. They also have almshouses in Berkeley Square which accommodate retired and poor chief executives and their widows with incomes under £4 million per annum.
The Times today: "As the Lords economic affairs committee wrote to Liz Kendall last month, the £65 billion incapacity and disability benefits bill is now 20 per cent higher than Britain’s entire defence budget – and is due to reach £100 billion by 2029-30."
This is mad.
Plausible. The Boomers (born between 1945 and Dec 1964) are now all in their 60s, with the oldest being 80. There's a lot of them and between 2030-35 they'll be between 65 and 90, or "peak old people". Keeping them in a decent state as they slip into the dark will be very expensive. I don't know how to fix this.
A few ideas: 1. Understand that there are multiple groups here all of whom have different requirements. There is no one size fits all solution 2. What most disabled people want is dignity and respect. Many want to work. Employers used to take on disabled workers, now they virtue signal whilst finding reasons why the disabled are too expensive / faffy. Incentivise employers via their tax bill - I would make lower Corporation Taxes conditional on investing in skills / education / training and that would include for disabled employees 3. For those who want to work but can't within the mainstream system we used to have Remploy. Recreate it - it will cost money but will also produce economic output 4. For the truly sick we should cut the endless costly red tape. People are not going to grow back nerves or limbs or stop having MS - there is no need to pay for a punitive system trying to catch them out 5. Invest in health! Prevention is better than the cure. We used to have Sure Start so that kids got looked after from the get go, until it was cut because Tories. The need didn't go away and it costs more to mop it up afterwards.
"I want to reassure you that none of the bill increase will go towards executive director bonuses. Customers do not pay for bonuses; they are entirely funded by our investors."
Uh-huh.
Investor money which is not being spent on running the business or investing into infrastructure. Which instead is being paid for by consumers...
I hold no candle for Reform but let's not pretend they're exactly the same as the praetorian guard of MAGA.
Only 67% think Russia entirely or mostly responsible for the war.
Reform in noticeably more pro-putin than the other parties.
Russia isn’t entirely responsible for the war
NATO and the West promised not to push NATO to the frontiers of Russia, then we did exactly that. Then we wrestled over Ukraine itself, part of which is regarded as sacred Russia by Russians
Is Putin an evil murderous autocrat who launched a barbarous invasion causing a European tragedy and killing half a million purple? Yes yes yes. Does the west have *some* responsibility for stupidly goading and mishandling Russia? Also yes
ISTR you raising the idea of terrorist attacks in Red Square in a way that suggested they wouldn't exactly be abhorrent:
@Leon repeating the nonsense that "NATO promised not to expand". It did no such thing, indeed Russia itself seriously discussed joining.
Assurances were given by Germany, the US and others at the time of German reunification that NATO would not expand eastwards, but there was no formal promise.
Even if that were true, so what?
Just because some people in the past had a different view to some people currently in existence doesn't -say- justify, rape, murder, invasion and the like.
Well no of course not. But there is some truth in the idea that NATO promised not to expand in 1990
I hold no candle for Reform but let's not pretend they're exactly the same as the praetorian guard of MAGA.
Only 67% think Russia entirely or mostly responsible for the war.
Reform in noticeably more pro-putin than the other parties.
Russia isn’t entirely responsible for the war
NATO and the West promised not to push NATO to the frontiers of Russia, then we did exactly that. Then we wrestled over Ukraine itself, part of which is regarded as sacred Russia by Russians
Is Putin an evil murderous autocrat who launched a barbarous invasion causing a European tragedy and killing half a million purple? Yes yes yes. Does the west have *some* responsibility for stupidly goading and mishandling Russia? Also yes
ISTR you raising the idea of terrorist attacks in Red Square in a way that suggested they wouldn't exactly be abhorrent:
@Leon repeating the nonsense that "NATO promised not to expand". It did no such thing, indeed Russia itself seriously discussed joining.
Assurances were given by Germany, the US and others at the time of German reunification that NATO would not expand eastwards, but there was no formal promise.
AIR the very specific promise was that NATO forces would not be stationed in East Germany without the prior agreement of the USSR.
Which point became moot on the 31st December 1991.
U.S. Secretary of State James Baker’s famous “not one inch eastward” assurance about NATO expansion in his meeting with Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev on February 9, 1990, was part of a cascade of assurances about Soviet security given by Western leaders to Gorbachev and other Soviet officials throughout the process of German unification in 1990 and on into 1991, according to declassified U.S., Soviet, German, British and French documents posted today by the National Security Archive at George Washington University (http://nsarchive.gwu.edu).
The documents show that multiple national leaders were considering and rejecting Central and Eastern European membership in NATO as of early 1990 and through 1991, that discussions of NATO in the context of German unification negotiations in 1990 were not at all narrowly limited to the status of East German territory, and that subsequent Soviet and Russian complaints about being misled about NATO expansion were founded in written contemporaneous memcons and telcons at the highest levels.
The documents reinforce former CIA Director Robert Gates’s criticism of “pressing ahead with expansion of NATO eastward [in the 1990s], when Gorbachev and others were led to believe that wouldn’t happen.”[1] The key phrase, buttressed by the documents, is “led to believe.”
President George H.W. Bush had assured Gorbachev during the Malta summit in December 1989 that the U.S. would not take advantage (“I have not jumped up and down on the Berlin Wall”) of the revolutions in Eastern Europe to harm Soviet interests; but neither Bush nor Gorbachev at that point (or for that matter, West German Chancellor Helmut Kohl) expected so soon the collapse of East Germany or the speed of German unification.[2]
The first concrete assurances by Western leaders on NATO began on January 31, 1990, when West German Foreign Minister Hans-Dietrich Genscher opened the bidding with a major public speech at Tutzing, in Bavaria, on German unification. The U.S. Embassy in Bonn (see Document 1) informed Washington that Genscher made clear “that the changes in Eastern Europe and the German unification process must not lead to an ‘impairment of Soviet security interests.’ Therefore, NATO should rule out an ‘expansion of its territory towards the east, i.e. moving it closer to the Soviet borders.’”
Even if those documents are accepted, and there are question marks over some of them, again the key word is ‘Soviet.’ After 1991 there was no Soviet Union to threaten.
Any assurances on NATO beyond East Germany would have been about de-escalating the Cold War. But by 1991 the Russians hated Communism more than the Americans did and there was no reason to expect it would recur.
The FSB coup that put Putin into power was the result of a combination of factors, but suggesting NATO expansion was critical is I think to underplay the role of economics and especially megalomania.
"Even if those documents are accepted,"
Listen to yourselves
On rare occasions Leon is right.
People denying that any assurances were ever given that NATO wouldn't expand eastwards are actually helping Kremlin propaganda.
But, as they say, truth is the first casualty of war.
Again, I think you are misunderstanding what was said and why.
Nobody disputes that NATO promised no NATO soldiers would be stationed in East Germany without Soviet agreement in the event of reunification, and that Soviet agreement would not be presumed. That was due to the very sensitive position of Germany at the time and the diplomatic complexities of reunification.
Similarly, nobody disputes that there were discussions about what would happen were other countries to leave the Warsaw Pact. It was agreed the Soviet Union as a Pact member had an interest in those proceedings if they came about. This was, again, so as not to startle the horses over Soviet withdrawal from Eastern Europe which Gorbachev was having enough trouble getting past his hardliners as it was.
The issue is that some of those people you quote re-read those as a cast iron guarantee that NATO would not seek eastward expansion ever under any circumstances. Which they were not.
Had the USSR survived it may have been different, but Russia was a separate state (it actually declared independence from the USSR) and so were the countries surrounding it. The diplomatic discussions referred to, which again were not guarantees, became moot.
To give you another example, the position of American troops in Europe as a whole was discussed. America was actually willing to withdraw from Europe entirely in exchange for a diplomatic settlement, if that was needed. But it wasn’t (and Gorbachev said, in fact, he thought that would be unwise anyway for a whole host of reasons). If American forces had left under such a deal and there was a civil war in Italy or Germany, or indeed American peacekeepers needed in Northern Ireland, would that have been a reason to refuse them?
Russia did not object to the expansion of NATO until Kosovo, by which time it was experiencing major financial turmoil. And Ukraine wouldn’t have talked of joining but for Russian meddling in its politics and economy from as long ago as 2003. It’s really not true to say that cast iron pledges were broken and that security concerns were a factor. This is about the Russian government’s greed for an empire.
So no, Leon is not right in this, and we can all relax until the Orange Haired one goes off again.
It's a simple yes/no question: were promises (however non-binding and however different the context then) given to the USSR that NATO wouldn't expand eastward? Answer: yes.
If we start lying out of convenience, or just to disagree with Leon how does that help us?
Answer: yes, but not unqualified ones, which is what Lavrov is claiming.
And since, again, Russia is not the Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact has been buried in an unmarked grave for 35 years the point is moot.
On the UN seat, which another poster raised, that is again more complicated as Ukraine and Belarus had their own seats at the UN. (This was a diplomatic finesse to ensure there would be more than one Communist member state.) So the Soviet seat was accepted as being Russia+ not theUSSR as a whole. That seat was still the subject of considerable diplomatic wrangling with the other 12 successor states.
I am really surprised at your ignorance. Russia inherited all of the treaties signed by the Soviet Union, I'd expect you to know this.
You could just admit you got it wrong, and that informal assurances were given in 1990.
II hate to continue this, but informal assurances are not treaties. They are not formal, and between individuals.
Both the countries and individuals involved were soon out of the picture. The idea that the assurances are somehow inherited by new governments is a little odd. That's why we write these things down and make them official.
Huh? of course assurances aren't treaties. what's your point?
If Scotland became independent, would all the understandings not in treaties that the UK has be immediately thrown in the bin?
I hold no candle for Reform but let's not pretend they're exactly the same as the praetorian guard of MAGA.
Only 67% think Russia entirely or mostly responsible for the war.
Reform in noticeably more pro-putin than the other parties.
Russia isn’t entirely responsible for the war
NATO and the West promised not to push NATO to the frontiers of Russia, then we did exactly that. Then we wrestled over Ukraine itself, part of which is regarded as sacred Russia by Russians
Is Putin an evil murderous autocrat who launched a barbarous invasion causing a European tragedy and killing half a million purple? Yes yes yes. Does the west have *some* responsibility for stupidly goading and mishandling Russia? Also yes
ISTR you raising the idea of terrorist attacks in Red Square in a way that suggested they wouldn't exactly be abhorrent:
@Leon repeating the nonsense that "NATO promised not to expand". It did no such thing, indeed Russia itself seriously discussed joining.
Assurances were given by Germany, the US and others at the time of German reunification that NATO would not expand eastwards, but there was no formal promise.
Even if that were true, so what?
Just because some people in the past had a different view to some people currently in existence doesn't -say- justify, rape, murder, invasion and the like.
Well no of course not. But there is some truth in the idea that NATO promised not to expand in 1990
I hold no candle for Reform but let's not pretend they're exactly the same as the praetorian guard of MAGA.
Only 67% think Russia entirely or mostly responsible for the war.
Reform in noticeably more pro-putin than the other parties.
Russia isn’t entirely responsible for the war
NATO and the West promised not to push NATO to the frontiers of Russia, then we did exactly that. Then we wrestled over Ukraine itself, part of which is regarded as sacred Russia by Russians
Is Putin an evil murderous autocrat who launched a barbarous invasion causing a European tragedy and killing half a million purple? Yes yes yes. Does the west have *some* responsibility for stupidly goading and mishandling Russia? Also yes
ISTR you raising the idea of terrorist attacks in Red Square in a way that suggested they wouldn't exactly be abhorrent:
@Leon repeating the nonsense that "NATO promised not to expand". It did no such thing, indeed Russia itself seriously discussed joining.
Assurances were given by Germany, the US and others at the time of German reunification that NATO would not expand eastwards, but there was no formal promise.
AIR the very specific promise was that NATO forces would not be stationed in East Germany without the prior agreement of the USSR.
Which point became moot on the 31st December 1991.
U.S. Secretary of State James Baker’s famous “not one inch eastward” assurance about NATO expansion in his meeting with Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev on February 9, 1990, was part of a cascade of assurances about Soviet security given by Western leaders to Gorbachev and other Soviet officials throughout the process of German unification in 1990 and on into 1991, according to declassified U.S., Soviet, German, British and French documents posted today by the National Security Archive at George Washington University (http://nsarchive.gwu.edu).
The documents show that multiple national leaders were considering and rejecting Central and Eastern European membership in NATO as of early 1990 and through 1991, that discussions of NATO in the context of German unification negotiations in 1990 were not at all narrowly limited to the status of East German territory, and that subsequent Soviet and Russian complaints about being misled about NATO expansion were founded in written contemporaneous memcons and telcons at the highest levels.
The documents reinforce former CIA Director Robert Gates’s criticism of “pressing ahead with expansion of NATO eastward [in the 1990s], when Gorbachev and others were led to believe that wouldn’t happen.”[1] The key phrase, buttressed by the documents, is “led to believe.”
President George H.W. Bush had assured Gorbachev during the Malta summit in December 1989 that the U.S. would not take advantage (“I have not jumped up and down on the Berlin Wall”) of the revolutions in Eastern Europe to harm Soviet interests; but neither Bush nor Gorbachev at that point (or for that matter, West German Chancellor Helmut Kohl) expected so soon the collapse of East Germany or the speed of German unification.[2]
The first concrete assurances by Western leaders on NATO began on January 31, 1990, when West German Foreign Minister Hans-Dietrich Genscher opened the bidding with a major public speech at Tutzing, in Bavaria, on German unification. The U.S. Embassy in Bonn (see Document 1) informed Washington that Genscher made clear “that the changes in Eastern Europe and the German unification process must not lead to an ‘impairment of Soviet security interests.’ Therefore, NATO should rule out an ‘expansion of its territory towards the east, i.e. moving it closer to the Soviet borders.’”
Even if those documents are accepted, and there are question marks over some of them, again the key word is ‘Soviet.’ After 1991 there was no Soviet Union to threaten.
Any assurances on NATO beyond East Germany would have been about de-escalating the Cold War. But by 1991 the Russians hated Communism more than the Americans did and there was no reason to expect it would recur.
The FSB coup that put Putin into power was the result of a combination of factors, but suggesting NATO expansion was critical is I think to underplay the role of economics and especially megalomania.
"Even if those documents are accepted,"
Listen to yourselves
On rare occasions Leon is right.
People denying that any assurances were ever given that NATO wouldn't expand eastwards are actually helping Kremlin propaganda.
But, as they say, truth is the first casualty of war.
Again, I think you are misunderstanding what was said and why.
Nobody disputes that NATO promised no NATO soldiers would be stationed in East Germany without Soviet agreement in the event of reunification, and that Soviet agreement would not be presumed. That was due to the very sensitive position of Germany at the time and the diplomatic complexities of reunification.
Similarly, nobody disputes that there were discussions about what would happen were other countries to leave the Warsaw Pact. It was agreed the Soviet Union as a Pact member had an interest in those proceedings if they came about. This was, again, so as not to startle the horses over Soviet withdrawal from Eastern Europe which Gorbachev was having enough trouble getting past his hardliners as it was.
The issue is that some of those people you quote re-read those as a cast iron guarantee that NATO would not seek eastward expansion ever under any circumstances. Which they were not.
Had the USSR survived it may have been different, but Russia was a separate state (it actually declared independence from the USSR) and so were the countries surrounding it. The diplomatic discussions referred to, which again were not guarantees, became moot.
To give you another example, the position of American troops in Europe as a whole was discussed. America was actually willing to withdraw from Europe entirely in exchange for a diplomatic settlement, if that was needed. But it wasn’t (and Gorbachev said, in fact, he thought that would be unwise anyway for a whole host of reasons). If American forces had left under such a deal and there was a civil war in Italy or Germany, or indeed American peacekeepers needed in Northern Ireland, would that have been a reason to refuse them?
Russia did not object to the expansion of NATO until Kosovo, by which time it was experiencing major financial turmoil. And Ukraine wouldn’t have talked of joining but for Russian meddling in its politics and economy from as long ago as 2003. It’s really not true to say that cast iron pledges were broken and that security concerns were a factor. This is about the Russian government’s greed for an empire.
So no, Leon is not right in this, and we can all relax until the Orange Haired one goes off again.
It's a simple yes/no question: were promises (however non-binding and however different the context then) given to the USSR that NATO wouldn't expand eastward? Answer: yes.
If we start lying out of convenience, or just to disagree with Leon how does that help us?
That’s a very selective wording of a question.
I don't see what the problem is, but go ahead and put the question in a way you're happy with. It's just a matter of historical record.
Does Ukraine being interested in joining NATO and NATO being willing to consider the possibility constitute a legitimate casus belli for Russia to invade and annex territory?
that's a completely different, indeed unrelated (except for Putin and apologists), question.
It's the question that matters. It's the issue that hangs over the entire discussion.
ah ok, so it's ok to make shit up if you're on the right side of the 'entire discussion'? Is that what you are saying?
let's say that I am asking a question that really, really, really doesn't matter at all - how would you ask it, rather than changing it to a completely different question that does matter? as you objected to my wording.
I hold no candle for Reform but let's not pretend they're exactly the same as the praetorian guard of MAGA.
Only 67% think Russia entirely or mostly responsible for the war.
Reform in noticeably more pro-putin than the other parties.
Russia isn’t entirely responsible for the war
NATO and the West promised not to push NATO to the frontiers of Russia, then we did exactly that. Then we wrestled over Ukraine itself, part of which is regarded as sacred Russia by Russians
Is Putin an evil murderous autocrat who launched a barbarous invasion causing a European tragedy and killing half a million purple? Yes yes yes. Does the west have *some* responsibility for stupidly goading and mishandling Russia? Also yes
ISTR you raising the idea of terrorist attacks in Red Square in a way that suggested they wouldn't exactly be abhorrent:
@Leon repeating the nonsense that "NATO promised not to expand". It did no such thing, indeed Russia itself seriously discussed joining.
Assurances were given by Germany, the US and others at the time of German reunification that NATO would not expand eastwards, but there was no formal promise.
Even if that were true, so what?
Just because some people in the past had a different view to some people currently in existence doesn't -say- justify, rape, murder, invasion and the like.
Well no of course not. But there is some truth in the idea that NATO promised not to expand in 1990
I hold no candle for Reform but let's not pretend they're exactly the same as the praetorian guard of MAGA.
Only 67% think Russia entirely or mostly responsible for the war.
Reform in noticeably more pro-putin than the other parties.
Russia isn’t entirely responsible for the war
NATO and the West promised not to push NATO to the frontiers of Russia, then we did exactly that. Then we wrestled over Ukraine itself, part of which is regarded as sacred Russia by Russians
Is Putin an evil murderous autocrat who launched a barbarous invasion causing a European tragedy and killing half a million purple? Yes yes yes. Does the west have *some* responsibility for stupidly goading and mishandling Russia? Also yes
ISTR you raising the idea of terrorist attacks in Red Square in a way that suggested they wouldn't exactly be abhorrent:
@Leon repeating the nonsense that "NATO promised not to expand". It did no such thing, indeed Russia itself seriously discussed joining.
Assurances were given by Germany, the US and others at the time of German reunification that NATO would not expand eastwards, but there was no formal promise.
AIR the very specific promise was that NATO forces would not be stationed in East Germany without the prior agreement of the USSR.
Which point became moot on the 31st December 1991.
U.S. Secretary of State James Baker’s famous “not one inch eastward” assurance about NATO expansion in his meeting with Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev on February 9, 1990, was part of a cascade of assurances about Soviet security given by Western leaders to Gorbachev and other Soviet officials throughout the process of German unification in 1990 and on into 1991, according to declassified U.S., Soviet, German, British and French documents posted today by the National Security Archive at George Washington University (http://nsarchive.gwu.edu).
The documents show that multiple national leaders were considering and rejecting Central and Eastern European membership in NATO as of early 1990 and through 1991, that discussions of NATO in the context of German unification negotiations in 1990 were not at all narrowly limited to the status of East German territory, and that subsequent Soviet and Russian complaints about being misled about NATO expansion were founded in written contemporaneous memcons and telcons at the highest levels.
The documents reinforce former CIA Director Robert Gates’s criticism of “pressing ahead with expansion of NATO eastward [in the 1990s], when Gorbachev and others were led to believe that wouldn’t happen.”[1] The key phrase, buttressed by the documents, is “led to believe.”
President George H.W. Bush had assured Gorbachev during the Malta summit in December 1989 that the U.S. would not take advantage (“I have not jumped up and down on the Berlin Wall”) of the revolutions in Eastern Europe to harm Soviet interests; but neither Bush nor Gorbachev at that point (or for that matter, West German Chancellor Helmut Kohl) expected so soon the collapse of East Germany or the speed of German unification.[2]
The first concrete assurances by Western leaders on NATO began on January 31, 1990, when West German Foreign Minister Hans-Dietrich Genscher opened the bidding with a major public speech at Tutzing, in Bavaria, on German unification. The U.S. Embassy in Bonn (see Document 1) informed Washington that Genscher made clear “that the changes in Eastern Europe and the German unification process must not lead to an ‘impairment of Soviet security interests.’ Therefore, NATO should rule out an ‘expansion of its territory towards the east, i.e. moving it closer to the Soviet borders.’”
Even if those documents are accepted, and there are question marks over some of them, again the key word is ‘Soviet.’ After 1991 there was no Soviet Union to threaten.
Any assurances on NATO beyond East Germany would have been about de-escalating the Cold War. But by 1991 the Russians hated Communism more than the Americans did and there was no reason to expect it would recur.
The FSB coup that put Putin into power was the result of a combination of factors, but suggesting NATO expansion was critical is I think to underplay the role of economics and especially megalomania.
"Even if those documents are accepted,"
Listen to yourselves
On rare occasions Leon is right.
People denying that any assurances were ever given that NATO wouldn't expand eastwards are actually helping Kremlin propaganda.
But, as they say, truth is the first casualty of war.
Again, I think you are misunderstanding what was said and why.
Nobody disputes that NATO promised no NATO soldiers would be stationed in East Germany without Soviet agreement in the event of reunification, and that Soviet agreement would not be presumed. That was due to the very sensitive position of Germany at the time and the diplomatic complexities of reunification.
Similarly, nobody disputes that there were discussions about what would happen were other countries to leave the Warsaw Pact. It was agreed the Soviet Union as a Pact member had an interest in those proceedings if they came about. This was, again, so as not to startle the horses over Soviet withdrawal from Eastern Europe which Gorbachev was having enough trouble getting past his hardliners as it was.
The issue is that some of those people you quote re-read those as a cast iron guarantee that NATO would not seek eastward expansion ever under any circumstances. Which they were not.
Had the USSR survived it may have been different, but Russia was a separate state (it actually declared independence from the USSR) and so were the countries surrounding it. The diplomatic discussions referred to, which again were not guarantees, became moot.
To give you another example, the position of American troops in Europe as a whole was discussed. America was actually willing to withdraw from Europe entirely in exchange for a diplomatic settlement, if that was needed. But it wasn’t (and Gorbachev said, in fact, he thought that would be unwise anyway for a whole host of reasons). If American forces had left under such a deal and there was a civil war in Italy or Germany, or indeed American peacekeepers needed in Northern Ireland, would that have been a reason to refuse them?
Russia did not object to the expansion of NATO until Kosovo, by which time it was experiencing major financial turmoil. And Ukraine wouldn’t have talked of joining but for Russian meddling in its politics and economy from as long ago as 2003. It’s really not true to say that cast iron pledges were broken and that security concerns were a factor. This is about the Russian government’s greed for an empire.
So no, Leon is not right in this, and we can all relax until the Orange Haired one goes off again.
