Zoraptor

For all the snark about cease fires now meaning "you cease, we fire" or being agreements to stop killing civilians so quickly* most cease fires historically were practically just agreements to stop shooting so much at each other. In the hope that they'd become permanent in the case of open ended ones. eg the longest running current ceasefire on the Korean peninsula where they still semi regularly end up shooting at each other. They have mostly ceased firing. Except Israel of course, and they have at least ceased firing, at Iran. The problem is the one everyone foresaw except Trump himself- he can't get an agreement that even looks like a win. Which he needs, and Iran knows that he needs. *given the US justification for their strikes the "aggressively placed their country/drones near our peaceful and purely defensive military bases/ drones" cliché is relevant as well.

Here's a link. It's the FT article reproduced in the non paywalled Irish Times. Hasn't seen a dollar spent to help rebuild Gaza, is definitely a distinction that needs to be made. You can bet prospective Gauleiter of Gaza Tony Blair* and pals have had their snouts in the trough though, especially since Blair's been in the media. Telling Starmer he needs to suck up to Trump more and that will solve all his problems. They've also had at least one actual meeting, where they decided... to ask the UNSC to ask Hamas to disarm. Ho hum and Ha ha, given that the BoP was marketed as a way to neuter/ end run the UNSC rather than begging them to do something like everyone else does. *At least George Bush had the decency to retire rather than still inflicting himself on the world 15 years after leaving politics like Blair does.

Used to be part of the same confederation. Officially, Australia left because Asia provided better competition and more commercial opportunities. Unofficially, Australia thought they should dominate and determine policy, everyone else didn't want that and kept voting Charlie Dempsey as confed head. The most famous consequence of that was South Africa missing out on the World Cup to Germany first time around in one of those perpetual FIFA voting scandals. Which semi ironically is also how Oceania (practically, NZ) got a permanent qualification spot to the World Cup a decade later. Doesn't make much practical difference, now, as FIFA has relaxed some of their more restrictive rules on cross confederation participation (eg in theory there was a limit on the number of NZers able to play in the Phoenix or previously the Kings despite them being NZ based teams, since they were classed as being non confederation). Don't think Auckland can play in the Asia club champions competition despite winning the Australian competition, but that's about it for limitations now; similarly, two Australian clubs play in the Oceania league.

That's practically a signature of any Amazon genre TV show at this point. Spend a lot per episode overall, but save money by having weirdly/ unbelievably empty sets and having everything happen in the same few places. If you notice it, it makes it feel extremely cheap. How many guards/ people are there at the White House, in reality? Yeah... At least Fallout has a built in excuse for the emptiness. (The Boys not as egregious there as Rings of Power though. Massive, and probably incredibly expensive establishing shot of [populous place]. Actual population seems to consists of half a dozen people. Numenor, big enough population to basically conquer Middle Earth but the biggest crowd seems to be around 20 people, even for something as important as their queen getting 'executed')

Well, apparently/ according to the NYT*, the US/ Israeli plan was to have Mahmoud Ahmedinajad become the new (old) Iranian leader. Under normal circumstances you'd have to laugh at the idea of one of Iran's most hardline leaders- and supposedly linked to the revolutionary Hostage Crisis/ storming of the US embassy, pro nuclear program, stridently anti west etc etc- being advanced as a proxy by the US, and laugh at the idea of him deciding it was a bad idea only after the plan to free him from house arrest resulted in him getting injured (killed in early reports). Completely absurd, and would make you question the nature of reality- or be convinced it was a clumsy and obvious psy op to get Ahmedinajad hanged- 2 years ago. Given it's Donald 'concept of a plan' Trump though it has to be given at least some consideration for being accurate. *doesn't seem to be a gift article link, but isn't paywalled for me.

For a memorial, sure. It's in their interests to embiggen their contribution. And the other sources manage to be even less credible if you can be bothered checking them. eg the BBC article on the topic managed to increase the size of the park by a factor of 1000000 (yes, one million fold; 52 km^2 instead of 5.2ha. Not a simple typo either, you cannot accidentally write 52km^2 instead of 52000m^2, at best you have someone who isn't aware that 52km^2 is a decent sized city and cannot do maths properly doing your verifications). They did, at least, manage to correct that, eventually. They also spent a lot of effort counting the names on the 'memorial' wall, but no time at all verifying that the names on the wall were of deaths. Neither was there any comment on how even their numbers don't get anywhere near the claimed number of deaths, ie 6000 out of 11000 deployed. Mostly because that number is extremely obvious bollocks, which makes relying on the exact same sources for information about the memorial park look dumb. That just results in a full scale invasion in 2014, and, if the troops were followed through on, potentially nukes flying a month or so later. People love to think that Russia doesn't really see Ukraine as an existential threat. Doesn't matter in the slightest what you think or I think- or even what Macron/ Biden/ Johnson/ Obama/ Merkel thought- in that matter, all that is important is what the Russians thought. To be frank, despite what western leaders say they all know that's how Russia sees it, which is precisely why they haven't deployed troops and- despite breathless media reports over the past 4 years- won't without Moscow's approval. If it's an existential threat nukes are in play. There's no point having them otherwise.

