Poo tin... Put@in...

briantrumpet

MattFalle said:

Depends on the S&P agreement I suppose

Renault have reserved the

First.Aspect said:

davidof said:

First.Aspect said:

imposter2.0 said:

You're all wrong. The real reason was so that Russia could start making the Moskvich again. Soviet nostalgia personified..

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/may/16/russia-renault-moscow-factory-revive-soviet-era-moskvitch-car

Well they aren't going to struggle with computer chip shortages, at least.

ah so it is a #fakenews

It was a reference to how rudimentary a Moskovitch was, that's all.

No more rudimentary that the large turnip that sits inside Nadine Dorres' ears inside her skull

Nah, a turnip would be vaguely useful. There's nothing like that in there.

verylonglegs

First.Aspect said:

MattFalle said:

davidof said:

First.Aspect said:

imposter2.0 said:

You're all wrong. The real reason was so that Russia could start making the Moskvich again. Soviet nostalgia personified..

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/may/16/russia-renault-moscow-factory-revive-soviet-era-moskvitch-car

Well they aren't going to struggle with computer chip shortages, at least.

ah so it is a #fakenews

No, not at all. Renault sold factory, Russians building cars there under separate badge.

Its just that people don't read articles properly.

Didn't Rover and MG do this?

Yes, it happens.

What I'm not clear about is whether Renault have accepted that there will be dreadful Renault-shaped things driving about for the next 40 years, or whether they will be restricting use of the designs, as well as trademarks. And then there's all the software and wotnot for the satnav and ecu. All proprietary to the Reggie.

Probably Renault will just consider reputational damage within a pariah state to be acceptable and allow Mosko-naults to be built.

But I tend not to think that a one line quote reproduced in multiple articles necessarily conveys all of the subtleties.

This has never bothered them in the past.

JimD666

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-61484222

A little truth (more or less) on Russian TV. Whether it's to prepare for a climb down or an escalation though is the thing. Hopefully the former. If it's the later

shirley_basso

Where is that colonel now?

First.Aspect

JimD666 said:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-61484222

A little truth (more or less) on Russian TV. Whether it's to prepare for a climb down or an escalation though is the thing. Hopefully the former. If it's the later

Or a prelude to being bundled into the back of a van and driven to a quarry in Siberia?

JimD666

I can't see it being transmitted if it hadn't had tacit approval from on high.

MattFalle

JimD666 said:

I can't see it being transmitted if it hadn't had tacit approval from on high.

This

It would have just dropped off air - "technical fault" and all that.

rick_chasey

JimD666 said:

I can't see it being transmitted if it hadn't had tacit approval from on high.

We have no idea TBH.

It could just be the guy has enough clout or respect that he can speak more freely than others.

To take an example we are all familiar with, Zhukov survived the purge not because he was sycophantic - nor did he get removed when his forces were losing a million soldiers at a time.

(the link to the "liberation" of Ukraine and his command of the various Ukrainian forces is not lost here)

First.Aspect

Has anyone watched the whole thing?

The 2-3 mins on twitter seem to me more a way to moderate domestic expectations on the grounds that it is an unfair fight and start the idea of floating conscription within Russia.

The phrase "a million troops" was used repeatedly, and they were also careful to explain that the effectiveness of an army was as much about how much you cared as whether you are a professional soldier or not.

There was also a lot of emphasis on how odd it was that it was 42 countries against 1, and that this must be "resolved". Again, priming the population for a drawn out war while they build a WWIII alliance, and get used to a conditional deal with China?

As with all things, you can spin this several ways.

DeVlaeminck

Apparently this chap had warned of how this conflict would play out - fairly accurately - prior to the invasion so his views at least are genuine.

Of course that doesn't mean that allowing him to air those views on TV at this point isn't part of a state strategy to manipulate public opinion but he is at least not speaking to a script.

https://rusi.org/explore-our-research/publications/commentary/did-russias-general-staff-miss-warnings-hard-campaign-ukraine

First.Aspect

DeVlaeminck said:

Apparently this chap had warned of how this conflict would play out - fairly accurately - prior to the invasion so his views at least are genuine.