It's a simple yes/no question: were promises (however non-binding and however different the context then) given to the USSR that NATO wouldn't expand eastward? Answer: yes.
If we start lying out of convenience, or just to disagree with Leon how does that help us?
Answer: yes, but not unqualified ones, which is what Lavrov is claiming.
And since, again, Russia is not the Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact has been buried in an unmarked grave for 35 years the point is moot.
On the UN seat, which another poster raised, that is again more complicated as Ukraine and Belarus had their own seats at the UN. (This was a diplomatic finesse to ensure there would be more than one Communist member state.) So the Soviet seat was accepted as being Russia+ not theUSSR as a whole. That seat was still the subject of considerable diplomatic wrangling with the other 12 successor states.
I am really surprised at your ignorance. Russia inherited all of the treaties signed by the Soviet Union, I'd expect you to know this.
You could just admit you got it wrong, and that informal assurances were given in 1990.
Actually so what?
I might have a tiniest investment in this if Russia had kept in the slightest to its side of the bargain, by not for example violently invading neighbouring countries, who don't all border NATO.
NATO is dead so it's all moot, but even for the record ...
I was merely correcting the false statement that there was no promise ever given not to expand NATO eastwards.
Normally pointless pedantry (if that's what it is) is appreciated on pb.com but in this case I'm accused of being a Kremlin propagandist. I didn't bring the subject up.
I've posted a link to the actual historical record which speaks for itself, so if interested you can read it. If not then don't.
Actually you posted a link to an article by an academic supporting your case. Not the “historical record”.
On the other hand, I posted a link to Chatham House, a respected neutral expert institute, debunking your claim as a myth
But you’ve not responded to or engaged with the Chatham House view, simply reiterating your own position. I wonder why?
Still not much on X or anywhere I have noticed from Reform or Farage. And nothing at all on the great Trumpian issue of the day. This is a very large non barking dog.
Farage trying to work out how he extracts himself without his crazy friends trying to take his leadership away….
It couldn't be that we have just seen 'Peak Reform' could it? (29% on 12th Feb). Purely selfishly I hope not. I suggested peak 35% in the annual prediction contest.
The Trump psychology is interesting. It's almost as if he wants to live up to the worst possible caricature of himself.
Why?
I think it's just what he is. You've got this unholy mix in a single individual of narcissism, malevolence, ignorance, immaturity - unmitigated by any redeeming features whatsoever - and unfortunately he's the President of the United States. Hopefully people are waking up and there'll be a bit less lofty shrugging and "lol, TDR" about the place.
Still hard to really comprehend how a plurality of Americans took a look at him and thought he was leadership material. He seems to tap into some peculiar aspects of the American psyche like Johnson did here or Berlusconi did with Italians. There should be a word for it - the leader who can groom a nation, exploit its fatal flaw. Maybe the Germans have a word for it - they ought to!
Onto my third cuppa but it's like there's a hole in my stomach and my body ain't absorbing the fluid.
You need the traditional full English. Works wonders.
How much (additional) sauce is up to you.
If you are going that road, you need a pint of Guinness with it. 6am at Smithfield market…
Smithfield is now shut. And along with it that entire unique pub culture
Not been the same since the sorting office closed in the 90s. The combination of the large sorting office, large hopsital, both working 24 hours, plus the early morning meat market made that corner of London unique.
Indeed - although its rare anyone mourns a sorting office closing or half closing.
What do you do when letter volumes decline from 20bn a year in 2005 to roughly 6bn now (and decline is still10% a year) ?
I was responsible for prolonging its life by a couple of years, by pulling apart the business case for the closure.
The answer to the latter is that, visit any sorting office nowadays, and it is awash with Amazon packages, which take up a lot more space than letters.
"I want to reassure you that none of the bill increase will go towards executive director bonuses. Customers do not pay for bonuses; they are entirely funded by our investors."
Uh-huh.
Investor money which is not being spent on running the business or investing into infrastructure. Which instead is being paid for by consumers...
Yes it's a straightforward terminological inexactitude
There are 8 letters in the Telegraph today on the "negotiations" which are all pro- Zelensky and anti-Trump. The Tele has been increasingly pro-Reform and sympathetic to Trump and MAGA recently. Is this when the Tele withdraws support for Trump or when many of the readers withdraw subscriptions to the Tele?
It's like the 1930s when the right wing press spent much of the decade writing admiringly about Mussolini and Hitler but eventually fell into line with the national mood.
I hold no candle for Reform but let's not pretend they're exactly the same as the praetorian guard of MAGA.
Only 67% think Russia entirely or mostly responsible for the war.
Reform in noticeably more pro-putin than the other parties.
Russia isn’t entirely responsible for the war
NATO and the West promised not to push NATO to the frontiers of Russia, then we did exactly that. Then we wrestled over Ukraine itself, part of which is regarded as sacred Russia by Russians
Is Putin an evil murderous autocrat who launched a barbarous invasion causing a European tragedy and killing half a million purple? Yes yes yes. Does the west have *some* responsibility for stupidly goading and mishandling Russia? Also yes
ISTR you raising the idea of terrorist attacks in Red Square in a way that suggested they wouldn't exactly be abhorrent:
@Leon repeating the nonsense that "NATO promised not to expand". It did no such thing, indeed Russia itself seriously discussed joining.
Assurances were given by Germany, the US and others at the time of German reunification that NATO would not expand eastwards, but there was no formal promise.
Even if that were true, so what?
Just because some people in the past had a different view to some people currently in existence doesn't -say- justify, rape, murder, invasion and the like.
Well no of course not. But there is some truth in the idea that NATO promised not to expand in 1990
I hold no candle for Reform but let's not pretend they're exactly the same as the praetorian guard of MAGA.
Only 67% think Russia entirely or mostly responsible for the war.
Reform in noticeably more pro-putin than the other parties.
Russia isn’t entirely responsible for the war
NATO and the West promised not to push NATO to the frontiers of Russia, then we did exactly that. Then we wrestled over Ukraine itself, part of which is regarded as sacred Russia by Russians
Is Putin an evil murderous autocrat who launched a barbarous invasion causing a European tragedy and killing half a million purple? Yes yes yes. Does the west have *some* responsibility for stupidly goading and mishandling Russia? Also yes
ISTR you raising the idea of terrorist attacks in Red Square in a way that suggested they wouldn't exactly be abhorrent:
@Leon repeating the nonsense that "NATO promised not to expand". It did no such thing, indeed Russia itself seriously discussed joining.
Assurances were given by Germany, the US and others at the time of German reunification that NATO would not expand eastwards, but there was no formal promise.
AIR the very specific promise was that NATO forces would not be stationed in East Germany without the prior agreement of the USSR.
Which point became moot on the 31st December 1991.
U.S. Secretary of State James Baker’s famous “not one inch eastward” assurance about NATO expansion in his meeting with Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev on February 9, 1990, was part of a cascade of assurances about Soviet security given by Western leaders to Gorbachev and other Soviet officials throughout the process of German unification in 1990 and on into 1991, according to declassified U.S., Soviet, German, British and French documents posted today by the National Security Archive at George Washington University (http://nsarchive.gwu.edu).
The documents show that multiple national leaders were considering and rejecting Central and Eastern European membership in NATO as of early 1990 and through 1991, that discussions of NATO in the context of German unification negotiations in 1990 were not at all narrowly limited to the status of East German territory, and that subsequent Soviet and Russian complaints about being misled about NATO expansion were founded in written contemporaneous memcons and telcons at the highest levels.
The documents reinforce former CIA Director Robert Gates’s criticism of “pressing ahead with expansion of NATO eastward [in the 1990s], when Gorbachev and others were led to believe that wouldn’t happen.”[1] The key phrase, buttressed by the documents, is “led to believe.”
President George H.W. Bush had assured Gorbachev during the Malta summit in December 1989 that the U.S. would not take advantage (“I have not jumped up and down on the Berlin Wall”) of the revolutions in Eastern Europe to harm Soviet interests; but neither Bush nor Gorbachev at that point (or for that matter, West German Chancellor Helmut Kohl) expected so soon the collapse of East Germany or the speed of German unification.[2]
The first concrete assurances by Western leaders on NATO began on January 31, 1990, when West German Foreign Minister Hans-Dietrich Genscher opened the bidding with a major public speech at Tutzing, in Bavaria, on German unification. The U.S. Embassy in Bonn (see Document 1) informed Washington that Genscher made clear “that the changes in Eastern Europe and the German unification process must not lead to an ‘impairment of Soviet security interests.’ Therefore, NATO should rule out an ‘expansion of its territory towards the east, i.e. moving it closer to the Soviet borders.’”
Even if those documents are accepted, and there are question marks over some of them, again the key word is ‘Soviet.’ After 1991 there was no Soviet Union to threaten.
Any assurances on NATO beyond East Germany would have been about de-escalating the Cold War. But by 1991 the Russians hated Communism more than the Americans did and there was no reason to expect it would recur.
The FSB coup that put Putin into power was the result of a combination of factors, but suggesting NATO expansion was critical is I think to underplay the role of economics and especially megalomania.
"Even if those documents are accepted,"
Listen to yourselves
On rare occasions Leon is right.
People denying that any assurances were ever given that NATO wouldn't expand eastwards are actually helping Kremlin propaganda.
But, as they say, truth is the first casualty of war.
Again, I think you are misunderstanding what was said and why.
Nobody disputes that NATO promised no NATO soldiers would be stationed in East Germany without Soviet agreement in the event of reunification, and that Soviet agreement would not be presumed. That was due to the very sensitive position of Germany at the time and the diplomatic complexities of reunification.
Similarly, nobody disputes that there were discussions about what would happen were other countries to leave the Warsaw Pact. It was agreed the Soviet Union as a Pact member had an interest in those proceedings if they came about. This was, again, so as not to startle the horses over Soviet withdrawal from Eastern Europe which Gorbachev was having enough trouble getting past his hardliners as it was.
The issue is that some of those people you quote re-read those as a cast iron guarantee that NATO would not seek eastward expansion ever under any circumstances. Which they were not.
Had the USSR survived it may have been different, but Russia was a separate state (it actually declared independence from the USSR) and so were the countries surrounding it. The diplomatic discussions referred to, which again were not guarantees, became moot.
To give you another example, the position of American troops in Europe as a whole was discussed. America was actually willing to withdraw from Europe entirely in exchange for a diplomatic settlement, if that was needed. But it wasn’t (and Gorbachev said, in fact, he thought that would be unwise anyway for a whole host of reasons). If American forces had left under such a deal and there was a civil war in Italy or Germany, or indeed American peacekeepers needed in Northern Ireland, would that have been a reason to refuse them?
Russia did not object to the expansion of NATO until Kosovo, by which time it was experiencing major financial turmoil. And Ukraine wouldn’t have talked of joining but for Russian meddling in its politics and economy from as long ago as 2003. It’s really not true to say that cast iron pledges were broken and that security concerns were a factor. This is about the Russian government’s greed for an empire.
So no, Leon is not right in this, and we can all relax until the Orange Haired one goes off again.
It's a simple yes/no question: were promises (however non-binding and however different the context then) given to the USSR that NATO wouldn't expand eastward? Answer: yes.
If we start lying out of convenience, or just to disagree with Leon how does that help us?
Answer: yes, but not unqualified ones, which is what Lavrov is claiming.
And since, again, Russia is not the Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact has been buried in an unmarked grave for 35 years the point is moot.
On the UN seat, which another poster raised, that is again more complicated as Ukraine and Belarus had their own seats at the UN. (This was a diplomatic finesse to ensure there would be more than one Communist member state.) So the Soviet seat was accepted as being Russia+ not theUSSR as a whole. That seat was still the subject of considerable diplomatic wrangling with the other 12 successor states.
I am really surprised at your ignorance. Russia inherited all of the treaties signed by the Soviet Union, I'd expect you to know this.
You could just admit you got it wrong, and that informal assurances were given in 1990.
So what? Its 35 years ago. The world is very different. No government can bid a successor and all that.
In international relations it is different.
Of course any previous pledge can be repudiated, but the basis of interaction with foreign powers has to be good faith.
It just sticks in the craw to see Russia lie about something and claim that the west is not acting in good faith by ignoring their lie
Some of you may have noticed the improvement in de-aging in cinemas recently. This is because the tech has moved from "construct a virtual mesh and fit muscles, skin and hair over it" to "use machine learning*1 to predict each pixel". The former is very time consuming and takes longer and longer to make incremental changes, and has probably reached its limit now. The latter is increasingly important, requires less human intervention, can be (mostly) done in real time, and is superseding the former
This makes me recall the story of Phil Tippett, who was an expert in stop-motion animation and submitted a bid for Jurassic Park using stop-motion dinosaurs. While he was there he saw the other bids using computer animation. Afterwards he abandoned physical animation and moved to CGI, creating the bugs in Starship Troopers.
It’s almost certainly a GAN of some sort. (Or rather it would have been a GAN a few years ago - not sure what the current state of the art in image generation is these days.)
A few more observations on Centre Parcs: the staff are far more attractive than the customers.
All the middle-class career mums (who can afford the prices for half-term and have kids like Toby and Annabelle) are, quite frankly, Plain Jane - the sort that'd make Tilda Swinton look hot. I'd say largely 4s and 5s.. and, sadly, some 3s. My wife is easily the best looking.
The younger 20-somethings running the sports Plaza activities - the Phoebes, the Emmas etc - are all driving in from Westbury, Warminster and Frome, but are comfortably 8s and 9s. Fit, friendly, generous and good-spirited. And they remember your name.
Anyone, at least hardly any (staff or customers) are obese, though. And I've only seen a handful of dogs, all on leads, which is something of a relief.
Ooh, a Center Parcs pile-on - can I join in?
To come back on your specific point: yes, it's not a place for the beautiful - but to be fair, spend some time in the pool at Center Parcs and compare it to spending some time in the Sandcastle at Blackpool, and Center Parcs feels like Hollywood.
That aside: 1) Nottinghamshire is not a holiday destination. Nor is Bedfordshire. I cannot get excited about going to these places for a few days. Cumbria is a holiday destination, but arguably this is worse because you are in the most beautiful corner of England and can't actually get out and see any of it because you're in what feels like a prison camp and it's dreadfully difficult to leave. 2) On that subject however, the last time we went to the one in Nottinghamshire, I had a very nice time when we went for a walk when we stopped in Sherwood Forest on the way there. And the best activity I did when I was there was when I took the hire bike out of the site for a bike ride around Nottinghamshire. It was grey and overcast and there was a heavy wind and the coalfield scenery was a tad bleak - but I was free. Leaving the site I half expected massive inflatable white balls to come chasing after me. 3) It's stupidly expensive for what it is. As a family of five, at Easter, we're flying to Dubrovnik and have four nights half board in a hotel for the same cost as four nights at Center Parcs. It's the cost that's the real kicker. I mean, as a few days away, it's ok - but the opportunity cost is huge. There is so much more and better you could be doing for the same money. That's what makes an experience there properly miserable. 4) What sort of maniac know three weeks in advance what they want to be doing for every hour of their holiday? But you have to plan it out, because otherwise everything is booked up. There's always the sub-topical swimming paradise, of course. But there's a limit to how many times you can enjoyably do that on your holiday. 5) And again, the cost of the activities. I quite like a game of badminton. But I can get badminton at the local leisure centre. My holiday has turned into a really expensive version of hanging around my local leisure centre. I quite like those clambering-through-the-trees activities. But if you want to do that, there is a Go Ape only ten minutes drive from the site which you can do it for half the cost. The piss is being taken. And nothing which is ripping you off can ever be truly enjoyable. ...[cont]
A few more observations on Centre Parcs: the staff are far more attractive than the customers.
All the middle-class career mums (who can afford the prices for half-term and have kids like Toby and Annabelle) are, quite frankly, Plain Jane - the sort that'd make Tilda Swinton look hot. I'd say largely 4s and 5s.. and, sadly, some 3s. My wife is easily the best looking.
The younger 20-somethings running the sports Plaza activities - the Phoebes, the Emmas etc - are all driving in from Westbury, Warminster and Frome, but are comfortably 8s and 9s. Fit, friendly, generous and good-spirited. And they remember your name.
Anyone, at least hardly any (staff or customers) are obese, though. And I've only seen a handful of dogs, all on leads, which is something of a relief.
Ooh, a Center Parcs pile-on - can I join in?
To come back on your specific point: yes, it's not a place for the beautiful - but to be fair, spend some time in the pool at Center Parcs and compare it to spending some time in the Sandcastle at Blackpool, and Center Parcs feels like Hollywood.
That aside: 1) Nottinghamshire is not a holiday destination. Nor is Bedfordshire. I cannot get excited about going to these places for a few days. Cumbria is a holiday destination, but arguably this is worse because you are in the most beautiful corner of England and can't actually get out and see any of it because you're in what feels like a prison camp and it's dreadfully difficult to leave. 2) On that subject however, the last time we went to the one in Nottinghamshire, I had a very nice time when we went for a walk when we stopped in Sherwood Forest on the way there. And the best activity I did when I was there was when I took the hire bike out of the site for a bike ride around Nottinghamshire. It was grey and overcast and there was a heavy wind and the coalfield scenery was a tad bleak - but I was free. Leaving the site I half expected massive inflatable white balls to come chasing after me. 3) It's stupidly expensive for what it is. As a family of five, at Easter, we're flying to Dubrovnik and have four nights half board in a hotel for the same cost as four nights at Center Parcs. It's the cost that's the real kicker. I mean, as a few days away, it's ok - but the opportunity cost is huge. There is so much more and better you could be doing for the same money. That's what makes an experience there properly miserable. 4) What sort of maniac know three weeks in advance what they want to be doing for every hour of their holiday? But you have to plan it out, because otherwise everything is booked up. There's always the sub-topical swimming paradise, of course. But there's a limit to how many times you can enjoyably do that on your holiday. 5) And again, the cost of the activities. I quite like a game of badminton. But I can get badminton at the local leisure centre. My holiday has turned into a really expensive version of hanging around my local leisure centre. I quite like those clambering-through-the-trees activities. But if you want to do that, there is a Go Ape only ten minutes drive from the site which you can do it for half the cost. The piss is being taken. And nothing which is ripping you off can ever be truly enjoyable. ...[cont]
...[cont]... 6) Forests are nice. But they're nice because they're natural. Center parcs woodland contrives to feel totally artificial. 7) I quite like a mid-price chain restaurant. But I can get that in the Trafford Centre. When I'm on holiday I want something which makes me feel like I'm somewhere different. 8) Cycling. I like cycling. But this is an ersatz version of cycling where you don't really go anywhere. And again, it's stupidly expensive to hire bikes and the layout is such that you can't really not hire bikes. 9) The spelling. 10) I went to a Center Parcs in Belgium last year. I had my reservations. But it turned out to be brilliant. It was everything a UK Center Parcs should be. It was far cheaper, rather smaller and basically a base for exploring the surrounding area. You parked at the front car park, but they expected you to come and go. There was badminton etc, but it was pretty much always available and not ridiculously expensive. There was a big swimming pool - not quite as big as the UK ones - but essentially it was something to do while you were on site rather than expected to be the focus of your holiday.
All that said, the last time I went to Centerparcs I had a very nice time despite all that. It was a big family meet-up - 33 of us - and only happened because everyone was able to opt into it individually; if we'd started by trying to find a time and place for all 33 of us to go away, it would never have worked. So it at least has that going for it.
Still not much on X or anywhere I have noticed from Reform or Farage. And nothing at all on the great Trumpian issue of the day. This is a very large non barking dog.
Farage trying to work out how he extracts himself without his crazy friends trying to take his leadership away….
Farage's noisy adoration of Trump always struck me as an odd blind spot in his normally shrewd political perception. If you're going to bet the farm on another politician then you'd better ensure the guy is pretty special, even flawless. Why anyone would think that of Trump of all people is beyond my comprehension.
Still not much on X or anywhere I have noticed from Reform or Farage. And nothing at all on the great Trumpian issue of the day. This is a very large non barking dog.
Farage trying to work out how he extracts himself without his crazy friends trying to take his leadership away….
It couldn't be that we have just seen 'Peak Reform' could it? (29% on 12th Feb). Purely selfishly I hope not. I suggested peak 35% in the annual prediction contest.
We are entering the most dangerous period in Europe since WW2 and it's a time for serious politicians not snake oil salesmen. Hopefully the public will see Farage and other Trump apologists and Putin appeasers for what they are.
The Trump psychology is interesting. It's almost as if he wants to live up to the worst possible caricature of himself.
Why?
I think it's just what he is. You've got this unholy mix in a single individual of narcissism, malevolence, ignorance, immaturity - unmitigated by any redeeming features whatsoever - and unfortunately he's the President of the United States. Hopefully people are waking up and there'll be a bit less lofty shrugging and "lol, TDR" about the place.
Still hard to really comprehend how a plurality of Americans took a look at him and thought he was leadership material. He seems to tap into some peculiar aspects of the American psyche like Johnson did here or Berlusconi did with Italians. There should be a word for it - the leader who can groom a nation, exploit its fatal flaw. Maybe the Germans have a word for it - they ought to!
Some of you may have noticed the improvement in de-aging in cinemas recently. This is because the tech has moved from "construct a virtual mesh and fit muscles, skin and hair over it" to "use machine learning*1 to predict each pixel". The former is very time consuming and takes longer and longer to make incremental changes, and has probably reached its limit now. The latter is increasingly important, requires less human intervention, can be (mostly) done in real time, and is superseding the former
This makes me recall the story of Phil Tippett, who was an expert in stop-motion animation and submitted a bid for Jurassic Park using stop-motion dinosaurs. While he was there he saw the other bids using computer animation. Afterwards he abandoned physical animation and moved to CGI, creating the bugs in Starship Troopers.
It’s almost certainly a GAN of some sort. (Or rather it would have been a GAN a few years ago - not sure what the current state of the art in image generation is these days.)
The Trump psychology is interesting. It's almost as if he wants to live up to the worst possible caricature of himself.
Why?
I think it's just what he is. You've got this unholy mix in a single individual of narcissism, malevolence, ignorance, immaturity - unmitigated by any redeeming features whatsoever - and unfortunately he's the President of the United States. Hopefully people are waking up and there'll be a bit less lofty shrugging and "lol, TDR" about the place.
Still hard to really comprehend how a plurality of Americans took a look at him and thought he was leadership material. He seems to tap into some peculiar aspects of the American psyche like Johnson did here or Berlusconi did with Italians. There should be a word for it - the leader who can groom a nation, exploit its fatal flaw. Maybe the Germans have a word for it - they ought to!
Agree, of course. But there is one critical difference in the Europe perspective and the USA one. SFAICS for his supporters nothing Trump can do increases the chance of either war in the Americas or wars an isolationist USA engages in.
But there is lots he can do, and is doing which makes everyone in Europe worry more about multi sided war in Europe, not in 10 years but soon.
Trumpists in USA think about war in Europe like Europe (including sadly the UK) thinks about the wars in Sudan, eastern Congo etc.
The Trump psychology is interesting. It's almost as if he wants to live up to the worst possible caricature of himself.
Why?
I think it's just what he is. You've got this unholy mix in a single individual of narcissism, malevolence, ignorance, immaturity - unmitigated by any redeeming features whatsoever - and unfortunately he's the President of the United States. Hopefully people are waking up and there'll be a bit less lofty shrugging and "lol, TDR" about the place.
A few more observations on Centre Parcs: the staff are far more attractive than the customers.
All the middle-class career mums (who can afford the prices for half-term and have kids like Toby and Annabelle) are, quite frankly, Plain Jane - the sort that'd make Tilda Swinton look hot. I'd say largely 4s and 5s.. and, sadly, some 3s. My wife is easily the best looking.