Kill hundreds of civilians by shooting down their plane and you get a medal from the US. Also, finish your current course before starting your next. (Can't remember which strategic genius that sage advice ultimately comes from; Sun Tzu, Clausewitz, or my mum)

Trump has suspended a plan- or a concept of a plan- to bomb Iran again after his Gulf allies objected. Which might not really be news given it's Trump but is kind of interesting given the sustained push to paint those same Gulf allies as being all in (politically, and over the last week or so, militarily) for the initial attack that has been going on. I was always skeptical of MbS being anywhere near as gung ho as he was painted as given his country's sustained inability to even deal with the Houthi's drone and missile threat. And the UAE's leaders must be aware that their 'Sparta of the Gulf' reputation is a joke when the orders issued by the rich Dubai/ Abu Dhabi elite have to be carried out by those in the poorer Emirates. Which already resulted in their expeditionary force fleeing Yemen after nearly 100 Fujairans copped a scud there and threatened mutiny at dying for Dubai's imperial ambitions. (The off the records seem to be implying that there's a ban on airspace and baseage for attacks, at least until diplomacy is exhausted, and has been since the ill advised attempt to force the Hormuz blockade)

The original source for that is the (free/ gifted) article that Malc linked to above.

Absolutely disastrous local body elections for Labour and Keir Starmer in the UK. Just as bad really for the Conservatives too, though they had a lot less to lose. Better ban a few more protest groups and rallies, I'm sure that will fix the problem. Pretty good results for everyone with a cause like the seperatists or greens though- or a 'cause', like Reform. Lots of Labour people saying that when push comes to shove voters won't go for Farage and he isn't really likeable or electable and when push comes to shove they'll come back to Labour. Usually, sure, but not if there's the one two punch of you offering an unliked and uncharismatic leader pushing the millstone of status quo up hill like an artificially cheery and seemingly unaware* Sisyphus. Literally the only thing Starmer seems to passionately believe in is giving Israel carte blanche and suppressing anyone who complains. An utterly terrible look for someone whose prior claim to fame was being a human rights' lawyer. At least he's not the 'unelectable' Bernie Sanders Jeremy Corbyn, I guess. Whose Labour got half a million more votes in 2019 than Starmer's did at the last election. Though you'd never know from the media coverage. Very much "no, it's the kids voters who are wrong" on display from both Labour. *If there's one thing I hate in British politics it's the way everyone talks the same overly PRed and media coached way. Projects almost exactly the same air of honesty and integrity as a Nigerian Prince scam.

That's just the natural order of things. Moles have bad eyesight, Moa had no wings despite being birds. We don't have gills. If you don't need it, you lose it; that's just evolution. If your leaders will never be held to account then they stop justifying stuff properly. Because they simply don't need to.

Half assed is being generous. 'Concept of an ass' is probably fairer. No US ships; because it's too dangerous for AEGIS destroyers and the like. It is, however, safe for slow bulk carriers, supertankers etc. Hmm. Seems unlikely insurance is going to want to bet on that arrangement.

Legally the Cuban blockade is not a Blockade, which has a formal definition, it's an Embargo. The US pressures countries into 'voluntarily' not trading/ supplying oil etc rather than physically preventing them. Hence Russia sending two tankers through. As above, Cuba wasn't even formally Blockaded during the Missile Crisis

Yes, a big B Blockade is literally an Act of War. That was why in the Cuban Missile Crisis it was never a formal Blockade; because that would mean the US and USSR were at war. You can legally sink ships trying to run the Blockade- indeed, in order for it to be a Blockade you have to try and stop them, by any means- and they can sink yours. Which would obviously have been a rather bad idea all around. Bit of a measure of how unpopular the war is that Trump doesn't want to risk taking it to Congress despite theoretically having a majority in both houses and a lot of Democrats who'd vote pro Israel for literally anything else.

'The market' is dumb as rocks since Trump hasn't exactly been subtle about his manipulation. But yeah, now it's more likely to be the emergency stocks that were released running down fully and some of the Gulf sites approaching their theoretical storage limits (after which they have to stop pumping oil, and the restart process is s l o w) which are realities that Trump can't rhetoricise around. We'll know Trump is actually serious when he stops trying to send people Iran won't talk to as negotiators.

On a different note, seems a lot of NAFO types have North Korea 'announcing' they had 2000+ deaths in Kursk. Which they get by counting names on a 'memorial' wall and doubling the number, because it's 'double sided'. It's actually- or at least, according to DPRK itself- a list of those given combat citations. And is clearly single sided anyway, not double. The only admitted losses are the 101 on the actual memorial wall (with individual pictures and stated as being such by DPRK) shown last year.