Of course that doesn't mean that allowing him to air those views on TV at this point isn't part of a state strategy to manipulate public opinion but he is at least not speaking to a script.

How do you know whether or not he was speaking to a script? (By which I assume you mean a pre-agreed narrative).

surrey_commuter

rick_chasey said:

JimD666 said:

I can't see it being transmitted if it hadn't had tacit approval from on high.

We have no idea TBH.

It could just be the guy has enough clout or respect that he can speak more freely than others.

To take an example we are all familiar with, Zhukov survived the purge not because he was sycophantic - nor did he get removed when his forces were losing a million soldiers at a time.

(the link to the "liberation" of Ukraine and his command of the various Ukrainian forces is not lost here)

I think you are being optimistic that everybody is familiar with the political trials and tribulations of Zhukov

rick_chasey

Yeah?

First.Aspect

surrey_commuter said:

rick_chasey said:

JimD666 said:

I can't see it being transmitted if it hadn't had tacit approval from on high.

We have no idea TBH.

It could just be the guy has enough clout or respect that he can speak more freely than others.

To take an example we are all familiar with, Zhukov survived the purge not because he was sycophantic - nor did he get removed when his forces were losing a million soldiers at a time.

(the link to the "liberation" of Ukraine and his command of the various Ukrainian forces is not lost here)

I think you are being optimistic that everybody is familiar with the political trials and tribulations of Zhukov

Yes but this way you get to say what you want about it and no one can contradict in an informed way anything you assert.

Talking about things other people don't know is a well established means of sounding clever. I do this all the time with materials and chemistry stuff.

surrey_commuter

rick_chasey said:

Yeah?

I was unsure of your first point and that does nothing to clarify.

My understanding is that he did well out of the "Great" Purge then became a hero which made Stalin jealous and he was sidelined.
I am not convinced he lost "millions at a time" but even if he did this is not a metric for which Stalin would have marked him down

surrey_commuter

First.Aspect said:

surrey_commuter said:

rick_chasey said:

JimD666 said:

I can't see it being transmitted if it hadn't had tacit approval from on high.

We have no idea TBH.

It could just be the guy has enough clout or respect that he can speak more freely than others.

To take an example we are all familiar with, Zhukov survived the purge not because he was sycophantic - nor did he get removed when his forces were losing a million soldiers at a time.

(the link to the "liberation" of Ukraine and his command of the various Ukrainian forces is not lost here)

I think you are being optimistic that everybody is familiar with the political trials and tribulations of Zhukov

Yes but this way you get to say what you want about it and no one can contradict in an informed way anything you assert.

Talking about things other people don't know is a well established means of sounding clever. I do this all the time with materials and chemistry stuff.

so much more effective pre-internet

First.Aspect

surrey_commuter said:

First.Aspect said:

surrey_commuter said:

rick_chasey said:

JimD666 said:

I can't see it being transmitted if it hadn't had tacit approval from on high.

We have no idea TBH.

It could just be the guy has enough clout or respect that he can speak more freely than others.

To take an example we are all familiar with, Zhukov survived the purge not because he was sycophantic - nor did he get removed when his forces were losing a million soldiers at a time.

(the link to the "liberation" of Ukraine and his command of the various Ukrainian forces is not lost here)

I think you are being optimistic that everybody is familiar with the political trials and tribulations of Zhukov

Yes but this way you get to say what you want about it and no one can contradict in an informed way anything you assert.

Talking about things other people don't know is a well established means of sounding clever. I do this all the time with materials and chemistry stuff.

so much more effective pre-internet

Indeed, you need to apply much more obfuscation these days.

TheBigBean

Is it effective at all? I'm far more persuaded when someone can put something complex in simple terms.

briantrumpet

TheBigBean said:

Is it effective at all? I'm far more persuaded when someone can put something complex in simple terms.