The younger 20-somethings running the sports Plaza activities - the Phoebes, the Emmas etc - are all driving in from Westbury, Warminster and Frome, but are comfortably 8s and 9s. Fit, friendly, generous and good-spirited. And they remember your name.
Anyone, at least hardly any (staff or customers) are obese, though. And I've only seen a handful of dogs, all on leads, which is something of a relief.
Ooh, a Center Parcs pile-on - can I join in?
To come back on your specific point: yes, it's not a place for the beautiful - but to be fair, spend some time in the pool at Center Parcs and compare it to spending some time in the Sandcastle at Blackpool, and Center Parcs feels like Hollywood.
That aside: 1) Nottinghamshire is not a holiday destination. Nor is Bedfordshire. I cannot get excited about going to these places for a few days. Cumbria is a holiday destination, but arguably this is worse because you are in the most beautiful corner of England and can't actually get out and see any of it because you're in what feels like a prison camp and it's dreadfully difficult to leave. 2) On that subject however, the last time we went to the one in Nottinghamshire, I had a very nice time when we went for a walk when we stopped in Sherwood Forest on the way there. And the best activity I did when I was there was when I took the hire bike out of the site for a bike ride around Nottinghamshire. It was grey and overcast and there was a heavy wind and the coalfield scenery was a tad bleak - but I was free. Leaving the site I half expected massive inflatable white balls to come chasing after me. 3) It's stupidly expensive for what it is. As a family of five, at Easter, we're flying to Dubrovnik and have four nights half board in a hotel for the same cost as four nights at Center Parcs. It's the cost that's the real kicker. I mean, as a few days away, it's ok - but the opportunity cost is huge. There is so much more and better you could be doing for the same money. That's what makes an experience there properly miserable. 4) What sort of maniac know three weeks in advance what they want to be doing for every hour of their holiday? But you have to plan it out, because otherwise everything is booked up. There's always the sub-topical swimming paradise, of course. But there's a limit to how many times you can enjoyably do that on your holiday. 5) And again, the cost of the activities. I quite like a game of badminton. But I can get badminton at the local leisure centre. My holiday has turned into a really expensive version of hanging around my local leisure centre. I quite like those clambering-through-the-trees activities. But if you want to do that, there is a Go Ape only ten minutes drive from the site which you can do it for half the cost. The piss is being taken. And nothing which is ripping you off can ever be truly enjoyable. ...[cont]
...[cont]... 6) Forests are nice. But they're nice because they're natural. Center parcs woodland contrives to feel totally artificial. 7) I quite like a mid-price chain restaurant. But I can get that in the Trafford Centre. When I'm on holiday I want something which makes me feel like I'm somewhere different. 8) Cycling. I like cycling. But this is an ersatz version of cycling where you don't really go anywhere. And again, it's stupidly expensive to hire bikes and the layout is such that you can't really not hire bikes. 9) The spelling. 10) I went to a Center Parcs in Belgium last year. I had my reservations. But it turned out to be brilliant. It was everything a UK Center Parcs should be. It was far cheaper, rather smaller and basically a base for exploring the surrounding area. You parked at the front car park, but they expected you to come and go. There was badminton etc, but it was pretty much always available and not ridiculously expensive. There was a big swimming pool - not quite as big as the UK ones - but essentially it was something to do while you were on site rather than expected to be the focus of your holiday.
All that said, the last time I went to Centerparcs I had a very nice time despite all that. It was a big family meet-up - 33 of us - and only happened because everyone was able to opt into it individually; if we'd started by trying to find a time and place for all 33 of us to go away, it would never have worked. So it at least has that going for it.
I've never been to Centerparcs and it doesn't appeal. Quite apart from the fact that both "center" and "parcs" are misspelled, they seem very expensive for what is essentially a middle class Butlins without the seaside. Casino's lady ratings aside (any thoughts about others' appearance should be kept to oneself imho) his description of the experience does have a rather beak quality. Having said that, I did once attend a hard rock cover bands festival with my brother and his partner, at a stationary caravan park in Great Yarmouth, and that was a lot of fun.
A few more observations on Centre Parcs: the staff are far more attractive than the customers.
All the middle-class career mums (who can afford the prices for half-term and have kids like Toby and Annabelle) are, quite frankly, Plain Jane - the sort that'd make Tilda Swinton look hot. I'd say largely 4s and 5s.. and, sadly, some 3s. My wife is easily the best looking.
The younger 20-somethings running the sports Plaza activities - the Phoebes, the Emmas etc - are all driving in from Westbury, Warminster and Frome, but are comfortably 8s and 9s. Fit, friendly, generous and good-spirited. And they remember your name.
Anyone, at least hardly any (staff or customers) are obese, though. And I've only seen a handful of dogs, all on leads, which is something of a relief.
Welcome to Longleat forest. I always enjoy a walk round the perimeter fence of the Stalag Centre Parcs.
It’s also very much on topic - Trump, Ukraine, the wars to come
I can’t say this in a nice or unscary way so I’m just gonna say it. About half al hour ago I had a nice siesta. Waking up with that pleasantly rested wooziness from a perfectly timed mini-kip
Yet earlier I had a really nice banana. Just at that cusp of ripeness - super sweet but still with agreeble soft crunch
You see my problem. Which would I give up? It’s probably something we’ve all asked ourselves at some point - but been too afraid to admit it. Well I don’t care. Polite society be damned
If I had to give up either bananas or siestas which would it be?
I think, in the end, and I say this with real reluctance, it would be bananas. There are other fruits. But there’s only one restful afternoon doze-off
I know. Shoot me. But them’s the facts and if that gets me banned so be it
The Trump psychology is interesting. It's almost as if he wants to live up to the worst possible caricature of himself.
Why?
I think it's just what he is. You've got this unholy mix in a single individual of narcissism, malevolence, ignorance, immaturity - unmitigated by any redeeming features whatsoever - and unfortunately he's the President of the United States. Hopefully people are waking up and there'll be a bit less lofty shrugging and "lol, TDR" about the place.
I hold no candle for Reform but let's not pretend they're exactly the same as the praetorian guard of MAGA.
Only 67% think Russia entirely or mostly responsible for the war.
Reform in noticeably more pro-putin than the other parties.
Russia isn’t entirely responsible for the war
NATO and the West promised not to push NATO to the frontiers of Russia, then we did exactly that. Then we wrestled over Ukraine itself, part of which is regarded as sacred Russia by Russians
Is Putin an evil murderous autocrat who launched a barbarous invasion causing a European tragedy and killing half a million purple? Yes yes yes. Does the west have *some* responsibility for stupidly goading and mishandling Russia? Also yes
ISTR you raising the idea of terrorist attacks in Red Square in a way that suggested they wouldn't exactly be abhorrent:
@Leon repeating the nonsense that "NATO promised not to expand". It did no such thing, indeed Russia itself seriously discussed joining.
Assurances were given by Germany, the US and others at the time of German reunification that NATO would not expand eastwards, but there was no formal promise.
Even if that were true, so what?
Just because some people in the past had a different view to some people currently in existence doesn't -say- justify, rape, murder, invasion and the like.
Well no of course not. But there is some truth in the idea that NATO promised not to expand in 1990
I hold no candle for Reform but let's not pretend they're exactly the same as the praetorian guard of MAGA.
Only 67% think Russia entirely or mostly responsible for the war.
Reform in noticeably more pro-putin than the other parties.
Russia isn’t entirely responsible for the war
NATO and the West promised not to push NATO to the frontiers of Russia, then we did exactly that. Then we wrestled over Ukraine itself, part of which is regarded as sacred Russia by Russians
Is Putin an evil murderous autocrat who launched a barbarous invasion causing a European tragedy and killing half a million purple? Yes yes yes. Does the west have *some* responsibility for stupidly goading and mishandling Russia? Also yes
ISTR you raising the idea of terrorist attacks in Red Square in a way that suggested they wouldn't exactly be abhorrent:
@Leon repeating the nonsense that "NATO promised not to expand". It did no such thing, indeed Russia itself seriously discussed joining.
Assurances were given by Germany, the US and others at the time of German reunification that NATO would not expand eastwards, but there was no formal promise.
AIR the very specific promise was that NATO forces would not be stationed in East Germany without the prior agreement of the USSR.
Which point became moot on the 31st December 1991.
U.S. Secretary of State James Baker’s famous “not one inch eastward” assurance about NATO expansion in his meeting with Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev on February 9, 1990, was part of a cascade of assurances about Soviet security given by Western leaders to Gorbachev and other Soviet officials throughout the process of German unification in 1990 and on into 1991, according to declassified U.S., Soviet, German, British and French documents posted today by the National Security Archive at George Washington University (http://nsarchive.gwu.edu).
The documents show that multiple national leaders were considering and rejecting Central and Eastern European membership in NATO as of early 1990 and through 1991, that discussions of NATO in the context of German unification negotiations in 1990 were not at all narrowly limited to the status of East German territory, and that subsequent Soviet and Russian complaints about being misled about NATO expansion were founded in written contemporaneous memcons and telcons at the highest levels.
The documents reinforce former CIA Director Robert Gates’s criticism of “pressing ahead with expansion of NATO eastward [in the 1990s], when Gorbachev and others were led to believe that wouldn’t happen.”[1] The key phrase, buttressed by the documents, is “led to believe.”
President George H.W. Bush had assured Gorbachev during the Malta summit in December 1989 that the U.S. would not take advantage (“I have not jumped up and down on the Berlin Wall”) of the revolutions in Eastern Europe to harm Soviet interests; but neither Bush nor Gorbachev at that point (or for that matter, West German Chancellor Helmut Kohl) expected so soon the collapse of East Germany or the speed of German unification.[2]
The first concrete assurances by Western leaders on NATO began on January 31, 1990, when West German Foreign Minister Hans-Dietrich Genscher opened the bidding with a major public speech at Tutzing, in Bavaria, on German unification. The U.S. Embassy in Bonn (see Document 1) informed Washington that Genscher made clear “that the changes in Eastern Europe and the German unification process must not lead to an ‘impairment of Soviet security interests.’ Therefore, NATO should rule out an ‘expansion of its territory towards the east, i.e. moving it closer to the Soviet borders.’”
Even if those documents are accepted, and there are question marks over some of them, again the key word is ‘Soviet.’ After 1991 there was no Soviet Union to threaten.
Any assurances on NATO beyond East Germany would have been about de-escalating the Cold War. But by 1991 the Russians hated Communism more than the Americans did and there was no reason to expect it would recur.
The FSB coup that put Putin into power was the result of a combination of factors, but suggesting NATO expansion was critical is I think to underplay the role of economics and especially megalomania.
"Even if those documents are accepted,"
Listen to yourselves
On rare occasions Leon is right.
People denying that any assurances were ever given that NATO wouldn't expand eastwards are actually helping Kremlin propaganda.
But, as they say, truth is the first casualty of war.
Again, I think you are misunderstanding what was said and why.
Nobody disputes that NATO promised no NATO soldiers would be stationed in East Germany without Soviet agreement in the event of reunification, and that Soviet agreement would not be presumed. That was due to the very sensitive position of Germany at the time and the diplomatic complexities of reunification.
Similarly, nobody disputes that there were discussions about what would happen were other countries to leave the Warsaw Pact. It was agreed the Soviet Union as a Pact member had an interest in those proceedings if they came about. This was, again, so as not to startle the horses over Soviet withdrawal from Eastern Europe which Gorbachev was having enough trouble getting past his hardliners as it was.
The issue is that some of those people you quote re-read those as a cast iron guarantee that NATO would not seek eastward expansion ever under any circumstances. Which they were not.
Had the USSR survived it may have been different, but Russia was a separate state (it actually declared independence from the USSR) and so were the countries surrounding it. The diplomatic discussions referred to, which again were not guarantees, became moot.
To give you another example, the position of American troops in Europe as a whole was discussed. America was actually willing to withdraw from Europe entirely in exchange for a diplomatic settlement, if that was needed. But it wasn’t (and Gorbachev said, in fact, he thought that would be unwise anyway for a whole host of reasons). If American forces had left under such a deal and there was a civil war in Italy or Germany, or indeed American peacekeepers needed in Northern Ireland, would that have been a reason to refuse them?
Russia did not object to the expansion of NATO until Kosovo, by which time it was experiencing major financial turmoil. And Ukraine wouldn’t have talked of joining but for Russian meddling in its politics and economy from as long ago as 2003. It’s really not true to say that cast iron pledges were broken and that security concerns were a factor. This is about the Russian government’s greed for an empire.
So no, Leon is not right in this, and we can all relax until the Orange Haired one goes off again.
It's a simple yes/no question: were promises (however non-binding and however different the context then) given to the USSR that NATO wouldn't expand eastward? Answer: yes.
If we start lying out of convenience, or just to disagree with Leon how does that help us?
Answer: yes, but not unqualified ones, which is what Lavrov is claiming.
And since, again, Russia is not the Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact has been buried in an unmarked grave for 35 years the point is moot.
On the UN seat, which another poster raised, that is again more complicated as Ukraine and Belarus had their own seats at the UN. (This was a diplomatic finesse to ensure there would be more than one Communist member state.) So the Soviet seat was accepted as being Russia+ not theUSSR as a whole. That seat was still the subject of considerable diplomatic wrangling with the other 12 successor states.
I am really surprised at your ignorance. Russia inherited all of the treaties signed by the Soviet Union, I'd expect you to know this.
You could just admit you got it wrong, and that informal assurances were given in 1990.
II hate to continue this, but informal assurances are not treaties. They are not formal, and between individuals.
Both the countries and individuals involved were soon out of the picture. The idea that the assurances are somehow inherited by new governments is a little odd. That's why we write these things down and make them official.
Huh? of course assurances aren't treaties. what's your point?
If Scotland became independent, would all the understandings not in treaties that the UK has be immediately thrown in the bin?
I hold no candle for Reform but let's not pretend they're exactly the same as the praetorian guard of MAGA.
Only 67% think Russia entirely or mostly responsible for the war.
Reform in noticeably more pro-putin than the other parties.
Russia isn’t entirely responsible for the war
NATO and the West promised not to push NATO to the frontiers of Russia, then we did exactly that. Then we wrestled over Ukraine itself, part of which is regarded as sacred Russia by Russians
Is Putin an evil murderous autocrat who launched a barbarous invasion causing a European tragedy and killing half a million purple? Yes yes yes. Does the west have *some* responsibility for stupidly goading and mishandling Russia? Also yes
ISTR you raising the idea of terrorist attacks in Red Square in a way that suggested they wouldn't exactly be abhorrent:
@Leon repeating the nonsense that "NATO promised not to expand". It did no such thing, indeed Russia itself seriously discussed joining.
Assurances were given by Germany, the US and others at the time of German reunification that NATO would not expand eastwards, but there was no formal promise.
Even if that were true, so what?
Just because some people in the past had a different view to some people currently in existence doesn't -say- justify, rape, murder, invasion and the like.
Well no of course not. But there is some truth in the idea that NATO promised not to expand in 1990
I hold no candle for Reform but let's not pretend they're exactly the same as the praetorian guard of MAGA.
Only 67% think Russia entirely or mostly responsible for the war.
Reform in noticeably more pro-putin than the other parties.
Russia isn’t entirely responsible for the war
NATO and the West promised not to push NATO to the frontiers of Russia, then we did exactly that. Then we wrestled over Ukraine itself, part of which is regarded as sacred Russia by Russians
Is Putin an evil murderous autocrat who launched a barbarous invasion causing a European tragedy and killing half a million purple? Yes yes yes. Does the west have *some* responsibility for stupidly goading and mishandling Russia? Also yes
ISTR you raising the idea of terrorist attacks in Red Square in a way that suggested they wouldn't exactly be abhorrent:
@Leon repeating the nonsense that "NATO promised not to expand". It did no such thing, indeed Russia itself seriously discussed joining.
Assurances were given by Germany, the US and others at the time of German reunification that NATO would not expand eastwards, but there was no formal promise.
AIR the very specific promise was that NATO forces would not be stationed in East Germany without the prior agreement of the USSR.
Which point became moot on the 31st December 1991.
U.S. Secretary of State James Baker’s famous “not one inch eastward” assurance about NATO expansion in his meeting with Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev on February 9, 1990, was part of a cascade of assurances about Soviet security given by Western leaders to Gorbachev and other Soviet officials throughout the process of German unification in 1990 and on into 1991, according to declassified U.S., Soviet, German, British and French documents posted today by the National Security Archive at George Washington University (http://nsarchive.gwu.edu).
The documents show that multiple national leaders were considering and rejecting Central and Eastern European membership in NATO as of early 1990 and through 1991, that discussions of NATO in the context of German unification negotiations in 1990 were not at all narrowly limited to the status of East German territory, and that subsequent Soviet and Russian complaints about being misled about NATO expansion were founded in written contemporaneous memcons and telcons at the highest levels.
The documents reinforce former CIA Director Robert Gates’s criticism of “pressing ahead with expansion of NATO eastward [in the 1990s], when Gorbachev and others were led to believe that wouldn’t happen.”[1] The key phrase, buttressed by the documents, is “led to believe.”
President George H.W. Bush had assured Gorbachev during the Malta summit in December 1989 that the U.S. would not take advantage (“I have not jumped up and down on the Berlin Wall”) of the revolutions in Eastern Europe to harm Soviet interests; but neither Bush nor Gorbachev at that point (or for that matter, West German Chancellor Helmut Kohl) expected so soon the collapse of East Germany or the speed of German unification.[2]
The first concrete assurances by Western leaders on NATO began on January 31, 1990, when West German Foreign Minister Hans-Dietrich Genscher opened the bidding with a major public speech at Tutzing, in Bavaria, on German unification. The U.S. Embassy in Bonn (see Document 1) informed Washington that Genscher made clear “that the changes in Eastern Europe and the German unification process must not lead to an ‘impairment of Soviet security interests.’ Therefore, NATO should rule out an ‘expansion of its territory towards the east, i.e. moving it closer to the Soviet borders.’”
Even if those documents are accepted, and there are question marks over some of them, again the key word is ‘Soviet.’ After 1991 there was no Soviet Union to threaten.
Any assurances on NATO beyond East Germany would have been about de-escalating the Cold War. But by 1991 the Russians hated Communism more than the Americans did and there was no reason to expect it would recur.
The FSB coup that put Putin into power was the result of a combination of factors, but suggesting NATO expansion was critical is I think to underplay the role of economics and especially megalomania.
"Even if those documents are accepted,"
Listen to yourselves
On rare occasions Leon is right.
People denying that any assurances were ever given that NATO wouldn't expand eastwards are actually helping Kremlin propaganda.
But, as they say, truth is the first casualty of war.
Again, I think you are misunderstanding what was said and why.
Nobody disputes that NATO promised no NATO soldiers would be stationed in East Germany without Soviet agreement in the event of reunification, and that Soviet agreement would not be presumed. That was due to the very sensitive position of Germany at the time and the diplomatic complexities of reunification.
Similarly, nobody disputes that there were discussions about what would happen were other countries to leave the Warsaw Pact. It was agreed the Soviet Union as a Pact member had an interest in those proceedings if they came about. This was, again, so as not to startle the horses over Soviet withdrawal from Eastern Europe which Gorbachev was having enough trouble getting past his hardliners as it was.
The issue is that some of those people you quote re-read those as a cast iron guarantee that NATO would not seek eastward expansion ever under any circumstances. Which they were not.
Had the USSR survived it may have been different, but Russia was a separate state (it actually declared independence from the USSR) and so were the countries surrounding it. The diplomatic discussions referred to, which again were not guarantees, became moot.
To give you another example, the position of American troops in Europe as a whole was discussed. America was actually willing to withdraw from Europe entirely in exchange for a diplomatic settlement, if that was needed. But it wasn’t (and Gorbachev said, in fact, he thought that would be unwise anyway for a whole host of reasons). If American forces had left under such a deal and there was a civil war in Italy or Germany, or indeed American peacekeepers needed in Northern Ireland, would that have been a reason to refuse them?
Russia did not object to the expansion of NATO until Kosovo, by which time it was experiencing major financial turmoil. And Ukraine wouldn’t have talked of joining but for Russian meddling in its politics and economy from as long ago as 2003. It’s really not true to say that cast iron pledges were broken and that security concerns were a factor. This is about the Russian government’s greed for an empire.
So no, Leon is not right in this, and we can all relax until the Orange Haired one goes off again.
It's a simple yes/no question: were promises (however non-binding and however different the context then) given to the USSR that NATO wouldn't expand eastward? Answer: yes.
If we start lying out of convenience, or just to disagree with Leon how does that help us?
That’s a very selective wording of a question.
I don't see what the problem is, but go ahead and put the question in a way you're happy with. It's just a matter of historical record.
Does Ukraine being interested in joining NATO and NATO being willing to consider the possibility constitute a legitimate casus belli for Russia to invade and annex territory?
that's a completely different, indeed unrelated (except for Putin and apologists), question.
It's the question that matters. It's the issue that hangs over the entire discussion.
ah ok, so it's ok to make shit up if you're on the right side of the 'entire discussion'? Is that what you are saying?
let's say that I am asking a question that really, really, really doesn't matter at all - how would you ask it, rather than changing it to a completely different question that does matter? as you objected to my wording.
I haven't said it's OK to make shit up.
We are in a context where Russia and her supporters are seeking to justify a war of aggression against Ukraine. They do this in various ways. One way they do this is to talk about NATO expansion. That's the only reason we're talking about this. Otherwise, it would be a niche discussion for historians alone.
In that context, your wording -- "It's a simple yes/no question: were promises (however non-binding and however different the context then) given to the USSR that NATO wouldn't expand eastward?" -- collapses a complex situation into a simple dichotomy. You demand a yes/ no answer. You explicitly exclude the non-binding nature of any comments and the different context. The result you get is a "yes". That "yes" then feeds into a Russian narrative as, without its context, it seems to legitimise that entire narrative.
A better question would allow for something more than yes/no. It would address the context and the nature of the promises made. For example: "How did NATO discuss possible expansion with the Soviet Union when the Iron Curtain fell; and how did the situation around NATO expansion change in the following years as the Soviet Union collapsed?" Or one could just directly ask, "How have narratives about NATO evolved in Russia and how have they been used to justify expansionism?"
A few more observations on Centre Parcs: the staff are far more attractive than the customers.
All the middle-class career mums (who can afford the prices for half-term and have kids like Toby and Annabelle) are, quite frankly, Plain Jane - the sort that'd make Tilda Swinton look hot. I'd say largely 4s and 5s.. and, sadly, some 3s. My wife is easily the best looking.
The younger 20-somethings running the sports Plaza activities - the Phoebes, the Emmas etc - are all driving in from Westbury, Warminster and Frome, but are comfortably 8s and 9s. Fit, friendly, generous and good-spirited. And they remember your name.
Anyone, at least hardly any (staff or customers) are obese, though. And I've only seen a handful of dogs, all on leads, which is something of a relief.
Ooh, a Center Parcs pile-on - can I join in?
To come back on your specific point: yes, it's not a place for the beautiful - but to be fair, spend some time in the pool at Center Parcs and compare it to spending some time in the Sandcastle at Blackpool, and Center Parcs feels like Hollywood.
That aside: 1) Nottinghamshire is not a holiday destination. Nor is Bedfordshire. I cannot get excited about going to these places for a few days. Cumbria is a holiday destination, but arguably this is worse because you are in the most beautiful corner of England and can't actually get out and see any of it because you're in what feels like a prison camp and it's dreadfully difficult to leave. 2) On that subject however, the last time we went to the one in Nottinghamshire, I had a very nice time when we went for a walk when we stopped in Sherwood Forest on the way there. And the best activity I did when I was there was when I took the hire bike out of the site for a bike ride around Nottinghamshire. It was grey and overcast and there was a heavy wind and the coalfield scenery was a tad bleak - but I was free. Leaving the site I half expected massive inflatable white balls to come chasing after me. 3) It's stupidly expensive for what it is. As a family of five, at Easter, we're flying to Dubrovnik and have four nights half board in a hotel for the same cost as four nights at Center Parcs. It's the cost that's the real kicker. I mean, as a few days away, it's ok - but the opportunity cost is huge. There is so much more and better you could be doing for the same money. That's what makes an experience there properly miserable. 4) What sort of maniac know three weeks in advance what they want to be doing for every hour of their holiday? But you have to plan it out, because otherwise everything is booked up. There's always the sub-topical swimming paradise, of course. But there's a limit to how many times you can enjoyably do that on your holiday. 5) And again, the cost of the activities. I quite like a game of badminton. But I can get badminton at the local leisure centre. My holiday has turned into a really expensive version of hanging around my local leisure centre. I quite like those clambering-through-the-trees activities. But if you want to do that, there is a Go Ape only ten minutes drive from the site which you can do it for half the cost. The piss is being taken. And nothing which is ripping you off can ever be truly enjoyable. ...[cont]
...[cont]... 6) Forests are nice. But they're nice because they're natural. Center parcs woodland contrives to feel totally artificial. 7) I quite like a mid-price chain restaurant. But I can get that in the Trafford Centre. When I'm on holiday I want something which makes me feel like I'm somewhere different. 8) Cycling. I like cycling. But this is an ersatz version of cycling where you don't really go anywhere. And again, it's stupidly expensive to hire bikes and the layout is such that you can't really not hire bikes. 9) The spelling. 10) I went to a Center Parcs in Belgium last year. I had my reservations. But it turned out to be brilliant. It was everything a UK Center Parcs should be. It was far cheaper, rather smaller and basically a base for exploring the surrounding area. You parked at the front car park, but they expected you to come and go. There was badminton etc, but it was pretty much always available and not ridiculously expensive. There was a big swimming pool - not quite as big as the UK ones - but essentially it was something to do while you were on site rather than expected to be the focus of your holiday.
All that said, the last time I went to Centerparcs I had a very nice time despite all that. It was a big family meet-up - 33 of us - and only happened because everyone was able to opt into it individually; if we'd started by trying to find a time and place for all 33 of us to go away, it would never have worked. So it at least has that going for it.
I think the purpose of the Cumbria CP (now just in a new unitary Westmorland by the way) is to give people with too much money the sense that they are near somewhere nice while recapturing the old thrill of being in East Berlin. It is just enough outside the 'Lake District' that it doesn't trash too much for the rest of us, and links to it via the most horrible road in the county.
Meanwhile the misericords at Greystoke, the Loki stone at Kirkby Stephen, the Anglo Saxon tower of Morland and the ice cream at Abbots Lodge are tranquil and undisturbed.
Discussions about the withdrawal of US troops from all NATO states that joined the alliance after 1990 are one of the goals of the talks between Russia and the US, an Eastern European security official tells BILD https://x.com/Faytuks/status/1892267946673582196
How does that fit with Hegseth's lavish praise of Poland the other day, where the US presence was recently increasing?
Surely everyone can see that Poland is historically part of Russia already?
Discussions about the withdrawal of US troops from all NATO states that joined the alliance after 1990 are one of the goals of the talks between Russia and the US, an Eastern European security official tells BILD https://x.com/Faytuks/status/1892267946673582196
How does that fit with Hegseth's lavish praise of Poland the other day, where the US presence was recently increasing?
Surely everyone can see that Poland is historically part of Russia already?
Sorry, I've just leaked the new US position...
Large bits of Poland also used to be German....
Around 1800 there was no such place as Poland.
There was. It was just under occupation. But, there was undoubtedly a Polish nation.
It’s also very much on topic - Trump, Ukraine, the wars to come
I can’t say this in a nice or unscary way so I’m just gonna say it. About half al hour ago I had a nice siesta. Waking up with that pleasantly rested wooziness from a perfectly timed mini-kip
Yet earlier I had a really nice banana. Just at that cusp of ripeness - super sweet but still with agreeble soft crunch
You see my problem. Which would I give up? It’s probably something we’ve all asked ourselves at some point - but been too afraid to admit it. Well I don’t care. Polite society be damned
If I had to give up either bananas or siestas which would it be?
I think, in the end, and I say this with real reluctance, it would be bananas. There are other fruits. But there’s only one restful afternoon doze-off
I know. Shoot me. But them’s the facts and if that gets me banned so be it
Bananas. Similar, though not identical, substitutes exist. However there are few if any substitutes for siestas.
A few more observations on Centre Parcs: the staff are far more attractive than the customers.
All the middle-class career mums (who can afford the prices for half-term and have kids like Toby and Annabelle) are, quite frankly, Plain Jane - the sort that'd make Tilda Swinton look hot. I'd say largely 4s and 5s.. and, sadly, some 3s. My wife is easily the best looking.
The younger 20-somethings running the sports Plaza activities - the Phoebes, the Emmas etc - are all driving in from Westbury, Warminster and Frome, but are comfortably 8s and 9s. Fit, friendly, generous and good-spirited. And they remember your name.
Anyone, at least hardly any (staff or customers) are obese, though. And I've only seen a handful of dogs, all on leads, which is something of a relief.
Ooh, a Center Parcs pile-on - can I join in?
To come back on your specific point: yes, it's not a place for the beautiful - but to be fair, spend some time in the pool at Center Parcs and compare it to spending some time in the Sandcastle at Blackpool, and Center Parcs feels like Hollywood.
That aside: 1) Nottinghamshire is not a holiday destination. Nor is Bedfordshire. I cannot get excited about going to these places for a few days. Cumbria is a holiday destination, but arguably this is worse because you are in the most beautiful corner of England and can't actually get out and see any of it because you're in what feels like a prison camp and it's dreadfully difficult to leave. 2) On that subject however, the last time we went to the one in Nottinghamshire, I had a very nice time when we went for a walk when we stopped in Sherwood Forest on the way there. And the best activity I did when I was there was when I took the hire bike out of the site for a bike ride around Nottinghamshire. It was grey and overcast and there was a heavy wind and the coalfield scenery was a tad bleak - but I was free. Leaving the site I half expected massive inflatable white balls to come chasing after me. 3) It's stupidly expensive for what it is. As a family of five, at Easter, we're flying to Dubrovnik and have four nights half board in a hotel for the same cost as four nights at Center Parcs. It's the cost that's the real kicker. I mean, as a few days away, it's ok - but the opportunity cost is huge. There is so much more and better you could be doing for the same money. That's what makes an experience there properly miserable. 4) What sort of maniac know three weeks in advance what they want to be doing for every hour of their holiday? But you have to plan it out, because otherwise everything is booked up. There's always the sub-topical swimming paradise, of course. But there's a limit to how many times you can enjoyably do that on your holiday. 5) And again, the cost of the activities. I quite like a game of badminton. But I can get badminton at the local leisure centre. My holiday has turned into a really expensive version of hanging around my local leisure centre. I quite like those clambering-through-the-trees activities. But if you want to do that, there is a Go Ape only ten minutes drive from the site which you can do it for half the cost. The piss is being taken. And nothing which is ripping you off can ever be truly enjoyable. ...[cont]
...[cont]... 6) Forests are nice. But they're nice because they're natural. Center parcs woodland contrives to feel totally artificial. 7) I quite like a mid-price chain restaurant. But I can get that in the Trafford Centre. When I'm on holiday I want something which makes me feel like I'm somewhere different. 8) Cycling. I like cycling. But this is an ersatz version of cycling where you don't really go anywhere. And again, it's stupidly expensive to hire bikes and the layout is such that you can't really not hire bikes. 9) The spelling. 10) I went to a Center Parcs in Belgium last year. I had my reservations. But it turned out to be brilliant. It was everything a UK Center Parcs should be. It was far cheaper, rather smaller and basically a base for exploring the surrounding area. You parked at the front car park, but they expected you to come and go. There was badminton etc, but it was pretty much always available and not ridiculously expensive. There was a big swimming pool - not quite as big as the UK ones - but essentially it was something to do while you were on site rather than expected to be the focus of your holiday.
All that said, the last time I went to Centerparcs I had a very nice time despite all that. It was a big family meet-up - 33 of us - and only happened because everyone was able to opt into it individually; if we'd started by trying to find a time and place for all 33 of us to go away, it would never have worked. So it at least has that going for it.
I've never been to Centerparcs and it doesn't appeal. Quite apart from the fact that both "center" and "parcs" are misspelled, they seem very expensive for what is essentially a middle class Butlins without the seaside. Casino's lady ratings aside (any thoughts about others' appearance should be kept to oneself imho) his description of the experience does have a rather beak quality. Having said that, I did once attend a hard rock cover bands festival with my brother and his partner, at a stationary caravan park in Great Yarmouth, and that was a lot of fun.
Unfortunately there number of hard rock covers bands playing at Center Parcs can be counted on the fingers of no hands.
It's not that it's impossible to have fun at a holiday park. Your experience demonstrates that. But your experience is because there's something fun there. Butlins, though it may not to be everybody's tastes, is fun. Sandy Balls in the New Forest isn't fun per se, but it's in quite a fun place. Center Parcs has had all the fun sucked out of it. If it were a breakfast it would be granola.
And while I agree judging people by their looks is a bit crass, there is a time and a place for a bit crass, in moderation, and an anonymous web forum is probably it. And it's also illustrative at the sort of mood that a Center Parcs puts you in.
I hold no candle for Reform but let's not pretend they're exactly the same as the praetorian guard of MAGA.
Only 67% think Russia entirely or mostly responsible for the war.
Reform in noticeably more pro-putin than the other parties.
Russia isn’t entirely responsible for the war
NATO and the West promised not to push NATO to the frontiers of Russia, then we did exactly that. Then we wrestled over Ukraine itself, part of which is regarded as sacred Russia by Russians
Is Putin an evil murderous autocrat who launched a barbarous invasion causing a European tragedy and killing half a million purple? Yes yes yes. Does the west have *some* responsibility for stupidly goading and mishandling Russia? Also yes
ISTR you raising the idea of terrorist attacks in Red Square in a way that suggested they wouldn't exactly be abhorrent:
@Leon repeating the nonsense that "NATO promised not to expand". It did no such thing, indeed Russia itself seriously discussed joining.
Assurances were given by Germany, the US and others at the time of German reunification that NATO would not expand eastwards, but there was no formal promise.
Even if that were true, so what?
Just because some people in the past had a different view to some people currently in existence doesn't -say- justify, rape, murder, invasion and the like.
Well no of course not. But there is some truth in the idea that NATO promised not to expand in 1990
I hold no candle for Reform but let's not pretend they're exactly the same as the praetorian guard of MAGA.
Only 67% think Russia entirely or mostly responsible for the war.
Reform in noticeably more pro-putin than the other parties.
Russia isn’t entirely responsible for the war
NATO and the West promised not to push NATO to the frontiers of Russia, then we did exactly that. Then we wrestled over Ukraine itself, part of which is regarded as sacred Russia by Russians
Is Putin an evil murderous autocrat who launched a barbarous invasion causing a European tragedy and killing half a million purple? Yes yes yes. Does the west have *some* responsibility for stupidly goading and mishandling Russia? Also yes
ISTR you raising the idea of terrorist attacks in Red Square in a way that suggested they wouldn't exactly be abhorrent:
@Leon repeating the nonsense that "NATO promised not to expand". It did no such thing, indeed Russia itself seriously discussed joining.
Assurances were given by Germany, the US and others at the time of German reunification that NATO would not expand eastwards, but there was no formal promise.
AIR the very specific promise was that NATO forces would not be stationed in East Germany without the prior agreement of the USSR.
Which point became moot on the 31st December 1991.
U.S. Secretary of State James Baker’s famous “not one inch eastward” assurance about NATO expansion in his meeting with Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev on February 9, 1990, was part of a cascade of assurances about Soviet security given by Western leaders to Gorbachev and other Soviet officials throughout the process of German unification in 1990 and on into 1991, according to declassified U.S., Soviet, German, British and French documents posted today by the National Security Archive at George Washington University (http://nsarchive.gwu.edu).
The documents show that multiple national leaders were considering and rejecting Central and Eastern European membership in NATO as of early 1990 and through 1991, that discussions of NATO in the context of German unification negotiations in 1990 were not at all narrowly limited to the status of East German territory, and that subsequent Soviet and Russian complaints about being misled about NATO expansion were founded in written contemporaneous memcons and telcons at the highest levels.
The documents reinforce former CIA Director Robert Gates’s criticism of “pressing ahead with expansion of NATO eastward [in the 1990s], when Gorbachev and others were led to believe that wouldn’t happen.”[1] The key phrase, buttressed by the documents, is “led to believe.”
President George H.W. Bush had assured Gorbachev during the Malta summit in December 1989 that the U.S. would not take advantage (“I have not jumped up and down on the Berlin Wall”) of the revolutions in Eastern Europe to harm Soviet interests; but neither Bush nor Gorbachev at that point (or for that matter, West German Chancellor Helmut Kohl) expected so soon the collapse of East Germany or the speed of German unification.[2]
The first concrete assurances by Western leaders on NATO began on January 31, 1990, when West German Foreign Minister Hans-Dietrich Genscher opened the bidding with a major public speech at Tutzing, in Bavaria, on German unification. The U.S. Embassy in Bonn (see Document 1) informed Washington that Genscher made clear “that the changes in Eastern Europe and the German unification process must not lead to an ‘impairment of Soviet security interests.’ Therefore, NATO should rule out an ‘expansion of its territory towards the east, i.e. moving it closer to the Soviet borders.’”
Even if those documents are accepted, and there are question marks over some of them, again the key word is ‘Soviet.’ After 1991 there was no Soviet Union to threaten.
Any assurances on NATO beyond East Germany would have been about de-escalating the Cold War. But by 1991 the Russians hated Communism more than the Americans did and there was no reason to expect it would recur.
The FSB coup that put Putin into power was the result of a combination of factors, but suggesting NATO expansion was critical is I think to underplay the role of economics and especially megalomania.
"Even if those documents are accepted,"
Listen to yourselves
On rare occasions Leon is right.
People denying that any assurances were ever given that NATO wouldn't expand eastwards are actually helping Kremlin propaganda.
But, as they say, truth is the first casualty of war.
Again, I think you are misunderstanding what was said and why.
Nobody disputes that NATO promised no NATO soldiers would be stationed in East Germany without Soviet agreement in the event of reunification, and that Soviet agreement would not be presumed. That was due to the very sensitive position of Germany at the time and the diplomatic complexities of reunification.
Similarly, nobody disputes that there were discussions about what would happen were other countries to leave the Warsaw Pact. It was agreed the Soviet Union as a Pact member had an interest in those proceedings if they came about. This was, again, so as not to startle the horses over Soviet withdrawal from Eastern Europe which Gorbachev was having enough trouble getting past his hardliners as it was.
The issue is that some of those people you quote re-read those as a cast iron guarantee that NATO would not seek eastward expansion ever under any circumstances. Which they were not.
Had the USSR survived it may have been different, but Russia was a separate state (it actually declared independence from the USSR) and so were the countries surrounding it. The diplomatic discussions referred to, which again were not guarantees, became moot.
To give you another example, the position of American troops in Europe as a whole was discussed. America was actually willing to withdraw from Europe entirely in exchange for a diplomatic settlement, if that was needed. But it wasn’t (and Gorbachev said, in fact, he thought that would be unwise anyway for a whole host of reasons). If American forces had left under such a deal and there was a civil war in Italy or Germany, or indeed American peacekeepers needed in Northern Ireland, would that have been a reason to refuse them?
Russia did not object to the expansion of NATO until Kosovo, by which time it was experiencing major financial turmoil. And Ukraine wouldn’t have talked of joining but for Russian meddling in its politics and economy from as long ago as 2003. It’s really not true to say that cast iron pledges were broken and that security concerns were a factor. This is about the Russian government’s greed for an empire.
So no, Leon is not right in this, and we can all relax until the Orange Haired one goes off again.
It's a simple yes/no question: were promises (however non-binding and however different the context then) given to the USSR that NATO wouldn't expand eastward? Answer: yes.
If we start lying out of convenience, or just to disagree with Leon how does that help us?
Answer: yes, but not unqualified ones, which is what Lavrov is claiming.
And since, again, Russia is not the Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact has been buried in an unmarked grave for 35 years the point is moot.
On the UN seat, which another poster raised, that is again more complicated as Ukraine and Belarus had their own seats at the UN. (This was a diplomatic finesse to ensure there would be more than one Communist member state.) So the Soviet seat was accepted as being Russia+ not theUSSR as a whole. That seat was still the subject of considerable diplomatic wrangling with the other 12 successor states.
I am really surprised at your ignorance. Russia inherited all of the treaties signed by the Soviet Union, I'd expect you to know this.
You could just admit you got it wrong, and that informal assurances were given in 1990.
Actually so what?
I might have a tiniest investment in this if Russia had kept in the slightest to its side of the bargain, by not for example violently invading neighbouring countries, who don't all border NATO.
NATO is dead so it's all moot, but even for the record ...
I was merely correcting the false statement that there was no promise ever given not to expand NATO eastwards.
Normally pointless pedantry (if that's what it is) is appreciated on pb.com but in this case I'm accused of being a Kremlin propagandist. I didn't bring the subject up.
I've posted a link to the actual historical record which speaks for itself, so if interested you can read it. If not then don't.
Actually you posted a link to an article by an academic supporting your case. Not the “historical record”.
On the other hand, I posted a link to Chatham House, a respected neutral expert institute, debunking your claim as a myth
But you’ve not responded to or engaged with the Chatham House view, simply reiterating your own position. I wonder why?
As I understand it kamski made a specific point, which is that Russia has a legitimate grievance that it was led to believe NATO would resist the natural and reasonable desires of post-Soviet states to join, and that this resistance didn't actually come about.
I haven't anywhere seen kamski make the utterly illogical leap (that Putin has made) that any legitimate grievance justified a brutal invasion of a sovereign nation.
Kamski is simply challenging the point that because this wasn't promised in a formal way we can deny any assurances were ever made. I don't honestly know the truth of the matter, but can see the futility in our defence being "noone said that!" There are plenty of better ways we can defend NATO expansion, not least national sovereignty.
It’s also very much on topic - Trump, Ukraine, the wars to come
I can’t say this in a nice or unscary way so I’m just gonna say it. About half al hour ago I had a nice siesta. Waking up with that pleasantly rested wooziness from a perfectly timed mini-kip
Yet earlier I had a really nice banana. Just at that cusp of ripeness - super sweet but still with agreeble soft crunch
You see my problem. Which would I give up? It’s probably something we’ve all asked ourselves at some point - but been too afraid to admit it. Well I don’t care. Polite society be damned
If I had to give up either bananas or siestas which would it be?
I think, in the end, and I say this with real reluctance, it would be bananas. There are other fruits. But there’s only one restful afternoon doze-off
I know. Shoot me. But them’s the facts and if that gets me banned so be it
Bananas don't crunch. Wrong word. Siesta every time.
Donald Trump on Air Force 1: “We had a rare earth deal, and Ukraine agreed to it, more or less.. ... And then Scott Besset actually went there and was treated rather rudely, because essentially they told him no. Zelenskyy was sleeping and unavailable to meet him (?) He traveled many hours on the train, which is a dangerous trip, and we're talking about the Secretary of the Treasury. He went there to get a document signed, and when he got there, he came back empty. They wouldn't sign the document. ... I think I'm going to resurrect the deal, or things are not going to make them too happy. And look, it's time for elections. Haven't had an election in a long time."
It’s also very much on topic - Trump, Ukraine, the wars to come
I can’t say this in a nice or unscary way so I’m just gonna say it. About half al hour ago I had a nice siesta. Waking up with that pleasantly rested wooziness from a perfectly timed mini-kip
Yet earlier I had a really nice banana. Just at that cusp of ripeness - super sweet but still with agreeble soft crunch
You see my problem. Which would I give up? It’s probably something we’ve all asked ourselves at some point - but been too afraid to admit it. Well I don’t care. Polite society be damned
If I had to give up either bananas or siestas which would it be?
I think, in the end, and I say this with real reluctance, it would be bananas. There are other fruits. But there’s only one restful afternoon doze-off
I know. Shoot me. But them’s the facts and if that gets me banned so be it
Bananas don't crunch. Wrong word. Siesta every time.
Yes - easy answer. What sort of a maniac, when offered the choice between a banana or a little snooze, goes for the banana?
A few more observations on Centre Parcs: the staff are far more attractive than the customers.
All the middle-class career mums (who can afford the prices for half-term and have kids like Toby and Annabelle) are, quite frankly, Plain Jane - the sort that'd make Tilda Swinton look hot. I'd say largely 4s and 5s.. and, sadly, some 3s. My wife is easily the best looking.
The younger 20-somethings running the sports Plaza activities - the Phoebes, the Emmas etc - are all driving in from Westbury, Warminster and Frome, but are comfortably 8s and 9s. Fit, friendly, generous and good-spirited. And they remember your name.
Anyone, at least hardly any (staff or customers) are obese, though. And I've only seen a handful of dogs, all on leads, which is something of a relief.
Ooh, a Center Parcs pile-on - can I join in?
To come back on your specific point: yes, it's not a place for the beautiful - but to be fair, spend some time in the pool at Center Parcs and compare it to spending some time in the Sandcastle at Blackpool, and Center Parcs feels like Hollywood.
That aside: 1) Nottinghamshire is not a holiday destination. Nor is Bedfordshire. I cannot get excited about going to these places for a few days. Cumbria is a holiday destination, but arguably this is worse because you are in the most beautiful corner of England and can't actually get out and see any of it because you're in what feels like a prison camp and it's dreadfully difficult to leave. 2) On that subject however, the last time we went to the one in Nottinghamshire, I had a very nice time when we went for a walk when we stopped in Sherwood Forest on the way there. And the best activity I did when I was there was when I took the hire bike out of the site for a bike ride around Nottinghamshire. It was grey and overcast and there was a heavy wind and the coalfield scenery was a tad bleak - but I was free. Leaving the site I half expected massive inflatable white balls to come chasing after me. 3) It's stupidly expensive for what it is. As a family of five, at Easter, we're flying to Dubrovnik and have four nights half board in a hotel for the same cost as four nights at Center Parcs. It's the cost that's the real kicker. I mean, as a few days away, it's ok - but the opportunity cost is huge. There is so much more and better you could be doing for the same money. That's what makes an experience there properly miserable. 4) What sort of maniac know three weeks in advance what they want to be doing for every hour of their holiday? But you have to plan it out, because otherwise everything is booked up. There's always the sub-topical swimming paradise, of course. But there's a limit to how many times you can enjoyably do that on your holiday. 5) And again, the cost of the activities. I quite like a game of badminton. But I can get badminton at the local leisure centre. My holiday has turned into a really expensive version of hanging around my local leisure centre. I quite like those clambering-through-the-trees activities. But if you want to do that, there is a Go Ape only ten minutes drive from the site which you can do it for half the cost. The piss is being taken. And nothing which is ripping you off can ever be truly enjoyable. ...[cont]
Some of you may have noticed the improvement in de-aging in cinemas recently. This is because the tech has moved from "construct a virtual mesh and fit muscles, skin and hair over it" to "use machine learning*1 to predict each pixel". The former is very time consuming and takes longer and longer to make incremental changes, and has probably reached its limit now. The latter is increasingly important, requires less human intervention, can be (mostly) done in real time, and is superseding the former
This makes me recall the story of Phil Tippett, who was an expert in stop-motion animation and submitted a bid for Jurassic Park using stop-motion dinosaurs. While he was there he saw the other bids using computer animation. Afterwards he abandoned physical animation and moved to CGI, creating the bugs in Starship Troopers.