I have a feeling that a tongue is firmly in cheek.

But yes, and it's one reason I keep finding myself coming back to Feynman. His analogies, in the simplest terms possible, bring complex ideas to life.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nYg6jzotiAc

rick_chasey

Ok Zuhkov had Stalin’s respect even when he publicly disagreed within which he did do once or twice - fairly bold move then given the purge of the army pre war killed literally thousands of officers - anyone with any authority. He survived that to become head of the army without becoming a yes man.

Thousands had done less and ended up in gulags or worse.

He was known to lose his temper with stalin and visa versa but his ability to judge and manage Stalin without compromising his own integrity worked well.

It’s never as simple as “this is off message - either they want it or he’s gonna be short lived”

rick_chasey

Anyway, Kharkiv counter for ukraine seems to be going well but read a couple of reports that say things aren't so good in the main rump of Donetsk where Russians are making steady progress. Apparently the level of firepower, shelling, anti air etc, has been upped significantly on the Russian side and is proving tough to hold back.

surrey_commuter

rick_chasey said:

Anyway, Kharkiv counter for ukraine seems to be going well but read a couple of reports that say things aren't so good in the main rump of Donetsk where Russians are making steady progress. Apparently the level of firepower, shelling, anti air etc, has been upped significantly on the Russian side and is proving tough to hold back.

Kharkiv is strategically important as it is crucial to an encirclement.

I was surprised how close (300 miles) Staingrad is to Ukraine. Advancing on that with the intention of making the Volga the new border would put the cat among the pigeons.

Obviously tongue in cheek but I do wonder if an advance (or feint) over the border would be positive or negative for Ukraine. I think militarily it would be a masterstroke but politically a disaster

imposter2.0

surrey_commuter said:

Obviously tongue in cheek but I do wonder if an advance (or feint) over the border would be positive or negative for Ukraine. I think militarily it would be a masterstroke but politically a disaster

For as long as Ukraine is on the defensive, it will have majority international support and can correctly be seen as the 'innocent victim' of Russian aggression. That changes as soon as they go into Russia. The most they are likely to do (and are already doing) is UAV strikes or deniable SF incursions.

rick_chasey

surrey_commuter said:

rick_chasey said:

Anyway, Kharkiv counter for ukraine seems to be going well but read a couple of reports that say things aren't so good in the main rump of Donetsk where Russians are making steady progress. Apparently the level of firepower, shelling, anti air etc, has been upped significantly on the Russian side and is proving tough to hold back.

Kharkiv is strategically important as it is crucial to an encirclement.

I was surprised how close (300 miles) Staingrad is to Ukraine. Advancing on that with the intention of making the Volga the new border would put the cat among the pigeons.

Obviously tongue in cheek but I do wonder if an advance (or feint) over the border would be positive or negative for Ukraine. I think militarily it would be a masterstroke but politically a disaster

They'd drop nukes on some ukranian towns if they crossed the border meaningfully.

surrey_commuter

rick_chasey said:

surrey_commuter said:

rick_chasey said:

Anyway, Kharkiv counter for ukraine seems to be going well but read a couple of reports that say things aren't so good in the main rump of Donetsk where Russians are making steady progress. Apparently the level of firepower, shelling, anti air etc, has been upped significantly on the Russian side and is proving tough to hold back.

Kharkiv is strategically important as it is crucial to an encirclement.

I was surprised how close (300 miles) Staingrad is to Ukraine. Advancing on that with the intention of making the Volga the new border would put the cat among the pigeons.

Obviously tongue in cheek but I do wonder if an advance (or feint) over the border would be positive or negative for Ukraine. I think militarily it would be a masterstroke but politically a disaster

They'd drop nukes on some ukranian towns if they crossed the border meaningfully.