It’s almost certainly a GAN of some sort. (Or rather it would have been a GAN a few years ago - not sure what the current state of the art in image generation is these days.)
Insofar I as I can find out with a brief google and copilot, I think you're right. The effects company is Metaphysic AI, and their website mentions a "cutting-edge Neural Performance Architecture", which involves " cutting-edge neural networks". If they have two or more competing for the right answer then yes, it's a GAN
A few more observations on Centre Parcs: the staff are far more attractive than the customers.
All the middle-class career mums (who can afford the prices for half-term and have kids like Toby and Annabelle) are, quite frankly, Plain Jane - the sort that'd make Tilda Swinton look hot. I'd say largely 4s and 5s.. and, sadly, some 3s. My wife is easily the best looking.
The younger 20-somethings running the sports Plaza activities - the Phoebes, the Emmas etc - are all driving in from Westbury, Warminster and Frome, but are comfortably 8s and 9s. Fit, friendly, generous and good-spirited. And they remember your name.
Anyone, at least hardly any (staff or customers) are obese, though. And I've only seen a handful of dogs, all on leads, which is something of a relief.
Ooh, a Center Parcs pile-on - can I join in?
To come back on your specific point: yes, it's not a place for the beautiful - but to be fair, spend some time in the pool at Center Parcs and compare it to spending some time in the Sandcastle at Blackpool, and Center Parcs feels like Hollywood.
That aside: 1) Nottinghamshire is not a holiday destination. Nor is Bedfordshire. I cannot get excited about going to these places for a few days. Cumbria is a holiday destination, but arguably this is worse because you are in the most beautiful corner of England and can't actually get out and see any of it because you're in what feels like a prison camp and it's dreadfully difficult to leave. 2) On that subject however, the last time we went to the one in Nottinghamshire, I had a very nice time when we went for a walk when we stopped in Sherwood Forest on the way there. And the best activity I did when I was there was when I took the hire bike out of the site for a bike ride around Nottinghamshire. It was grey and overcast and there was a heavy wind and the coalfield scenery was a tad bleak - but I was free. Leaving the site I half expected massive inflatable white balls to come chasing after me. 3) It's stupidly expensive for what it is. As a family of five, at Easter, we're flying to Dubrovnik and have four nights half board in a hotel for the same cost as four nights at Center Parcs. It's the cost that's the real kicker. I mean, as a few days away, it's ok - but the opportunity cost is huge. There is so much more and better you could be doing for the same money. That's what makes an experience there properly miserable. 4) What sort of maniac know three weeks in advance what they want to be doing for every hour of their holiday? But you have to plan it out, because otherwise everything is booked up. There's always the sub-topical swimming paradise, of course. But there's a limit to how many times you can enjoyably do that on your holiday. 5) And again, the cost of the activities. I quite like a game of badminton. But I can get badminton at the local leisure centre. My holiday has turned into a really expensive version of hanging around my local leisure centre. I quite like those clambering-through-the-trees activities. But if you want to do that, there is a Go Ape only ten minutes drive from the site which you can do it for half the cost. The piss is being taken. And nothing which is ripping you off can ever be truly enjoyable. ...[cont]
...[cont]... 6) Forests are nice. But they're nice because they're natural. Center parcs woodland contrives to feel totally artificial. 7) I quite like a mid-price chain restaurant. But I can get that in the Trafford Centre. When I'm on holiday I want something which makes me feel like I'm somewhere different. 8) Cycling. I like cycling. But this is an ersatz version of cycling where you don't really go anywhere. And again, it's stupidly expensive to hire bikes and the layout is such that you can't really not hire bikes. 9) The spelling. 10) I went to a Center Parcs in Belgium last year. I had my reservations. But it turned out to be brilliant. It was everything a UK Center Parcs should be. It was far cheaper, rather smaller and basically a base for exploring the surrounding area. You parked at the front car park, but they expected you to come and go. There was badminton etc, but it was pretty much always available and not ridiculously expensive. There was a big swimming pool - not quite as big as the UK ones - but essentially it was something to do while you were on site rather than expected to be the focus of your holiday.
All that said, the last time I went to Centerparcs I had a very nice time despite all that. It was a big family meet-up - 33 of us - and only happened because everyone was able to opt into it individually; if we'd started by trying to find a time and place for all 33 of us to go away, it would never have worked. So it at least has that going for it.
Yes, that's the advice we've had: go for Belgium or the Netherlands. The same product (or better) but cheaper and more flexible.
Nevertheless, given we are tired parents with a 2-year old and 6-year old who don't travel well and have a low boredom threshold it's been perfect for that, and for easy access to and from.
Also, I quite like the way it forces me to cycle with my kids attached to the bike: I need more of that.
It’s also very much on topic - Trump, Ukraine, the wars to come
I can’t say this in a nice or unscary way so I’m just gonna say it. About half al hour ago I had a nice siesta. Waking up with that pleasantly rested wooziness from a perfectly timed mini-kip
Yet earlier I had a really nice banana. Just at that cusp of ripeness - super sweet but still with agreeble soft crunch
You see my problem. Which would I give up? It’s probably something we’ve all asked ourselves at some point - but been too afraid to admit it. Well I don’t care. Polite society be damned
If I had to give up either bananas or siestas which would it be?
I think, in the end, and I say this with real reluctance, it would be bananas. There are other fruits. But there’s only one restful afternoon doze-off
I know. Shoot me. But them’s the facts and if that gets me banned so be it
Bananas don't crunch. Wrong word. Siesta every time.
A few more observations on Centre Parcs: the staff are far more attractive than the customers.
All the middle-class career mums (who can afford the prices for half-term and have kids like Toby and Annabelle) are, quite frankly, Plain Jane - the sort that'd make Tilda Swinton look hot. I'd say largely 4s and 5s.. and, sadly, some 3s. My wife is easily the best looking.
The younger 20-somethings running the sports Plaza activities - the Phoebes, the Emmas etc - are all driving in from Westbury, Warminster and Frome, but are comfortably 8s and 9s. Fit, friendly, generous and good-spirited. And they remember your name.
Anyone, at least hardly any (staff or customers) are obese, though. And I've only seen a handful of dogs, all on leads, which is something of a relief.
Ooh, a Center Parcs pile-on - can I join in?
To come back on your specific point: yes, it's not a place for the beautiful - but to be fair, spend some time in the pool at Center Parcs and compare it to spending some time in the Sandcastle at Blackpool, and Center Parcs feels like Hollywood.
That aside: 1) Nottinghamshire is not a holiday destination. Nor is Bedfordshire. I cannot get excited about going to these places for a few days. Cumbria is a holiday destination, but arguably this is worse because you are in the most beautiful corner of England and can't actually get out and see any of it because you're in what feels like a prison camp and it's dreadfully difficult to leave. 2) On that subject however, the last time we went to the one in Nottinghamshire, I had a very nice time when we went for a walk when we stopped in Sherwood Forest on the way there. And the best activity I did when I was there was when I took the hire bike out of the site for a bike ride around Nottinghamshire. It was grey and overcast and there was a heavy wind and the coalfield scenery was a tad bleak - but I was free. Leaving the site I half expected massive inflatable white balls to come chasing after me. 3) It's stupidly expensive for what it is. As a family of five, at Easter, we're flying to Dubrovnik and have four nights half board in a hotel for the same cost as four nights at Center Parcs. It's the cost that's the real kicker. I mean, as a few days away, it's ok - but the opportunity cost is huge. There is so much more and better you could be doing for the same money. That's what makes an experience there properly miserable. 4) What sort of maniac know three weeks in advance what they want to be doing for every hour of their holiday? But you have to plan it out, because otherwise everything is booked up. There's always the sub-topical swimming paradise, of course. But there's a limit to how many times you can enjoyably do that on your holiday. 5) And again, the cost of the activities. I quite like a game of badminton. But I can get badminton at the local leisure centre. My holiday has turned into a really expensive version of hanging around my local leisure centre. I quite like those clambering-through-the-trees activities. But if you want to do that, there is a Go Ape only ten minutes drive from the site which you can do it for half the cost. The piss is being taken. And nothing which is ripping you off can ever be truly enjoyable. ...[cont]
...[cont]... 6) Forests are nice. But they're nice because they're natural. Center parcs woodland contrives to feel totally artificial. 7) I quite like a mid-price chain restaurant. But I can get that in the Trafford Centre. When I'm on holiday I want something which makes me feel like I'm somewhere different. 8) Cycling. I like cycling. But this is an ersatz version of cycling where you don't really go anywhere. And again, it's stupidly expensive to hire bikes and the layout is such that you can't really not hire bikes. 9) The spelling. 10) I went to a Center Parcs in Belgium last year. I had my reservations. But it turned out to be brilliant. It was everything a UK Center Parcs should be. It was far cheaper, rather smaller and basically a base for exploring the surrounding area. You parked at the front car park, but they expected you to come and go. There was badminton etc, but it was pretty much always available and not ridiculously expensive. There was a big swimming pool - not quite as big as the UK ones - but essentially it was something to do while you were on site rather than expected to be the focus of your holiday.
All that said, the last time I went to Centerparcs I had a very nice time despite all that. It was a big family meet-up - 33 of us - and only happened because everyone was able to opt into it individually; if we'd started by trying to find a time and place for all 33 of us to go away, it would never have worked. So it at least has that going for it.
I've never been to Centerparcs and it doesn't appeal. Quite apart from the fact that both "center" and "parcs" are misspelled, they seem very expensive for what is essentially a middle class Butlins without the seaside. Casino's lady ratings aside (any thoughts about others' appearance should be kept to oneself imho) his description of the experience does have a rather beak quality. Having said that, I did once attend a hard rock cover bands festival with my brother and his partner, at a stationary caravan park in Great Yarmouth, and that was a lot of fun.
Unfortunately there number of hard rock covers bands playing at Center Parcs can be counted on the fingers of no hands.
It's not that it's impossible to have fun at a holiday park. Your experience demonstrates that. But your experience is because there's something fun there. Butlins, though it may not to be everybody's tastes, is fun. Sandy Balls in the New Forest isn't fun per se, but it's in quite a fun place. Center Parcs has had all the fun sucked out of it. If it were a breakfast it would be granola.
And while I agree judging people by their looks is a bit crass, there is a time and a place for a bit crass, in moderation, and an anonymous web forum is probably it. And it's also illustrative at the sort of mood that a Center Parcs puts you in.
I once went to a three-day rave at Butlins. I think it was called Bang Face Weekender, which sums it up quite well.
One of the highlights of the event is that they used the TVs in each chalet to broadcast some of the weirdest films and TV programmes from around the world. I specifically remember a distinctly un-PC Japanese film about an Oddjob-type character with dwarfism with a bowler hat that cut people's heads off.
So yes, you can have fun at a holiday park. As long as your predilections are rather specific.
I think there has been a gradual build up of hatred, among a section of the US population, for the UK, Europe, Canada, and other allies.
What lies behind it?
Anti wokeism, anti immigration, isolationism and reluctance to fund foreign wars far away anymore and a feeling too many imports are undercutting US manufacturing jobs.
Though that feeling is almost entirely confined to Trump's core supporters
It’s also very much on topic - Trump, Ukraine, the wars to come
I can’t say this in a nice or unscary way so I’m just gonna say it. About half al hour ago I had a nice siesta. Waking up with that pleasantly rested wooziness from a perfectly timed mini-kip
Yet earlier I had a really nice banana. Just at that cusp of ripeness - super sweet but still with agreeble soft crunch
You see my problem. Which would I give up? It’s probably something we’ve all asked ourselves at some point - but been too afraid to admit it. Well I don’t care. Polite society be damned
If I had to give up either bananas or siestas which would it be?
I think, in the end, and I say this with real reluctance, it would be bananas. There are other fruits. But there’s only one restful afternoon doze-off
I know. Shoot me. But them’s the facts and if that gets me banned so be it
Bananas don't crunch. Wrong word. Siesta every time.
There are 8 letters in the Telegraph today on the "negotiations" which are all pro- Zelensky and anti-Trump. The Tele has been increasingly pro-Reform and sympathetic to Trump and MAGA recently. Is this when the Tele withdraws support for Trump or when many of the readers withdraw subscriptions to the Tele?
I get to see a printed copy of the Telegraph next weekend for the first time in years next weekend.
My now nearly housebound * 8x year old godmother has asked me to bring her a weekend one for all the extra bits, and fish and chips from her favourite chip shop.
* Awkward .. she lives on a steep hill in Sheffield up several steps. That is real Sheffield, not that occupied part known as the Donbas of Derbyshire .
A few more observations on Centre Parcs: the staff are far more attractive than the customers.
All the middle-class career mums (who can afford the prices for half-term and have kids like Toby and Annabelle) are, quite frankly, Plain Jane - the sort that'd make Tilda Swinton look hot. I'd say largely 4s and 5s.. and, sadly, some 3s. My wife is easily the best looking.
The younger 20-somethings running the sports Plaza activities - the Phoebes, the Emmas etc - are all driving in from Westbury, Warminster and Frome, but are comfortably 8s and 9s. Fit, friendly, generous and good-spirited. And they remember your name.
Anyone, at least hardly any (staff or customers) are obese, though. And I've only seen a handful of dogs, all on leads, which is something of a relief.
Ooh, a Center Parcs pile-on - can I join in?
To come back on your specific point: yes, it's not a place for the beautiful - but to be fair, spend some time in the pool at Center Parcs and compare it to spending some time in the Sandcastle at Blackpool, and Center Parcs feels like Hollywood.
That aside: 1) Nottinghamshire is not a holiday destination. Nor is Bedfordshire. I cannot get excited about going to these places for a few days. Cumbria is a holiday destination, but arguably this is worse because you are in the most beautiful corner of England and can't actually get out and see any of it because you're in what feels like a prison camp and it's dreadfully difficult to leave. 2) On that subject however, the last time we went to the one in Nottinghamshire, I had a very nice time when we went for a walk when we stopped in Sherwood Forest on the way there. And the best activity I did when I was there was when I took the hire bike out of the site for a bike ride around Nottinghamshire. It was grey and overcast and there was a heavy wind and the coalfield scenery was a tad bleak - but I was free. Leaving the site I half expected massive inflatable white balls to come chasing after me. 3) It's stupidly expensive for what it is. As a family of five, at Easter, we're flying to Dubrovnik and have four nights half board in a hotel for the same cost as four nights at Center Parcs. It's the cost that's the real kicker. I mean, as a few days away, it's ok - but the opportunity cost is huge. There is so much more and better you could be doing for the same money. That's what makes an experience there properly miserable. 4) What sort of maniac know three weeks in advance what they want to be doing for every hour of their holiday? But you have to plan it out, because otherwise everything is booked up. There's always the sub-topical swimming paradise, of course. But there's a limit to how many times you can enjoyably do that on your holiday. 5) And again, the cost of the activities. I quite like a game of badminton. But I can get badminton at the local leisure centre. My holiday has turned into a really expensive version of hanging around my local leisure centre. I quite like those clambering-through-the-trees activities. But if you want to do that, there is a Go Ape only ten minutes drive from the site which you can do it for half the cost. The piss is being taken. And nothing which is ripping you off can ever be truly enjoyable. ...[cont]
...[cont]... 6) Forests are nice. But they're nice because they're natural. Center parcs woodland contrives to feel totally artificial. 7) I quite like a mid-price chain restaurant. But I can get that in the Trafford Centre. When I'm on holiday I want something which makes me feel like I'm somewhere different. 8) Cycling. I like cycling. But this is an ersatz version of cycling where you don't really go anywhere. And again, it's stupidly expensive to hire bikes and the layout is such that you can't really not hire bikes. 9) The spelling. 10) I went to a Center Parcs in Belgium last year. I had my reservations. But it turned out to be brilliant. It was everything a UK Center Parcs should be. It was far cheaper, rather smaller and basically a base for exploring the surrounding area. You parked at the front car park, but they expected you to come and go. There was badminton etc, but it was pretty much always available and not ridiculously expensive. There was a big swimming pool - not quite as big as the UK ones - but essentially it was something to do while you were on site rather than expected to be the focus of your holiday.
All that said, the last time I went to Centerparcs I had a very nice time despite all that. It was a big family meet-up - 33 of us - and only happened because everyone was able to opt into it individually; if we'd started by trying to find a time and place for all 33 of us to go away, it would never have worked. So it at least has that going for it.
I've never been to Centerparcs and it doesn't appeal. Quite apart from the fact that both "center" and "parcs" are misspelled, they seem very expensive for what is essentially a middle class Butlins without the seaside. Casino's lady ratings aside (any thoughts about others' appearance should be kept to oneself imho) his description of the experience does have a rather beak quality. Having said that, I did once attend a hard rock cover bands festival with my brother and his partner, at a stationary caravan park in Great Yarmouth, and that was a lot of fun.
Unfortunately there number of hard rock covers bands playing at Center Parcs can be counted on the fingers of no hands.
It's not that it's impossible to have fun at a holiday park. Your experience demonstrates that. But your experience is because there's something fun there. Butlins, though it may not to be everybody's tastes, is fun. Sandy Balls in the New Forest isn't fun per se, but it's in quite a fun place. Center Parcs has had all the fun sucked out of it. If it were a breakfast it would be granola.
And while I agree judging people by their looks is a bit crass, there is a time and a place for a bit crass, in moderation, and an anonymous web forum is probably it. And it's also illustrative at the sort of mood that a Center Parcs puts you in.
On topic - I want more Boris Johnson Trumpsplaining. I cannot get enough of him being totally humiliated.
Shame on you
He has come out clearly in favour of Ukraine. The fact that he is finagling his way out of a tricky situation is neither here nor there. We should be encouraging people to do the right thing, not pointing and laughing at the mental gymnastics required
We have no way of correctly predicting how the new regime turns out - though this far, it's an enormous improvement on Assad. But if Europe and the US continue to block any inward investment, we can pretty well guarantee it will turn out badly.
Which will create more refugees. And conditions for more terrorism.
All things considered, #Syria's transition has gone just about as smoothly as could have been envisioned -- BUT external actors don't appreciate how fragile the situation is becoming.
A few more observations on Centre Parcs: the staff are far more attractive than the customers.
All the middle-class career mums (who can afford the prices for half-term and have kids like Toby and Annabelle) are, quite frankly, Plain Jane - the sort that'd make Tilda Swinton look hot. I'd say largely 4s and 5s.. and, sadly, some 3s. My wife is easily the best looking.
The younger 20-somethings running the sports Plaza activities - the Phoebes, the Emmas etc - are all driving in from Westbury, Warminster and Frome, but are comfortably 8s and 9s. Fit, friendly, generous and good-spirited. And they remember your name.
Anyone, at least hardly any (staff or customers) are obese, though. And I've only seen a handful of dogs, all on leads, which is something of a relief.
Ooh, a Center Parcs pile-on - can I join in?
To come back on your specific point: yes, it's not a place for the beautiful - but to be fair, spend some time in the pool at Center Parcs and compare it to spending some time in the Sandcastle at Blackpool, and Center Parcs feels like Hollywood.
That aside: 1) Nottinghamshire is not a holiday destination. Nor is Bedfordshire. I cannot get excited about going to these places for a few days. Cumbria is a holiday destination, but arguably this is worse because you are in the most beautiful corner of England and can't actually get out and see any of it because you're in what feels like a prison camp and it's dreadfully difficult to leave. 2) On that subject however, the last time we went to the one in Nottinghamshire, I had a very nice time when we went for a walk when we stopped in Sherwood Forest on the way there. And the best activity I did when I was there was when I took the hire bike out of the site for a bike ride around Nottinghamshire. It was grey and overcast and there was a heavy wind and the coalfield scenery was a tad bleak - but I was free. Leaving the site I half expected massive inflatable white balls to come chasing after me. 3) It's stupidly expensive for what it is. As a family of five, at Easter, we're flying to Dubrovnik and have four nights half board in a hotel for the same cost as four nights at Center Parcs. It's the cost that's the real kicker. I mean, as a few days away, it's ok - but the opportunity cost is huge. There is so much more and better you could be doing for the same money. That's what makes an experience there properly miserable. 4) What sort of maniac know three weeks in advance what they want to be doing for every hour of their holiday? But you have to plan it out, because otherwise everything is booked up. There's always the sub-topical swimming paradise, of course. But there's a limit to how many times you can enjoyably do that on your holiday. 5) And again, the cost of the activities. I quite like a game of badminton. But I can get badminton at the local leisure centre. My holiday has turned into a really expensive version of hanging around my local leisure centre. I quite like those clambering-through-the-trees activities. But if you want to do that, there is a Go Ape only ten minutes drive from the site which you can do it for half the cost. The piss is being taken. And nothing which is ripping you off can ever be truly enjoyable. ...[cont]
...[cont]... 6) Forests are nice. But they're nice because they're natural. Center parcs woodland contrives to feel totally artificial. 7) I quite like a mid-price chain restaurant. But I can get that in the Trafford Centre. When I'm on holiday I want something which makes me feel like I'm somewhere different. 8) Cycling. I like cycling. But this is an ersatz version of cycling where you don't really go anywhere. And again, it's stupidly expensive to hire bikes and the layout is such that you can't really not hire bikes. 9) The spelling. 10) I went to a Center Parcs in Belgium last year. I had my reservations. But it turned out to be brilliant. It was everything a UK Center Parcs should be. It was far cheaper, rather smaller and basically a base for exploring the surrounding area. You parked at the front car park, but they expected you to come and go. There was badminton etc, but it was pretty much always available and not ridiculously expensive. There was a big swimming pool - not quite as big as the UK ones - but essentially it was something to do while you were on site rather than expected to be the focus of your holiday.
All that said, the last time I went to Centerparcs I had a very nice time despite all that. It was a big family meet-up - 33 of us - and only happened because everyone was able to opt into it individually; if we'd started by trying to find a time and place for all 33 of us to go away, it would never have worked. So it at least has that going for it.
I've never been to Centerparcs and it doesn't appeal. Quite apart from the fact that both "center" and "parcs" are misspelled, they seem very expensive for what is essentially a middle class Butlins without the seaside. Casino's lady ratings aside (any thoughts about others' appearance should be kept to oneself imho) his description of the experience does have a rather beak quality. Having said that, I did once attend a hard rock cover bands festival with my brother and his partner, at a stationary caravan park in Great Yarmouth, and that was a lot of fun.
Why should I keep it to myself?
You're a bloke. You'd do exactly the same; I'm just saying it out loud.
And I got a bit (a fair bit) of hair adjustment and eyelid fluttering from Phoebe which, whilst it might have been "training", put a bit of a spring in the step of this 42-year old.
Andrew Lilico @andrew_lilico · 15m NATO's obsolete but even if it weren't Trump's actions have finished it. No-one should believe Art 5 applies any more. It will take several years for Russia to rebuild enough to threaten, say, Baltic States. That's the timescale for the EU to build up enough to protect itself.
A few more observations on Centre Parcs: the staff are far more attractive than the customers.
All the middle-class career mums (who can afford the prices for half-term and have kids like Toby and Annabelle) are, quite frankly, Plain Jane - the sort that'd make Tilda Swinton look hot. I'd say largely 4s and 5s.. and, sadly, some 3s. My wife is easily the best looking.
The younger 20-somethings running the sports Plaza activities - the Phoebes, the Emmas etc - are all driving in from Westbury, Warminster and Frome, but are comfortably 8s and 9s. Fit, friendly, generous and good-spirited. And they remember your name.
Anyone, at least hardly any (staff or customers) are obese, though. And I've only seen a handful of dogs, all on leads, which is something of a relief.
Ooh, a Center Parcs pile-on - can I join in?
To come back on your specific point: yes, it's not a place for the beautiful - but to be fair, spend some time in the pool at Center Parcs and compare it to spending some time in the Sandcastle at Blackpool, and Center Parcs feels like Hollywood.
That aside: 1) Nottinghamshire is not a holiday destination. Nor is Bedfordshire. I cannot get excited about going to these places for a few days. Cumbria is a holiday destination, but arguably this is worse because you are in the most beautiful corner of England and can't actually get out and see any of it because you're in what feels like a prison camp and it's dreadfully difficult to leave. 2) On that subject however, the last time we went to the one in Nottinghamshire, I had a very nice time when we went for a walk when we stopped in Sherwood Forest on the way there. And the best activity I did when I was there was when I took the hire bike out of the site for a bike ride around Nottinghamshire. It was grey and overcast and there was a heavy wind and the coalfield scenery was a tad bleak - but I was free. Leaving the site I half expected massive inflatable white balls to come chasing after me. 3) It's stupidly expensive for what it is. As a family of five, at Easter, we're flying to Dubrovnik and have four nights half board in a hotel for the same cost as four nights at Center Parcs. It's the cost that's the real kicker. I mean, as a few days away, it's ok - but the opportunity cost is huge. There is so much more and better you could be doing for the same money. That's what makes an experience there properly miserable. 4) What sort of maniac know three weeks in advance what they want to be doing for every hour of their holiday? But you have to plan it out, because otherwise everything is booked up. There's always the sub-topical swimming paradise, of course. But there's a limit to how many times you can enjoyably do that on your holiday. 5) And again, the cost of the activities. I quite like a game of badminton. But I can get badminton at the local leisure centre. My holiday has turned into a really expensive version of hanging around my local leisure centre. I quite like those clambering-through-the-trees activities. But if you want to do that, there is a Go Ape only ten minutes drive from the site which you can do it for half the cost. The piss is being taken. And nothing which is ripping you off can ever be truly enjoyable. ...[cont]
...[cont]... 6) Forests are nice. But they're nice because they're natural. Center parcs woodland contrives to feel totally artificial. 7) I quite like a mid-price chain restaurant. But I can get that in the Trafford Centre. When I'm on holiday I want something which makes me feel like I'm somewhere different. 8) Cycling. I like cycling. But this is an ersatz version of cycling where you don't really go anywhere. And again, it's stupidly expensive to hire bikes and the layout is such that you can't really not hire bikes. 9) The spelling. 10) I went to a Center Parcs in Belgium last year. I had my reservations. But it turned out to be brilliant. It was everything a UK Center Parcs should be. It was far cheaper, rather smaller and basically a base for exploring the surrounding area. You parked at the front car park, but they expected you to come and go. There was badminton etc, but it was pretty much always available and not ridiculously expensive. There was a big swimming pool - not quite as big as the UK ones - but essentially it was something to do while you were on site rather than expected to be the focus of your holiday.
All that said, the last time I went to Centerparcs I had a very nice time despite all that. It was a big family meet-up - 33 of us - and only happened because everyone was able to opt into it individually; if we'd started by trying to find a time and place for all 33 of us to go away, it would never have worked. So it at least has that going for it.
I've never been to Centerparcs and it doesn't appeal. Quite apart from the fact that both "center" and "parcs" are misspelled, they seem very expensive for what is essentially a middle class Butlins without the seaside. Casino's lady ratings aside (any thoughts about others' appearance should be kept to oneself imho) his description of the experience does have a rather beak quality. Having said that, I did once attend a hard rock cover bands festival with my brother and his partner, at a stationary caravan park in Great Yarmouth, and that was a lot of fun.
Unfortunately there number of hard rock covers bands playing at Center Parcs can be counted on the fingers of no hands.
It's not that it's impossible to have fun at a holiday park. Your experience demonstrates that. But your experience is because there's something fun there. Butlins, though it may not to be everybody's tastes, is fun. Sandy Balls in the New Forest isn't fun per se, but it's in quite a fun place. Center Parcs has had all the fun sucked out of it. If it were a breakfast it would be granola.
And while I agree judging people by their looks is a bit crass, there is a time and a place for a bit crass, in moderation, and an anonymous web forum is probably it. And it's also illustrative at the sort of mood that a Center Parcs puts you in.
I once went to a three-day rave at Butlins. I think it was called Bang Face Weekender, which sums it up quite well.
One of the highlights of the event is that they used the TVs in each chalet to broadcast some of the weirdest films and TV programmes from around the world. I specifically remember a distinctly un-PC Japanese film about an Oddjob-type character with dwarfism with a bowler hat that cut people's heads off.
So yes, you can have fun at a holiday park. As long as your predilections are rather specific.
Went to a couple of ATP festivals at whatever the other non-Butlins holiday parks were. Surprisingly nice accommodation and the slightly surreal sight of finding Nick Cave's as a neighbour and walking past his chalet to see him sat on the step smoking a fag.
Also had quite an impressive pool that was inclusive. Not been to Center Parcs and it really doesn't appeal. We prefer quiet places with the kids, beaches and walks that involve looking at an OS map and making it up as we go along. Perhaps surprisingly, they go for that - we'd always walked a lot pre-kids but have been surprised how up they've been for a few miles random loop, particularly when involved in the routing decisions.
ETA: For CR, I often only see one woman on these walks and she's a definite 10, imho least!
On topic - I want more Boris Johnson Trumpsplaining. I cannot get enough of him being totally humiliated.
Shame on you
He has come out clearly in favour of Ukraine. The fact that he is finagling his way out of a tricky situation is neither here nor there. We should be encouraging people to do the right thing, not pointing and laughing at the mental gymnastics required
A few more observations on Centre Parcs: the staff are far more attractive than the customers.
All the middle-class career mums (who can afford the prices for half-term and have kids like Toby and Annabelle) are, quite frankly, Plain Jane - the sort that'd make Tilda Swinton look hot. I'd say largely 4s and 5s.. and, sadly, some 3s. My wife is easily the best looking.
The younger 20-somethings running the sports Plaza activities - the Phoebes, the Emmas etc - are all driving in from Westbury, Warminster and Frome, but are comfortably 8s and 9s. Fit, friendly, generous and good-spirited. And they remember your name.
Anyone, at least hardly any (staff or customers) are obese, though. And I've only seen a handful of dogs, all on leads, which is something of a relief.
Ooh, a Center Parcs pile-on - can I join in?
To come back on your specific point: yes, it's not a place for the beautiful - but to be fair, spend some time in the pool at Center Parcs and compare it to spending some time in the Sandcastle at Blackpool, and Center Parcs feels like Hollywood.
That aside: 1) Nottinghamshire is not a holiday destination. Nor is Bedfordshire. I cannot get excited about going to these places for a few days. Cumbria is a holiday destination, but arguably this is worse because you are in the most beautiful corner of England and can't actually get out and see any of it because you're in what feels like a prison camp and it's dreadfully difficult to leave. 2) On that subject however, the last time we went to the one in Nottinghamshire, I had a very nice time when we went for a walk when we stopped in Sherwood Forest on the way there. And the best activity I did when I was there was when I took the hire bike out of the site for a bike ride around Nottinghamshire. It was grey and overcast and there was a heavy wind and the coalfield scenery was a tad bleak - but I was free. Leaving the site I half expected massive inflatable white balls to come chasing after me. 3) It's stupidly expensive for what it is. As a family of five, at Easter, we're flying to Dubrovnik and have four nights half board in a hotel for the same cost as four nights at Center Parcs. It's the cost that's the real kicker. I mean, as a few days away, it's ok - but the opportunity cost is huge. There is so much more and better you could be doing for the same money. That's what makes an experience there properly miserable. 4) What sort of maniac know three weeks in advance what they want to be doing for every hour of their holiday? But you have to plan it out, because otherwise everything is booked up. There's always the sub-topical swimming paradise, of course. But there's a limit to how many times you can enjoyably do that on your holiday. 5) And again, the cost of the activities. I quite like a game of badminton. But I can get badminton at the local leisure centre. My holiday has turned into a really expensive version of hanging around my local leisure centre. I quite like those clambering-through-the-trees activities. But if you want to do that, there is a Go Ape only ten minutes drive from the site which you can do it for half the cost. The piss is being taken. And nothing which is ripping you off can ever be truly enjoyable. ...[cont]
...[cont]... 6) Forests are nice. But they're nice because they're natural. Center parcs woodland contrives to feel totally artificial. 7) I quite like a mid-price chain restaurant. But I can get that in the Trafford Centre. When I'm on holiday I want something which makes me feel like I'm somewhere different. 8) Cycling. I like cycling. But this is an ersatz version of cycling where you don't really go anywhere. And again, it's stupidly expensive to hire bikes and the layout is such that you can't really not hire bikes. 9) The spelling. 10) I went to a Center Parcs in Belgium last year. I had my reservations. But it turned out to be brilliant. It was everything a UK Center Parcs should be. It was far cheaper, rather smaller and basically a base for exploring the surrounding area. You parked at the front car park, but they expected you to come and go. There was badminton etc, but it was pretty much always available and not ridiculously expensive. There was a big swimming pool - not quite as big as the UK ones - but essentially it was something to do while you were on site rather than expected to be the focus of your holiday.
All that said, the last time I went to Centerparcs I had a very nice time despite all that. It was a big family meet-up - 33 of us - and only happened because everyone was able to opt into it individually; if we'd started by trying to find a time and place for all 33 of us to go away, it would never have worked. So it at least has that going for it.
I've never been to Centerparcs and it doesn't appeal. Quite apart from the fact that both "center" and "parcs" are misspelled, they seem very expensive for what is essentially a middle class Butlins without the seaside. Casino's lady ratings aside (any thoughts about others' appearance should be kept to oneself imho) his description of the experience does have a rather beak quality. Having said that, I did once attend a hard rock cover bands festival with my brother and his partner, at a stationary caravan park in Great Yarmouth, and that was a lot of fun.
It's spelt like that because it's originally a Dutch concept. The British version was owned by the Dutch company until a few years ago.
A few more observations on Centre Parcs: the staff are far more attractive than the customers.
All the middle-class career mums (who can afford the prices for half-term and have kids like Toby and Annabelle) are, quite frankly, Plain Jane - the sort that'd make Tilda Swinton look hot. I'd say largely 4s and 5s.. and, sadly, some 3s. My wife is easily the best looking.
The younger 20-somethings running the sports Plaza activities - the Phoebes, the Emmas etc - are all driving in from Westbury, Warminster and Frome, but are comfortably 8s and 9s. Fit, friendly, generous and good-spirited. And they remember your name.
Anyone, at least hardly any (staff or customers) are obese, though. And I've only seen a handful of dogs, all on leads, which is something of a relief.
Welcome to Longleat forest. I always enjoy a walk round the perimeter fence of the Stalag Centre Parcs.
What else do you expect me to do?
The alternative here is hypothesising how the whole world is going to end under Trump, Xi and Putin.
A few more observations on Centre Parcs: the staff are far more attractive than the customers.
All the middle-class career mums (who can afford the prices for half-term and have kids like Toby and Annabelle) are, quite frankly, Plain Jane - the sort that'd make Tilda Swinton look hot. I'd say largely 4s and 5s.. and, sadly, some 3s. My wife is easily the best looking.
The younger 20-somethings running the sports Plaza activities - the Phoebes, the Emmas etc - are all driving in from Westbury, Warminster and Frome, but are comfortably 8s and 9s. Fit, friendly, generous and good-spirited. And they remember your name.
Anyone, at least hardly any (staff or customers) are obese, though. And I've only seen a handful of dogs, all on leads, which is something of a relief.
Ooh, a Center Parcs pile-on - can I join in?
To come back on your specific point: yes, it's not a place for the beautiful - but to be fair, spend some time in the pool at Center Parcs and compare it to spending some time in the Sandcastle at Blackpool, and Center Parcs feels like Hollywood.
That aside: 1) Nottinghamshire is not a holiday destination. Nor is Bedfordshire. I cannot get excited about going to these places for a few days. Cumbria is a holiday destination, but arguably this is worse because you are in the most beautiful corner of England and can't actually get out and see any of it because you're in what feels like a prison camp and it's dreadfully difficult to leave. 2) On that subject however, the last time we went to the one in Nottinghamshire, I had a very nice time when we went for a walk when we stopped in Sherwood Forest on the way there. And the best activity I did when I was there was when I took the hire bike out of the site for a bike ride around Nottinghamshire. It was grey and overcast and there was a heavy wind and the coalfield scenery was a tad bleak - but I was free. Leaving the site I half expected massive inflatable white balls to come chasing after me. 3) It's stupidly expensive for what it is. As a family of five, at Easter, we're flying to Dubrovnik and have four nights half board in a hotel for the same cost as four nights at Center Parcs. It's the cost that's the real kicker. I mean, as a few days away, it's ok - but the opportunity cost is huge. There is so much more and better you could be doing for the same money. That's what makes an experience there properly miserable. 4) What sort of maniac know three weeks in advance what they want to be doing for every hour of their holiday? But you have to plan it out, because otherwise everything is booked up. There's always the sub-topical swimming paradise, of course. But there's a limit to how many times you can enjoyably do that on your holiday. 5) And again, the cost of the activities. I quite like a game of badminton. But I can get badminton at the local leisure centre. My holiday has turned into a really expensive version of hanging around my local leisure centre. I quite like those clambering-through-the-trees activities. But if you want to do that, there is a Go Ape only ten minutes drive from the site which you can do it for half the cost. The piss is being taken. And nothing which is ripping you off can ever be truly enjoyable. ...[cont]
...[cont]... 6) Forests are nice. But they're nice because they're natural. Center parcs woodland contrives to feel totally artificial. 7) I quite like a mid-price chain restaurant. But I can get that in the Trafford Centre. When I'm on holiday I want something which makes me feel like I'm somewhere different. 8) Cycling. I like cycling. But this is an ersatz version of cycling where you don't really go anywhere. And again, it's stupidly expensive to hire bikes and the layout is such that you can't really not hire bikes. 9) The spelling. 10) I went to a Center Parcs in Belgium last year. I had my reservations. But it turned out to be brilliant. It was everything a UK Center Parcs should be. It was far cheaper, rather smaller and basically a base for exploring the surrounding area. You parked at the front car park, but they expected you to come and go. There was badminton etc, but it was pretty much always available and not ridiculously expensive. There was a big swimming pool - not quite as big as the UK ones - but essentially it was something to do while you were on site rather than expected to be the focus of your holiday.
All that said, the last time I went to Centerparcs I had a very nice time despite all that. It was a big family meet-up - 33 of us - and only happened because everyone was able to opt into it individually; if we'd started by trying to find a time and place for all 33 of us to go away, it would never have worked. So it at least has that going for it.
I've never been to Centerparcs and it doesn't appeal. Quite apart from the fact that both "center" and "parcs" are misspelled, they seem very expensive for what is essentially a middle class Butlins without the seaside. Casino's lady ratings aside (any thoughts about others' appearance should be kept to oneself imho) his description of the experience does have a rather beak quality. Having said that, I did once attend a hard rock cover bands festival with my brother and his partner, at a stationary caravan park in Great Yarmouth, and that was a lot of fun.
Why should I keep it to myself?
You're a bloke. You'd do exactly the same; I'm just saying it out loud.
And I got a bit (a fair bit) of hair adjustment and eyelid fluttering from Phoebe which, whilst it might have been "training", put a bit of a spring in the step of this 42-year old.
I went to Center Parcs once for a couple of nights, but I can't remember the scores I'm afraid.
I think there has been a gradual build up of hatred, among a section of the US population, for the UK, Europe, Canada, and other allies.
I don't think so at all. I travel a good deal in America, have many American conservative friends, and have never heard any hatred against other free countries, though they often have trivial individual gripes. Indeed I have often heard expressions of very great friendship and admiration.
I think the idiotic worship of Trump is to blame for the current situation. If Trump loved Ukraine and hated Russia, 90% of MAGA would fall behind that remarkably quickly.
As to the reason why Trump treats America's historic allies how he does, watch The Godfather again, and think of Trump as Don Corleone with a different accent. Trump grew up in Mafia-dominated New York in the 1960s and got his formative career experience in the Mafia-dominated construction industry. He sees himself, or at any rate acts, as a white collar mob boss. His allies are not partners for freedom, but marks in a protection racket who can be shaken down for cash.
"Great country you have, would be a shame if something happened to it, but for $100 billion and an order for 100 F35s I've got your back"
And he views Putin and Xi as heads of the other Five Families - sometimes you fight them, sometimes you cooperate with them to keep intruders in line. But the one fatal flaw he recognises isn't evil, it's weakness.
Andrew Lilico @andrew_lilico · 15m NATO's obsolete but even if it weren't Trump's actions have finished it. No-one should believe Art 5 applies any more. It will take several years for Russia to rebuild enough to threaten, say, Baltic States. That's the timescale for the EU to build up enough to protect itself.
Essentially calls for anti-Russia military alliance featuring the Baltic states, Poland, Romania, Finland, Sweden, and Norway, with Denmark, the UK, Czech Republic and (presumably under new governance) Slovakia as potential extra or associate members.
A few more observations on Centre Parcs: the staff are far more attractive than the customers.
All the middle-class career mums (who can afford the prices for half-term and have kids like Toby and Annabelle) are, quite frankly, Plain Jane - the sort that'd make Tilda Swinton look hot. I'd say largely 4s and 5s.. and, sadly, some 3s. My wife is easily the best looking.
The younger 20-somethings running the sports Plaza activities - the Phoebes, the Emmas etc - are all driving in from Westbury, Warminster and Frome, but are comfortably 8s and 9s. Fit, friendly, generous and good-spirited. And they remember your name.
Anyone, at least hardly any (staff or customers) are obese, though. And I've only seen a handful of dogs, all on leads, which is something of a relief.
Ooh, a Center Parcs pile-on - can I join in?
To come back on your specific point: yes, it's not a place for the beautiful - but to be fair, spend some time in the pool at Center Parcs and compare it to spending some time in the Sandcastle at Blackpool, and Center Parcs feels like Hollywood.
That aside: 1) Nottinghamshire is not a holiday destination. Nor is Bedfordshire. I cannot get excited about going to these places for a few days. Cumbria is a holiday destination, but arguably this is worse because you are in the most beautiful corner of England and can't actually get out and see any of it because you're in what feels like a prison camp and it's dreadfully difficult to leave. 2) On that subject however, the last time we went to the one in Nottinghamshire, I had a very nice time when we went for a walk when we stopped in Sherwood Forest on the way there. And the best activity I did when I was there was when I took the hire bike out of the site for a bike ride around Nottinghamshire. It was grey and overcast and there was a heavy wind and the coalfield scenery was a tad bleak - but I was free. Leaving the site I half expected massive inflatable white balls to come chasing after me. 3) It's stupidly expensive for what it is. As a family of five, at Easter, we're flying to Dubrovnik and have four nights half board in a hotel for the same cost as four nights at Center Parcs. It's the cost that's the real kicker. I mean, as a few days away, it's ok - but the opportunity cost is huge. There is so much more and better you could be doing for the same money. That's what makes an experience there properly miserable. 4) What sort of maniac know three weeks in advance what they want to be doing for every hour of their holiday? But you have to plan it out, because otherwise everything is booked up. There's always the sub-topical swimming paradise, of course. But there's a limit to how many times you can enjoyably do that on your holiday. 5) And again, the cost of the activities. I quite like a game of badminton. But I can get badminton at the local leisure centre. My holiday has turned into a really expensive version of hanging around my local leisure centre. I quite like those clambering-through-the-trees activities. But if you want to do that, there is a Go Ape only ten minutes drive from the site which you can do it for half the cost. The piss is being taken. And nothing which is ripping you off can ever be truly enjoyable. ...[cont]
It hasn't always been expensive. A mid-week in off season used to sometimes be £150 for a 2 bedroom villa.
"Weirdly, as absolutely fucking disgraceful the sell-out of the Ukrainians and the hugging of Putin are, the bit I find most distasteful and shows the measure of him is this obsession with the mineral rights.
It is the absolute display of his obsession with wealth and grift. I don’t doubt at all that if it were to come to pass that there would be a % tax to his own pocket from each benefiting company."
He resembles King Leopold Ii of Belgium who had exactly this attitude to the Congo. And Putin who has enriched himself at the expense of his country. All 3 individuals care (or cared) nothing for the individuals they are (or were) responsible for and those they harm (and harmed).
It’s also very much on topic - Trump, Ukraine, the wars to come
I can’t say this in a nice or unscary way so I’m just gonna say it. About half al hour ago I had a nice siesta. Waking up with that pleasantly rested wooziness from a perfectly timed mini-kip
Yet earlier I had a really nice banana. Just at that cusp of ripeness - super sweet but still with agreeble soft crunch
You see my problem. Which would I give up? It’s probably something we’ve all asked ourselves at some point - but been too afraid to admit it. Well I don’t care. Polite society be damned
If I had to give up either bananas or siestas which would it be?
I think, in the end, and I say this with real reluctance, it would be bananas. There are other fruits. But there’s only one restful afternoon doze-off
I know. Shoot me. But them’s the facts and if that gets me banned so be it
Bananas don't crunch. Wrong word. Siesta every time.
Yes - easy answer. What sort of a maniac, when offered the choice between a banana or a little snooze, goes for the banana?
Fair enough. I like the absolute certainty
Bravo
Here’s another dilemma I’ve been wrestling with. Very human - and universal I think. But most people are too ashamed to admit it
I’m gonna tackle it head on
If you had to give up one of these which would it be
1. Seeing small mustelids in the wild
Or
2. Nodding vigorously
Which would ie be?
I love seeing small mustelids in the wild. Weasels. Stoats. Stoats! Also those other ones. Mink?
And yet I love nodding vigorously in agreement with a well made point. Yes yes you’re right! If Igave that up in favour of the odd glimpse of a pine marten I’d be reduced to polite nodding while saying “YOU’RE ABSOLUTELY BANG ON” so people would know I really agreed with them
A few more observations on Centre Parcs: the staff are far more attractive than the customers.
All the middle-class career mums (who can afford the prices for half-term and have kids like Toby and Annabelle) are, quite frankly, Plain Jane - the sort that'd make Tilda Swinton look hot. I'd say largely 4s and 5s.. and, sadly, some 3s. My wife is easily the best looking.
The younger 20-somethings running the sports Plaza activities - the Phoebes, the Emmas etc - are all driving in from Westbury, Warminster and Frome, but are comfortably 8s and 9s. Fit, friendly, generous and good-spirited. And they remember your name.
Anyone, at least hardly any (staff or customers) are obese, though. And I've only seen a handful of dogs, all on leads, which is something of a relief.
Ooh, a Center Parcs pile-on - can I join in?
To come back on your specific point: yes, it's not a place for the beautiful - but to be fair, spend some time in the pool at Center Parcs and compare it to spending some time in the Sandcastle at Blackpool, and Center Parcs feels like Hollywood.