I don't disagree but do you not find it intriguing that Putin gets to decide what is in the theatre of war and what isn't

rick_chasey

surrey_commuter said:

rick_chasey said:

surrey_commuter said:

rick_chasey said:

Anyway, Kharkiv counter for ukraine seems to be going well but read a couple of reports that say things aren't so good in the main rump of Donetsk where Russians are making steady progress. Apparently the level of firepower, shelling, anti air etc, has been upped significantly on the Russian side and is proving tough to hold back.

Kharkiv is strategically important as it is crucial to an encirclement.

I was surprised how close (300 miles) Staingrad is to Ukraine. Advancing on that with the intention of making the Volga the new border would put the cat among the pigeons.

Obviously tongue in cheek but I do wonder if an advance (or feint) over the border would be positive or negative for Ukraine. I think militarily it would be a masterstroke but politically a disaster

They'd drop nukes on some ukranian towns if they crossed the border meaningfully.

I don't disagree but do you not find it intriguing that Putin gets to decide what is in the theatre of war and what isn't

And people wonder why nations spend such vast amounts of money on nuclear deterrents.

pangolin

surrey_commuter said:

rick_chasey said:

surrey_commuter said:

rick_chasey said:

Anyway, Kharkiv counter for ukraine seems to be going well but read a couple of reports that say things aren't so good in the main rump of Donetsk where Russians are making steady progress. Apparently the level of firepower, shelling, anti air etc, has been upped significantly on the Russian side and is proving tough to hold back.

Kharkiv is strategically important as it is crucial to an encirclement.

I was surprised how close (300 miles) Staingrad is to Ukraine. Advancing on that with the intention of making the Volga the new border would put the cat among the pigeons.

Obviously tongue in cheek but I do wonder if an advance (or feint) over the border would be positive or negative for Ukraine. I think militarily it would be a masterstroke but politically a disaster

They'd drop nukes on some ukranian towns if they crossed the border meaningfully.

I don't disagree but do you not find it intriguing that Putin gets to decide what is in the theatre of war and what isn't

Completely weird that we are all supposed to buy into this not being "war".

First.Aspect

briantrumpet said:

TheBigBean said:

Is it effective at all? I'm far more persuaded when someone can put something complex in simple terms.

I have a feeling that a tongue is firmly in cheek.

But yes, and it's one reason I keep finding myself coming back to Feynman. His analogies, in the simplest terms possible, bring complex ideas to life.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nYg6jzotiAc

Isn't there an Einstein quote along the lines of it should be possible to explain anything to a child?

I mean the guy was clever but I'd like to see him have a go at wave-particle duality for primary school age children.

First.Aspect

TheBigBean said:

Is it effective at all? I'm far more persuaded when someone can put something complex in simple terms.

I've just read the entire macroeconomics thread end to end.

The answer to your question is no.

briantrumpet

First.Aspect said:

briantrumpet said:

TheBigBean said:

Is it effective at all? I'm far more persuaded when someone can put something complex in simple terms.

I have a feeling that a tongue is firmly in cheek.

But yes, and it's one reason I keep finding myself coming back to Feynman. His analogies, in the simplest terms possible, bring complex ideas to life.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nYg6jzotiAc

Isn't there an Einstein quote along the lines of it should be possible to explain anything to a child?

I mean the guy was clever but I'd like to see him have a go at wave-particle duality for primary school age children.

Haha. Yes, that would be fun. I suspect he'd find some way of at least making the thing sound fun/interesting, even if, er, 'some of the detail' was more than a little sketchy. There's loads of stuff in the universe I know that my tiny brain will never be able to comprehend, so I find it easier to let others try to understand it.

On a serious point, I like the way he uses words like 'thing' a lot. I was musing on this yesterday, suggesting that categorising into 'thing' and 'stuff' is not uninteresting - 'things' particularly so: linguistically and cognitively, our brains deal in 'things', and attach linguistic labels to them, and constantly update the amount of information attached to the millions of 'things' our brains have filed away as phenomena.