That aside: 1) Nottinghamshire is not a holiday destination. Nor is Bedfordshire. I cannot get excited about going to these places for a few days. Cumbria is a holiday destination, but arguably this is worse because you are in the most beautiful corner of England and can't actually get out and see any of it because you're in what feels like a prison camp and it's dreadfully difficult to leave. 2) On that subject however, the last time we went to the one in Nottinghamshire, I had a very nice time when we went for a walk when we stopped in Sherwood Forest on the way there. And the best activity I did when I was there was when I took the hire bike out of the site for a bike ride around Nottinghamshire. It was grey and overcast and there was a heavy wind and the coalfield scenery was a tad bleak - but I was free. Leaving the site I half expected massive inflatable white balls to come chasing after me. 3) It's stupidly expensive for what it is. As a family of five, at Easter, we're flying to Dubrovnik and have four nights half board in a hotel for the same cost as four nights at Center Parcs. It's the cost that's the real kicker. I mean, as a few days away, it's ok - but the opportunity cost is huge. There is so much more and better you could be doing for the same money. That's what makes an experience there properly miserable. 4) What sort of maniac know three weeks in advance what they want to be doing for every hour of their holiday? But you have to plan it out, because otherwise everything is booked up. There's always the sub-topical swimming paradise, of course. But there's a limit to how many times you can enjoyably do that on your holiday. 5) And again, the cost of the activities. I quite like a game of badminton. But I can get badminton at the local leisure centre. My holiday has turned into a really expensive version of hanging around my local leisure centre. I quite like those clambering-through-the-trees activities. But if you want to do that, there is a Go Ape only ten minutes drive from the site which you can do it for half the cost. The piss is being taken. And nothing which is ripping you off can ever be truly enjoyable. ...[cont]
...[cont]... 6) Forests are nice. But they're nice because they're natural. Center parcs woodland contrives to feel totally artificial. 7) I quite like a mid-price chain restaurant. But I can get that in the Trafford Centre. When I'm on holiday I want something which makes me feel like I'm somewhere different. 8) Cycling. I like cycling. But this is an ersatz version of cycling where you don't really go anywhere. And again, it's stupidly expensive to hire bikes and the layout is such that you can't really not hire bikes. 9) The spelling. 10) I went to a Center Parcs in Belgium last year. I had my reservations. But it turned out to be brilliant. It was everything a UK Center Parcs should be. It was far cheaper, rather smaller and basically a base for exploring the surrounding area. You parked at the front car park, but they expected you to come and go. There was badminton etc, but it was pretty much always available and not ridiculously expensive. There was a big swimming pool - not quite as big as the UK ones - but essentially it was something to do while you were on site rather than expected to be the focus of your holiday.
All that said, the last time I went to Centerparcs I had a very nice time despite all that. It was a big family meet-up - 33 of us - and only happened because everyone was able to opt into it individually; if we'd started by trying to find a time and place for all 33 of us to go away, it would never have worked. So it at least has that going for it.
I've never been to Centerparcs and it doesn't appeal. Quite apart from the fact that both "center" and "parcs" are misspelled, they seem very expensive for what is essentially a middle class Butlins without the seaside. Casino's lady ratings aside (any thoughts about others' appearance should be kept to oneself imho) his description of the experience does have a rather beak quality. Having said that, I did once attend a hard rock cover bands festival with my brother and his partner, at a stationary caravan park in Great Yarmouth, and that was a lot of fun.
Unfortunately there number of hard rock covers bands playing at Center Parcs can be counted on the fingers of no hands.
It's not that it's impossible to have fun at a holiday park. Your experience demonstrates that. But your experience is because there's something fun there. Butlins, though it may not to be everybody's tastes, is fun. Sandy Balls in the New Forest isn't fun per se, but it's in quite a fun place. Center Parcs has had all the fun sucked out of it. If it were a breakfast it would be granola.
And while I agree judging people by their looks is a bit crass, there is a time and a place for a bit crass, in moderation, and an anonymous web forum is probably it. And it's also illustrative at the sort of mood that a Center Parcs puts you in.
Center Parcs always puts me in a fantastic mood. Don't know what you're talking about.
Andrew Lilico @andrew_lilico · 15m NATO's obsolete but even if it weren't Trump's actions have finished it. No-one should believe Art 5 applies any more. It will take several years for Russia to rebuild enough to threaten, say, Baltic States. That's the timescale for the EU to build up enough to protect itself.
Yes, there was an argument that NATO was obsolete anyway. It has certainly not been the centre of America's attention since Obama. But it has proven itself of some use as a coordinating force on other matters beyond its original purpose (eg Bosnia) and had a collective force that was unmatched in world affairs. What is clear is that we can no longer rely upon it, we can no longer rely on US logistics to allow us to deploy force where it is thought to be necessary and we can no longer rely on Article 5 for self defence. Not bad for a months work for Mr Trump.
The Times today: "As the Lords economic affairs committee wrote to Liz Kendall last month, the £65 billion incapacity and disability benefits bill is now 20 per cent higher than Britain’s entire defence budget – and is due to reach £100 billion by 2029-30."
This is mad.
Plausible. The Boomers (born between 1945 and Dec 1964) are now all in their 60s, with the oldest being 80. There's a lot of them and between 2030-35 they'll be between 65 and 90, or "peak old people". Keeping them in a decent state as they slip into the dark will be very expensive. I don't know how to fix this.
But this is the incapacity and disability benefits bill, so not the retired? (or not just the retired)
Would love to know how much of it is going on housing benefit as I suspect that going to be a very hefty chunk
Local Housing Allowance (which is the one that used to be called HB) is about £15.612bn, which is about half of what it was at peak. I'm not sure on the Social Sector / PRS split at present.
A few more observations on Centre Parcs: the staff are far more attractive than the customers.
All the middle-class career mums (who can afford the prices for half-term and have kids like Toby and Annabelle) are, quite frankly, Plain Jane - the sort that'd make Tilda Swinton look hot. I'd say largely 4s and 5s.. and, sadly, some 3s. My wife is easily the best looking.
The younger 20-somethings running the sports Plaza activities - the Phoebes, the Emmas etc - are all driving in from Westbury, Warminster and Frome, but are comfortably 8s and 9s. Fit, friendly, generous and good-spirited. And they remember your name.
Anyone, at least hardly any (staff or customers) are obese, though. And I've only seen a handful of dogs, all on leads, which is something of a relief.
Ooh, a Center Parcs pile-on - can I join in?
To come back on your specific point: yes, it's not a place for the beautiful - but to be fair, spend some time in the pool at Center Parcs and compare it to spending some time in the Sandcastle at Blackpool, and Center Parcs feels like Hollywood.
That aside: 1) Nottinghamshire is not a holiday destination. Nor is Bedfordshire. I cannot get excited about going to these places for a few days. Cumbria is a holiday destination, but arguably this is worse because you are in the most beautiful corner of England and can't actually get out and see any of it because you're in what feels like a prison camp and it's dreadfully difficult to leave. 2) On that subject however, the last time we went to the one in Nottinghamshire, I had a very nice time when we went for a walk when we stopped in Sherwood Forest on the way there. And the best activity I did when I was there was when I took the hire bike out of the site for a bike ride around Nottinghamshire. It was grey and overcast and there was a heavy wind and the coalfield scenery was a tad bleak - but I was free. Leaving the site I half expected massive inflatable white balls to come chasing after me. 3) It's stupidly expensive for what it is. As a family of five, at Easter, we're flying to Dubrovnik and have four nights half board in a hotel for the same cost as four nights at Center Parcs. It's the cost that's the real kicker. I mean, as a few days away, it's ok - but the opportunity cost is huge. There is so much more and better you could be doing for the same money. That's what makes an experience there properly miserable. 4) What sort of maniac know three weeks in advance what they want to be doing for every hour of their holiday? But you have to plan it out, because otherwise everything is booked up. There's always the sub-topical swimming paradise, of course. But there's a limit to how many times you can enjoyably do that on your holiday. 5) And again, the cost of the activities. I quite like a game of badminton. But I can get badminton at the local leisure centre. My holiday has turned into a really expensive version of hanging around my local leisure centre. I quite like those clambering-through-the-trees activities. But if you want to do that, there is a Go Ape only ten minutes drive from the site which you can do it for half the cost. The piss is being taken. And nothing which is ripping you off can ever be truly enjoyable. ...[cont]
...[cont]... 6) Forests are nice. But they're nice because they're natural. Center parcs woodland contrives to feel totally artificial. 7) I quite like a mid-price chain restaurant. But I can get that in the Trafford Centre. When I'm on holiday I want something which makes me feel like I'm somewhere different. 8) Cycling. I like cycling. But this is an ersatz version of cycling where you don't really go anywhere. And again, it's stupidly expensive to hire bikes and the layout is such that you can't really not hire bikes. 9) The spelling. 10) I went to a Center Parcs in Belgium last year. I had my reservations. But it turned out to be brilliant. It was everything a UK Center Parcs should be. It was far cheaper, rather smaller and basically a base for exploring the surrounding area. You parked at the front car park, but they expected you to come and go. There was badminton etc, but it was pretty much always available and not ridiculously expensive. There was a big swimming pool - not quite as big as the UK ones - but essentially it was something to do while you were on site rather than expected to be the focus of your holiday.
All that said, the last time I went to Centerparcs I had a very nice time despite all that. It was a big family meet-up - 33 of us - and only happened because everyone was able to opt into it individually; if we'd started by trying to find a time and place for all 33 of us to go away, it would never have worked. So it at least has that going for it.
I've never been to Centerparcs and it doesn't appeal. Quite apart from the fact that both "center" and "parcs" are misspelled, they seem very expensive for what is essentially a middle class Butlins without the seaside. Casino's lady ratings aside (any thoughts about others' appearance should be kept to oneself imho) his description of the experience does have a rather beak quality. Having said that, I did once attend a hard rock cover bands festival with my brother and his partner, at a stationary caravan park in Great Yarmouth, and that was a lot of fun.
Unfortunately there number of hard rock covers bands playing at Center Parcs can be counted on the fingers of no hands.
It's not that it's impossible to have fun at a holiday park. Your experience demonstrates that. But your experience is because there's something fun there. Butlins, though it may not to be everybody's tastes, is fun. Sandy Balls in the New Forest isn't fun per se, but it's in quite a fun place. Center Parcs has had all the fun sucked out of it. If it were a breakfast it would be granola.
And while I agree judging people by their looks is a bit crass, there is a time and a place for a bit crass, in moderation, and an anonymous web forum is probably it. And it's also illustrative at the sort of mood that a Center Parcs puts you in.
Center Parcs always puts me in a fantastic mood. Don't know what you're talking about.
It's fun, and I'm actually having quite a decent time, but it's costing me thousands.
I don't know how they get away with it. But the place is always full, so they have their business model uber-tight.
I think there has been a gradual build up of hatred, among a section of the US population, for the UK, Europe, Canada, and other allies.
What lies behind it?
I don't understand how the better people's lives materially seem to get, the less happy they are?
The human condition is truly weird.
I can have a go: - too much alienation from other humans and from natural processes (working the land, cooking, travel as a challenge) - too much inconsequential choice - too few contrasts (eg the seasons, getting through the winter on shrivelled apples and potatoes and then appreciating in-season fruit and veg later in the year etc) - awareness of the morally repugnant disparity between the way we live and the way the poorest on the planet live - etc
I'm not arguing to go back to any of this stuff as it comes with huge downsides, but our modern capitalist system is very alienating.
The Times today: "As the Lords economic affairs committee wrote to Liz Kendall last month, the £65 billion incapacity and disability benefits bill is now 20 per cent higher than Britain’s entire defence budget – and is due to reach £100 billion by 2029-30."
This is mad.
Plausible. The Boomers (born between 1945 and Dec 1964) are now all in their 60s, with the oldest being 80. There's a lot of them and between 2030-35 they'll be between 65 and 90, or "peak old people". Keeping them in a decent state as they slip into the dark will be very expensive. I don't know how to fix this.
But this is the incapacity and disability benefits bill, so not the retired? (or not just the retired)
Would love to know how much of it is going on housing benefit as I suspect that going to be a very hefty chunk
Local Housing Allowance (which is the one that used to be called HB) is about £15.612bn, which is about half of what it was at peak. I'm not sure on the Social Sector / PRS split at present.
Whatever it is, it's a hefty fee to essentially reallocate existing housing resource. And no, the housing stock used for housing benefit is not the same stuff investors hold simply for capital appreciation. W/o HB landlords and tenants would still be willing buyers & sellers of rent.
Andrew Lilico @andrew_lilico · 15m NATO's obsolete but even if it weren't Trump's actions have finished it. No-one should believe Art 5 applies any more. It will take several years for Russia to rebuild enough to threaten, say, Baltic States. That's the timescale for the EU to build up enough to protect itself.
Yes, there was an argument that NATO was obsolete anyway. It has certainly not been the centre of America's attention since Obama. But it has proven itself of some use as a coordinating force on other matters beyond its original purpose (eg Bosnia) and had a collective force that was unmatched in world affairs. What is clear is that we can no longer rely upon it, we can no longer rely on US logistics to allow us to deploy force where it is thought to be necessary and we can no longer rely on Article 5 for self defence. Not bad for a months work for Mr Trump.
Some European politicians remain in denial over this . NATO is over . They might need to keep up the pretence for a while longer but no one can trust the US which is now all in with Putin .
Over the next few years the EU and UK need to get ready for the next attack from Putin and ensure they don’t need the US .
I think there has been a gradual build up of hatred, among a section of the US population, for the UK, Europe, Canada, and other allies.
What lies behind it?
I don't understand how the better people's lives materially seem to get, the less happy they are?
The human condition is truly weird.
More time to think about things and, as material pleasures become easier, they become less rewarding.
When I was a kid, eating out once or twice per year was a massive treat and a big event - and I'm talking Beefeaters here - in part because my mum's home-cooking was, well, traditional British. Now, I'd not really take any pleasure at all in a trip to a similar chain. I'd need to spend a whole lot more, probably, to get the same pleasure.
It’s also very much on topic - Trump, Ukraine, the wars to come
I can’t say this in a nice or unscary way so I’m just gonna say it. About half al hour ago I had a nice siesta. Waking up with that pleasantly rested wooziness from a perfectly timed mini-kip
Yet earlier I had a really nice banana. Just at that cusp of ripeness - super sweet but still with agreeble soft crunch
You see my problem. Which would I give up? It’s probably something we’ve all asked ourselves at some point - but been too afraid to admit it. Well I don’t care. Polite society be damned
If I had to give up either bananas or siestas which would it be?
I think, in the end, and I say this with real reluctance, it would be bananas. There are other fruits. But there’s only one restful afternoon doze-off
I know. Shoot me. But them’s the facts and if that gets me banned so be it
Bananas don't crunch. Wrong word. Siesta every time.
Yes - easy answer. What sort of a maniac, when offered the choice between a banana or a little snooze, goes for the banana?
Fair enough. I like the absolute certainty
Bravo
Here’s another dilemma I’ve been wrestling with. Very human - and universal I think. But most people are too ashamed to admit it
I’m gonna tackle it head on
If you had to give up one of these which would it be
1. Seeing small mustelids in the wild
Or
2. Nodding vigorously
Which would ie be?
I love seeing small mustelids in the wild. Weasels. Stoats. Stoats! Also those other ones. Mink?
And yet I love nodding vigorously in agreement with a well made point. Yes yes you’re right! If Igave that up in favour of the odd glimpse of a pine marten I’d be reduced to polite nodding while saying “YOU’RE ABSOLUTELY BANG ON” so people would know I really agreed with them
And then everyone would stare
I enjoy using the word mustelid tremendousy, but I think I've only ever seen one in the wild. A mink in Wythenshawe. So it wouldn't be too hard a pleasure to forego. I'm keeping nodding vigorously.
Badgers are mustelids, aren't they? But I've only ever seen dead ones.
Some of you may have noticed the improvement in de-aging in cinemas recently. This is because the tech has moved from "construct a virtual mesh and fit muscles, skin and hair over it" to "use machine learning*1 to predict each pixel". The former is very time consuming and takes longer and longer to make incremental changes, and has probably reached its limit now. The latter is increasingly important, requires less human intervention, can be (mostly) done in real time, and is superseding the former
This makes me recall the story of Phil Tippett, who was an expert in stop-motion animation and submitted a bid for Jurassic Park using stop-motion dinosaurs. While he was there he saw the other bids using computer animation. Afterwards he abandoned physical animation and moved to CGI, creating the bugs in Starship Troopers.
Perhaps we are a step closer to cleaning up bad cctv footage of ne'er-do-wells, and sharpening up early films and television programmes. Hollywood and the streamers might be working on it already.
I think it's quite fun to see the Starmtroopers in a full-throated cavalry charge as their hammer of Putin in designer glasses bestrides the world stage. Bless them.
It'll be like this until another VI poll comes out. Then we'll be back to existential angst and the sensitive souls flouncing off to spend more time with their Bluesky accounts.
A few more observations on Centre Parcs: the staff are far more attractive than the customers.
All the middle-class career mums (who can afford the prices for half-term and have kids like Toby and Annabelle) are, quite frankly, Plain Jane - the sort that'd make Tilda Swinton look hot. I'd say largely 4s and 5s.. and, sadly, some 3s. My wife is easily the best looking.
The younger 20-somethings running the sports Plaza activities - the Phoebes, the Emmas etc - are all driving in from Westbury, Warminster and Frome, but are comfortably 8s and 9s. Fit, friendly, generous and good-spirited. And they remember your name.
Anyone, at least hardly any (staff or customers) are obese, though. And I've only seen a handful of dogs, all on leads, which is something of a relief.
Ooh, a Center Parcs pile-on - can I join in?
To come back on your specific point: yes, it's not a place for the beautiful - but to be fair, spend some time in the pool at Center Parcs and compare it to spending some time in the Sandcastle at Blackpool, and Center Parcs feels like Hollywood.
That aside: 1) Nottinghamshire is not a holiday destination. Nor is Bedfordshire. I cannot get excited about going to these places for a few days. Cumbria is a holiday destination, but arguably this is worse because you are in the most beautiful corner of England and can't actually get out and see any of it because you're in what feels like a prison camp and it's dreadfully difficult to leave. 2) On that subject however, the last time we went to the one in Nottinghamshire, I had a very nice time when we went for a walk when we stopped in Sherwood Forest on the way there. And the best activity I did when I was there was when I took the hire bike out of the site for a bike ride around Nottinghamshire. It was grey and overcast and there was a heavy wind and the coalfield scenery was a tad bleak - but I was free. Leaving the site I half expected massive inflatable white balls to come chasing after me. 3) It's stupidly expensive for what it is. As a family of five, at Easter, we're flying to Dubrovnik and have four nights half board in a hotel for the same cost as four nights at Center Parcs. It's the cost that's the real kicker. I mean, as a few days away, it's ok - but the opportunity cost is huge. There is so much more and better you could be doing for the same money. That's what makes an experience there properly miserable. 4) What sort of maniac know three weeks in advance what they want to be doing for every hour of their holiday? But you have to plan it out, because otherwise everything is booked up. There's always the sub-topical swimming paradise, of course. But there's a limit to how many times you can enjoyably do that on your holiday. 5) And again, the cost of the activities. I quite like a game of badminton. But I can get badminton at the local leisure centre. My holiday has turned into a really expensive version of hanging around my local leisure centre. I quite like those clambering-through-the-trees activities. But if you want to do that, there is a Go Ape only ten minutes drive from the site which you can do it for half the cost. The piss is being taken. And nothing which is ripping you off can ever be truly enjoyable. ...[cont]
...[cont]... 6) Forests are nice. But they're nice because they're natural. Center parcs woodland contrives to feel totally artificial. 7) I quite like a mid-price chain restaurant. But I can get that in the Trafford Centre. When I'm on holiday I want something which makes me feel like I'm somewhere different. 8) Cycling. I like cycling. But this is an ersatz version of cycling where you don't really go anywhere. And again, it's stupidly expensive to hire bikes and the layout is such that you can't really not hire bikes. 9) The spelling. 10) I went to a Center Parcs in Belgium last year. I had my reservations. But it turned out to be brilliant. It was everything a UK Center Parcs should be. It was far cheaper, rather smaller and basically a base for exploring the surrounding area. You parked at the front car park, but they expected you to come and go. There was badminton etc, but it was pretty much always available and not ridiculously expensive. There was a big swimming pool - not quite as big as the UK ones - but essentially it was something to do while you were on site rather than expected to be the focus of your holiday.
All that said, the last time I went to Centerparcs I had a very nice time despite all that. It was a big family meet-up - 33 of us - and only happened because everyone was able to opt into it individually; if we'd started by trying to find a time and place for all 33 of us to go away, it would never have worked. So it at least has that going for it.
Yes, that's the advice we've had: go for Belgium or the Netherlands. The same product (or better) but cheaper and more flexible.
Nevertheless, given we are tired parents with a 2-year old and 6-year old who don't travel well and have a low boredom threshold it's been perfect for that, and for easy access to and from.
Also, I quite like the way it forces me to cycle with my kids attached to the bike: I need more of that.
That sounds interesting. How do you do it? Tie them to the handlebars and drag them behind you?
I think it's quite fun to see the Starmtroopers in a full-throated cavalry charge as their hammer of Putin in designer glasses bestrides the world stage. Bless them.
It'll be like this until another VI poll comes out. Then we'll be back to existential angst and the sensitive souls flouncing off to spend more time with their Bluesky accounts.
@Rochdalepioneers off for a spot of re-education regarding his Youtube channel.
It’s also very much on topic - Trump, Ukraine, the wars to come
I can’t say this in a nice or unscary way so I’m just gonna say it. About half al hour ago I had a nice siesta. Waking up with that pleasantly rested wooziness from a perfectly timed mini-kip
Yet earlier I had a really nice banana. Just at that cusp of ripeness - super sweet but still with agreeble soft crunch
You see my problem. Which would I give up? It’s probably something we’ve all asked ourselves at some point - but been too afraid to admit it. Well I don’t care. Polite society be damned
If I had to give up either bananas or siestas which would it be?
I think, in the end, and I say this with real reluctance, it would be bananas. There are other fruits. But there’s only one restful afternoon doze-off
I know. Shoot me. But them’s the facts and if that gets me banned so be it
Bananas don't crunch. Wrong word. Siesta every time.
Yes - easy answer. What sort of a maniac, when offered the choice between a banana or a little snooze, goes for the banana?
Fair enough. I like the absolute certainty
Bravo
Here’s another dilemma I’ve been wrestling with. Very human - and universal I think. But most people are too ashamed to admit it
I’m gonna tackle it head on
If you had to give up one of these which would it be
1. Seeing small mustelids in the wild
Or
2. Nodding vigorously
Which would ie be?
I love seeing small mustelids in the wild. Weasels. Stoats. Stoats! Also those other ones. Mink?
And yet I love nodding vigorously in agreement with a well made point. Yes yes you’re right! If Igave that up in favour of the odd glimpse of a pine marten I’d be reduced to polite nodding while saying “YOU’RE ABSOLUTELY BANG ON” so people would know I really agreed with them
And then everyone would stare
I enjoy using the word mustelid tremendousy, but I think I've only ever seen one in the wild. A mink in Wythenshawe. So it wouldn't be too hard a pleasure to forego. I'm keeping nodding vigorously.
Badgers are mustelids, aren't they? But I've only ever seen dead ones.
The wife and I used to keep ferrets. That’s not a euphemism.
I hold no candle for Reform but let's not pretend they're exactly the same as the praetorian guard of MAGA.
Only 67% think Russia entirely or mostly responsible for the war.
Reform in noticeably more pro-putin than the other parties.
Russia isn’t entirely responsible for the war
NATO and the West promised not to push NATO to the frontiers of Russia, then we did exactly that. Then we wrestled over Ukraine itself, part of which is regarded as sacred Russia by Russians
Is Putin an evil murderous autocrat who launched a barbarous invasion causing a European tragedy and killing half a million purple? Yes yes yes. Does the west have *some* responsibility for stupidly goading and mishandling Russia? Also yes
ISTR you raising the idea of terrorist attacks in Red Square in a way that suggested they wouldn't exactly be abhorrent:
@Leon repeating the nonsense that "NATO promised not to expand". It did no such thing, indeed Russia itself seriously discussed joining.
Assurances were given by Germany, the US and others at the time of German reunification that NATO would not expand eastwards, but there was no formal promise.
Even if that were true, so what?
Just because some people in the past had a different view to some people currently in existence doesn't -say- justify, rape, murder, invasion and the like.
Well no of course not. But there is some truth in the idea that NATO promised not to expand in 1990
I hold no candle for Reform but let's not pretend they're exactly the same as the praetorian guard of MAGA.
Only 67% think Russia entirely or mostly responsible for the war.
Reform in noticeably more pro-putin than the other parties.
Russia isn’t entirely responsible for the war
NATO and the West promised not to push NATO to the frontiers of Russia, then we did exactly that. Then we wrestled over Ukraine itself, part of which is regarded as sacred Russia by Russians
Is Putin an evil murderous autocrat who launched a barbarous invasion causing a European tragedy and killing half a million purple? Yes yes yes. Does the west have *some* responsibility for stupidly goading and mishandling Russia? Also yes
ISTR you raising the idea of terrorist attacks in Red Square in a way that suggested they wouldn't exactly be abhorrent:
@Leon repeating the nonsense that "NATO promised not to expand". It did no such thing, indeed Russia itself seriously discussed joining.
Assurances were given by Germany, the US and others at the time of German reunification that NATO would not expand eastwards, but there was no formal promise.
AIR the very specific promise was that NATO forces would not be stationed in East Germany without the prior agreement of the USSR.
Which point became moot on the 31st December 1991.
U.S. Secretary of State James Baker’s famous “not one inch eastward” assurance about NATO expansion in his meeting with Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev on February 9, 1990, was part of a cascade of assurances about Soviet security given by Western leaders to Gorbachev and other Soviet officials throughout the process of German unification in 1990 and on into 1991, according to declassified U.S., Soviet, German, British and French documents posted today by the National Security Archive at George Washington University (http://nsarchive.gwu.edu).
The documents show that multiple national leaders were considering and rejecting Central and Eastern European membership in NATO as of early 1990 and through 1991, that discussions of NATO in the context of German unification negotiations in 1990 were not at all narrowly limited to the status of East German territory, and that subsequent Soviet and Russian complaints about being misled about NATO expansion were founded in written contemporaneous memcons and telcons at the highest levels.
The documents reinforce former CIA Director Robert Gates’s criticism of “pressing ahead with expansion of NATO eastward [in the 1990s], when Gorbachev and others were led to believe that wouldn’t happen.”[1] The key phrase, buttressed by the documents, is “led to believe.”
President George H.W. Bush had assured Gorbachev during the Malta summit in December 1989 that the U.S. would not take advantage (“I have not jumped up and down on the Berlin Wall”) of the revolutions in Eastern Europe to harm Soviet interests; but neither Bush nor Gorbachev at that point (or for that matter, West German Chancellor Helmut Kohl) expected so soon the collapse of East Germany or the speed of German unification.[2]
The first concrete assurances by Western leaders on NATO began on January 31, 1990, when West German Foreign Minister Hans-Dietrich Genscher opened the bidding with a major public speech at Tutzing, in Bavaria, on German unification. The U.S. Embassy in Bonn (see Document 1) informed Washington that Genscher made clear “that the changes in Eastern Europe and the German unification process must not lead to an ‘impairment of Soviet security interests.’ Therefore, NATO should rule out an ‘expansion of its territory towards the east, i.e. moving it closer to the Soviet borders.’”
Even if those documents are accepted, and there are question marks over some of them, again the key word is ‘Soviet.’ After 1991 there was no Soviet Union to threaten.
Any assurances on NATO beyond East Germany would have been about de-escalating the Cold War. But by 1991 the Russians hated Communism more than the Americans did and there was no reason to expect it would recur.
The FSB coup that put Putin into power was the result of a combination of factors, but suggesting NATO expansion was critical is I think to underplay the role of economics and especially megalomania.
"Even if those documents are accepted,"
Listen to yourselves
On rare occasions Leon is right.
People denying that any assurances were ever given that NATO wouldn't expand eastwards are actually helping Kremlin propaganda.
But, as they say, truth is the first casualty of war.
Again, I think you are misunderstanding what was said and why.
Nobody disputes that NATO promised no NATO soldiers would be stationed in East Germany without Soviet agreement in the event of reunification, and that Soviet agreement would not be presumed. That was due to the very sensitive position of Germany at the time and the diplomatic complexities of reunification.
Similarly, nobody disputes that there were discussions about what would happen were other countries to leave the Warsaw Pact. It was agreed the Soviet Union as a Pact member had an interest in those proceedings if they came about. This was, again, so as not to startle the horses over Soviet withdrawal from Eastern Europe which Gorbachev was having enough trouble getting past his hardliners as it was.
The issue is that some of those people you quote re-read those as a cast iron guarantee that NATO would not seek eastward expansion ever under any circumstances. Which they were not.
Had the USSR survived it may have been different, but Russia was a separate state (it actually declared independence from the USSR) and so were the countries surrounding it. The diplomatic discussions referred to, which again were not guarantees, became moot.
To give you another example, the position of American troops in Europe as a whole was discussed. America was actually willing to withdraw from Europe entirely in exchange for a diplomatic settlement, if that was needed. But it wasn’t (and Gorbachev said, in fact, he thought that would be unwise anyway for a whole host of reasons). If American forces had left under such a deal and there was a civil war in Italy or Germany, or indeed American peacekeepers needed in Northern Ireland, would that have been a reason to refuse them?
Russia did not object to the expansion of NATO until Kosovo, by which time it was experiencing major financial turmoil. And Ukraine wouldn’t have talked of joining but for Russian meddling in its politics and economy from as long ago as 2003. It’s really not true to say that cast iron pledges were broken and that security concerns were a factor. This is about the Russian government’s greed for an empire.
So no, Leon is not right in this, and we can all relax until the Orange Haired one goes off again.
It's a simple yes/no question: were promises (however non-binding and however different the context then) given to the USSR that NATO wouldn't expand eastward? Answer: yes.
If we start lying out of convenience, or just to disagree with Leon how does that help us?
Answer: yes, but not unqualified ones, which is what Lavrov is claiming.
And since, again, Russia is not the Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact has been buried in an unmarked grave for 35 years the point is moot.
On the UN seat, which another poster raised, that is again more complicated as Ukraine and Belarus had their own seats at the UN. (This was a diplomatic finesse to ensure there would be more than one Communist member state.) So the Soviet seat was accepted as being Russia+ not theUSSR as a whole. That seat was still the subject of considerable diplomatic wrangling with the other 12 successor states.
I am really surprised at your ignorance. Russia inherited all of the treaties signed by the Soviet Union, I'd expect you to know this.
You could just admit you got it wrong, and that informal assurances were given in 1990.
Actually so what?
I might have a tiniest investment in this if Russia had kept in the slightest to its side of the bargain, by not for example violently invading neighbouring countries, who don't all border NATO.
NATO is dead so it's all moot, but even for the record ...
I was merely correcting the false statement that there was no promise ever given not to expand NATO eastwards.
Normally pointless pedantry (if that's what it is) is appreciated on pb.com but in this case I'm accused of being a Kremlin propagandist. I didn't bring the subject up.
I've posted a link to the actual historical record which speaks for itself, so if interested you can read it. If not then don't.
Actually you posted a link to an article by an academic supporting your case. Not the “historical record”.
On the other hand, I posted a link to Chatham House, a respected neutral expert institute, debunking your claim as a myth
But you’ve not responded to or engaged with the Chatham House view, simply reiterating your own position. I wonder why?
You can read the actual documents there.
Chatham House says "the USSR was never offered a formal guarantee on the limits of NATO expansion post-1990" which is exactly what I have also said.
Frankly I find the responses to me posting a factual statement backed up with documentary evidence are fucking nuts and I'm not going to waste any more time on this forum you have mostly gone crazy.
I'm fine with cats as long as there's a law enforcing them to wear muzzles* and nappies whenever off their owner's property. Cats and owners to be put down if law not followed.
*and probably gloves (shoes?) for the feet to cover the claws
Comments
Then I realised I’d be a great minister but a crap politician. So I settled for a seat in the lords
1. Understand that there are multiple groups here all of whom have different requirements. There is no one size fits all solution
2. What most disabled people want is dignity and respect. Many want to work. Employers used to take on disabled workers, now they virtue signal whilst finding reasons why the disabled are too expensive / faffy. Incentivise employers via their tax bill - I would make lower Corporation Taxes conditional on investing in skills / education / training and that would include for disabled employees
3. For those who want to work but can't within the mainstream system we used to have Remploy. Recreate it - it will cost money but will also produce economic output
4. For the truly sick we should cut the endless costly red tape. People are not going to grow back nerves or limbs or stop having MS - there is no need to pay for a punitive system trying to catch them out
5. Invest in health! Prevention is better than the cure. We used to have Sure Start so that kids got looked after from the get go, until it was cut because Tories. The need didn't go away and it costs more to mop it up afterwards.
If Scotland became independent, would all the understandings not in treaties that the UK has be immediately thrown in the bin? ah ok, so it's ok to make shit up if you're on the right side of the 'entire discussion'? Is that what you are saying?
let's say that I am asking a question that really, really, really doesn't matter at all - how would you ask it, rather than changing it to a completely different question that does matter? as you objected to my wording.
On the other hand, I posted a link to Chatham House, a respected neutral expert institute, debunking your claim as a myth
But you’ve not responded to or engaged with the Chatham House view, simply reiterating your own position. I wonder why?
The answer to the latter is that, visit any sorting office nowadays, and it is awash with Amazon packages, which take up a lot more space than letters.
Of course any previous pledge can be repudiated, but the basis of interaction with foreign powers has to be good faith.
It just sticks in the craw to see Russia lie about something and claim that the west is not acting in good faith by ignoring their lie
To come back on your specific point: yes, it's not a place for the beautiful - but to be fair, spend some time in the pool at Center Parcs and compare it to spending some time in the Sandcastle at Blackpool, and Center Parcs feels like Hollywood.
That aside:
1) Nottinghamshire is not a holiday destination. Nor is Bedfordshire. I cannot get excited about going to these places for a few days. Cumbria is a holiday destination, but arguably this is worse because you are in the most beautiful corner of England and can't actually get out and see any of it because you're in what feels like a prison camp and it's dreadfully difficult to leave.
2) On that subject however, the last time we went to the one in Nottinghamshire, I had a very nice time when we went for a walk when we stopped in Sherwood Forest on the way there. And the best activity I did when I was there was when I took the hire bike out of the site for a bike ride around Nottinghamshire. It was grey and overcast and there was a heavy wind and the coalfield scenery was a tad bleak - but I was free. Leaving the site I half expected massive inflatable white balls to come chasing after me.
3) It's stupidly expensive for what it is. As a family of five, at Easter, we're flying to Dubrovnik and have four nights half board in a hotel for the same cost as four nights at Center Parcs. It's the cost that's the real kicker. I mean, as a few days away, it's ok - but the opportunity cost is huge. There is so much more and better you could be doing for the same money. That's what makes an experience there properly miserable.
4) What sort of maniac know three weeks in advance what they want to be doing for every hour of their holiday? But you have to plan it out, because otherwise everything is booked up. There's always the sub-topical swimming paradise, of course. But there's a limit to how many times you can enjoyably do that on your holiday.
5) And again, the cost of the activities. I quite like a game of badminton. But I can get badminton at the local leisure centre. My holiday has turned into a really expensive version of hanging around my local leisure centre. I quite like those clambering-through-the-trees activities. But if you want to do that, there is a Go Ape only ten minutes drive from the site which you can do it for half the cost. The piss is being taken. And nothing which is ripping you off can ever be truly enjoyable.
...[cont]
6) Forests are nice. But they're nice because they're natural. Center parcs woodland contrives to feel totally artificial.
7) I quite like a mid-price chain restaurant. But I can get that in the Trafford Centre. When I'm on holiday I want something which makes me feel like I'm somewhere different.
8) Cycling. I like cycling. But this is an ersatz version of cycling where you don't really go anywhere. And again, it's stupidly expensive to hire bikes and the layout is such that you can't really not hire bikes.
9) The spelling.
10) I went to a Center Parcs in Belgium last year. I had my reservations. But it turned out to be brilliant. It was everything a UK Center Parcs should be. It was far cheaper, rather smaller and basically a base for exploring the surrounding area. You parked at the front car park, but they expected you to come and go. There was badminton etc, but it was pretty much always available and not ridiculously expensive. There was a big swimming pool - not quite as big as the UK ones - but essentially it was something to do while you were on site rather than expected to be the focus of your holiday.
All that said, the last time I went to Centerparcs I had a very nice time despite all that. It was a big family meet-up - 33 of us - and only happened because everyone was able to opt into it individually; if we'd started by trying to find a time and place for all 33 of us to go away, it would never have worked. So it at least has that going for it.
Oh
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generative_adversarial_network
Thank you.
But there is lots he can do, and is doing which makes everyone in Europe worry more about multi sided war in Europe, not in 10 years but soon.
Trumpists in USA think about war in Europe like Europe (including sadly the UK) thinks about the wars in Sudan, eastern Congo etc.
Having said that, I did once attend a hard rock cover bands festival with my brother and his partner, at a stationary caravan park in Great Yarmouth, and that was a lot of fun.
It’s also very much on topic - Trump, Ukraine, the wars to come
I can’t say this in a nice or unscary way so I’m just gonna say it. About half al hour ago I had a nice siesta. Waking up with that pleasantly rested wooziness from a perfectly timed mini-kip
Yet earlier I had a really nice banana. Just at that cusp of ripeness - super sweet but still with agreeble soft crunch
You see my problem. Which would I give up? It’s probably something we’ve all asked ourselves at some point - but been too afraid to admit it. Well I don’t care. Polite society be damned
If I had to give up either bananas or siestas which would it be?
I think, in the end, and I say this with real reluctance, it would be bananas. There are other fruits. But there’s only one restful afternoon doze-off
I know. Shoot me. But them’s the facts and if that gets me banned so be it
We are in a context where Russia and her supporters are seeking to justify a war of aggression against Ukraine. They do this in various ways. One way they do this is to talk about NATO expansion. That's the only reason we're talking about this. Otherwise, it would be a niche discussion for historians alone.
In that context, your wording -- "It's a simple yes/no question: were promises (however non-binding and however different the context then) given to the USSR that NATO wouldn't expand eastward?" -- collapses a complex situation into a simple dichotomy. You demand a yes/ no answer. You explicitly exclude the non-binding nature of any comments and the different context. The result you get is a "yes". That "yes" then feeds into a Russian narrative as, without its context, it seems to legitimise that entire narrative.
A better question would allow for something more than yes/no. It would address the context and the nature of the promises made. For example: "How did NATO discuss possible expansion with the Soviet Union when the Iron Curtain fell; and how did the situation around NATO expansion change in the following years as the Soviet Union collapsed?" Or one could just directly ask, "How have narratives about NATO evolved in Russia and how have they been used to justify expansionism?"
Meanwhile the misericords at Greystoke, the Loki stone at Kirkby Stephen, the Anglo Saxon tower of Morland and the ice cream at Abbots Lodge are tranquil and undisturbed.
It's not that it's impossible to have fun at a holiday park. Your experience demonstrates that. But your experience is because there's something fun there. Butlins, though it may not to be everybody's tastes, is fun. Sandy Balls in the New Forest isn't fun per se, but it's in quite a fun place. Center Parcs has had all the fun sucked out of it. If it were a breakfast it would be granola.
And while I agree judging people by their looks is a bit crass, there is a time and a place for a bit crass, in moderation, and an anonymous web forum is probably it. And it's also illustrative at the sort of mood that a Center Parcs puts you in.
As I understand it kamski made a specific point, which is that Russia has a legitimate grievance that it was led to believe NATO would resist the natural and reasonable desires of post-Soviet states to join, and that this resistance didn't actually come about.
I haven't anywhere seen kamski make the utterly illogical leap (that Putin has made) that any legitimate grievance justified a brutal invasion of a sovereign nation.
Kamski is simply challenging the point that because this wasn't promised in a formal way we can deny any assurances were ever made. I don't honestly know the truth of the matter, but can see the futility in our defence being "noone said that!" There are plenty of better ways we can defend NATO expansion, not least national sovereignty.
What lies behind it?
Siesta every time.
https://x.com/JimmySecUK/status/1892514994958323919
Trump claimed that U.S. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent travelled to Kyiv by train but that "Zelensky was sleeping" and could not meet him.
In reality, Zelensky met with Bessent at Mariinskyi Palace. Multiple photographs were taken and published of their meeting.
Still, like you say: no riff-raff.
Further reading
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generative_adversarial_network
https://metaphysic.ai/tech-and-research/
https://www.aiinhollywood.com/home/new-robert-zemeckis-film-made-using-ainbsp
https://www.wired.com/story/here-movie-de-age-tom-hanks-generative-ai/
Nevertheless, given we are tired parents with a 2-year old and 6-year old who don't travel well and have a low boredom threshold it's been perfect for that, and for easy access to and from.
Also, I quite like the way it forces me to cycle with my kids attached to the bike: I need more of that.
One of the highlights of the event is that they used the TVs in each chalet to broadcast some of the weirdest films and TV programmes from around the world. I specifically remember a distinctly un-PC Japanese film about an Oddjob-type character with dwarfism with a bowler hat that cut people's heads off.
So yes, you can have fun at a holiday park. As long as your predilections are rather specific.
Though that feeling is almost entirely confined to Trump's core supporters
And any day.
My now nearly housebound * 8x year old godmother has asked me to bring her a weekend one for all the extra bits, and fish and chips from her favourite chip shop.
* Awkward .. she lives on a steep hill in Sheffield up several steps. That is real Sheffield, not that occupied part known as the Donbas of Derbyshire
Appreciation, I doff my cap.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2025/02/20/russia-ukraine-zelensky-trump-deal-putin-war-latest-news/
He has come out clearly in favour of Ukraine. The fact that he is finagling his way out of a tricky situation is neither here nor there. We should be encouraging people to do the right thing, not pointing and laughing at the mental gymnastics required
We have no way of correctly predicting how the new regime turns out - though this far, it's an enormous improvement on Assad. But if Europe and the US continue to block any inward investment, we can pretty well guarantee it will turn out badly.
Which will create more refugees.
And conditions for more terrorism.
All things considered, #Syria's transition has gone just about as smoothly as could have been envisioned -- BUT external actors don't appreciate how fragile the situation is becoming.
The clock is ticking fast & action to help just isn't coming. 🧵
https://x.com/Charles_Lister/status/1892212276284821548
You're a bloke. You'd do exactly the same; I'm just saying it out loud.
And I got a bit (a fair bit) of hair adjustment and eyelid fluttering from Phoebe which, whilst it might have been "training", put a bit of a spring in the step of this 42-year old.
@andrew_lilico
·
15m
NATO's obsolete but even if it weren't Trump's actions have finished it. No-one should believe Art 5 applies any more. It will take several years for Russia to rebuild enough to threaten, say, Baltic States. That's the timescale for the EU to build up enough to protect itself.
Russia have already said though that they won’t accept that .
Also had quite an impressive pool that was inclusive. Not been to Center Parcs and it really doesn't appeal. We prefer quiet places with the kids, beaches and walks that involve looking at an OS map and making it up as we go along. Perhaps surprisingly, they go for that - we'd always walked a lot pre-kids but have been surprised how up they've been for a few miles random loop, particularly when involved in the routing decisions.
ETA: For CR, I often only see one woman on these walks and she's a definite 10, imho least!
The human condition is truly weird.
The alternative here is hypothesising how the whole world is going to end under Trump, Xi and Putin.
I'd rather do boozing and think about shagging.
I think the idiotic worship of Trump is to blame for the current situation. If Trump loved Ukraine and hated Russia, 90% of MAGA would fall behind that remarkably quickly.
As to the reason why Trump treats America's historic allies how he does, watch The Godfather again, and think of Trump as Don Corleone with a different accent. Trump grew up in Mafia-dominated New York in the 1960s and got his formative career experience in the Mafia-dominated construction industry. He sees himself, or at any rate acts, as a white collar mob boss. His allies are not partners for freedom, but marks in a protection racket who can be shaken down for cash.
"Great country you have, would be a shame if something happened to it, but for $100 billion and an order for 100 F35s I've got your back"
And he views Putin and Xi as heads of the other Five Families - sometimes you fight them, sometimes you cooperate with them to keep intruders in line. But the one fatal flaw he recognises isn't evil, it's weakness.
https://www.itv.com/news/london/2025-02-17/flat-grossly-overcrowded-ahead-of-fatal-e-bike-fire-court-told
I recall some people here claiming that my description of an illegal HMO I visited was “fantasy”.
That was a bunk bed or 2 in every room of a 4 bedroom house.
This is believed to have been 23 people in a 2 bed flat.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hWVnDV-JnjM
Essentially calls for anti-Russia military alliance featuring the Baltic states, Poland, Romania, Finland, Sweden, and Norway, with Denmark, the UK, Czech Republic and (presumably under new governance) Slovakia as potential extra or associate members.
It is the absolute display of his obsession with wealth and grift. I don’t doubt at all that if it were to come to pass that there would be a % tax to his own pocket from each benefiting company."
He resembles King Leopold Ii of Belgium who had exactly this attitude to the Congo. And Putin who has enriched himself at the expense of his country. All 3 individuals care (or cared) nothing for the individuals they are (or were) responsible for and those they harm (and harmed).
Bravo
Here’s another dilemma I’ve been wrestling with. Very human - and universal I think. But most people are too ashamed to admit it
I’m gonna tackle it head on
If you had to give up one of these which would it be
1. Seeing small mustelids in the wild
Or
2. Nodding vigorously
Which would ie be?
I love seeing small mustelids in the wild. Weasels. Stoats. Stoats! Also those other ones. Mink?
And yet I love nodding vigorously in agreement with a well made point. Yes yes you’re right! If Igave that up in favour of the odd glimpse of a pine marten I’d be reduced to polite nodding while saying “YOU’RE ABSOLUTELY BANG ON” so people would know I really agreed with them
And then everyone would stare
https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/we-need-a-cat-lockdown-now/
I don't know how they get away with it. But the place is always full, so they have their business model uber-tight.
- too much alienation from other humans and from natural processes (working the land, cooking, travel as a challenge)
- too much inconsequential choice
- too few contrasts (eg the seasons, getting through the winter on shrivelled apples and potatoes and then appreciating in-season fruit and veg later in the year etc)
- awareness of the morally repugnant disparity between the way we live and the way the poorest on the planet live
- etc
I'm not arguing to go back to any of this stuff as it comes with huge downsides, but our modern capitalist system is very alienating.
Is that the reason for existing?
Beautiful hot women to taunt and tantalise us. But, oh, what a joy. What pleasure.
Who would be gay?
Idiots.
Over the next few years the EU and UK need to get ready for the next attack from Putin and ensure they don’t need the US .
When I was a kid, eating out once or twice per year was a massive treat and a big event - and I'm talking Beefeaters here
Badgers are mustelids, aren't they? But I've only ever seen dead ones.
It'll be like this until another VI poll comes out. Then we'll be back to existential angst and the sensitive souls flouncing off to spend more time with their Bluesky accounts.
Chatham House says "the USSR was never offered a formal guarantee on the limits of NATO expansion post-1990" which is exactly what I have also said.
Frankly I find the responses to me posting a factual statement backed up with documentary evidence are fucking nuts and I'm not going to waste any more time on this forum you have mostly gone crazy.
*and probably gloves (shoes?) for the feet to cover the claws