Dunno, they got at least some Euro politicians talking about sanctions on Israel over it. Sanctions for selling grain vs no sanctions for killing civilians, killing journalists, torturing babies, systematic rape raping doctors to death and persistently attacking aid workers plus starvation as a weapon of war, collective punishment and Perfidy about perfectly sums up the reality of Europe's moral compass.

Regionally all of Senegal/ Chad/ Niger/ CdI had a permanent French military presence since independence. Mali was Soviet aligned for a bit iirc, but had French military presence dating back to at least 1999*, so not 2013. That's just when Operation wotsit started. And, of course, France being the colonial power means they were 100% under French domination, then. You only have to look at the terms under which Niger's main international currency earner operated to see that it was being run for French benefit, not Nigerien. The Japanese were paying double the price the French were for yellowcake. *had to check french wikipedia to confirm that, so not exactly accessible.

Ukraine blew that pipeline up literally the next day, Bruce.

Côte d'Ivoire was last year, and probably a bit unexpected since France had still retained enough influence to arrest Laurance Gbagbo after a disputed election only 15 years ago, and the beneficiary of that move (ie Alassane Ouatarra) is still in office. 15 years, and four 'elections' later*. Senegal, Mali, Niger, Chad and Burkina Faso were the others that went earlier. *Some might say that a 95.3% vote for a candidate is a tad suspicious but I'm sure that he was- was- just that competent and popular. Though the more cynical might have just the most tiny little thought that maybe, just maybe, his legitimacy is going to be called into question at some point in the future by the same people who'd been ignoring it previous.

Funny thing, the bigger one, 14 years ago, was when the region was under French domination. What were the French doing to stop it, it's all their fault, why haven't things improved in 130 years of French domination etc etc said Bruce, never, ever. Funny thing as well, that was due to the primarily French decision to topple Gaddafi to unselfishly and generously try and keep then President Sarkozy out of jail for accepting definitely not bribes from Libya. Which flooded the area with unregulated arms and the completely unregulated support of anyone anti Gaddafi lead to AQIM getting a lot of them. A painful lesson- well not really, since the people who suffered from it weren't the rich white euroweenies who caused it, they patted themselves on the back while ignoring the open air slave markets etc- which at least was learnt from when it came to Syria. Where, of course, ISIS caliph al Baghdadi's deputy and head of Al Qaeda in Syria is now feted by people like... the French President at the Elysee. Ho hum.

Eh, if it's just suspension from 'important positions' it's a bit of a nothingburger. You cannot suspend members of NATO, there simply is not provision for it and everyone would have to agree to alter their charter. Which, presumably, the targeted parties would refuse to do. The Falklands thing is probably more significant, with Millei being a Trump bootlicker and all. Especially since Starmer caved over Diego Garcia, a deal Trump approved of, hated, approved of again then finally stopped. Just wait until some troll from Morocco mentions Ceuta and Mellila to Trump... The EU already has collective defence outside of NATO (since the Lisbon Treaty 2007/9, and there was a precursor even since benelux days, iirc). They also have a set of agreements with non EU European and other countries, though they generally stop short of outright alliances, even defensive. The 'realistic' scenario for NATO without the US is pretty much literally NATO, without the US. ie dissolve or mothball the alliance, everyone* else joins the North Western HemiDemisphere Treaty Organisation. It's not all that realistic though, even with Trump. *for a certain definition of everyone; would not be a surprise if Turkey were not invited despite their military strength.

The increased expenditure is largely at the behest of the US though. That German rearmament document is also still very... US compatible since they talk about the Asia-Pacific theatre (in the context that they want to do away with having formal military theatres, but still) which is basically antipodal to Germany and where, realistically, they will have essentially zero independent power projection under any circumstances short of spending their entire military budget on their navy. That's very much something which is meant to back up the US. OTOH, with Germany wanting to hold the Olympics in xx36 and wanting the strongest military in Europe by xx39... you never know.

Those are the sort of things computers ought to be good at since most of them amount to database queries and rote responses- two things people are notoriously bad at especially if they aren't very motivated. Chat bots tend to be notoriously bad at anything outside the box or unpredicted though and tend to 'break' easily; eg the local supermarket chatbot would make 'recipes' using a variety of different noxious or poisonous ingredients like motor oil instead of vegetable oil, if prompted to. Which is funny if you know motor oil ain't edible, not so much if you don't, and some people don't. ('AI' use in employment stuff is something I find quite interesting though, because it's one area where there's been quite a lot of pushback on both sides here. Employers hate having hundreds of obvious AI slop CVs and covering letters to wade through; potential employees hate being interviewed by 'AI' chatbots for jobs instead of real people. It's also rather funny thining of one 'ai' writing all the cvs and covering letters only for another 'ai' to judge the results)

The only one of those examples that is near equivalent is the air travel one since most air travel is not really necessary, it's convenient. 'AI' isn't really necessary either it's just convenient (and makes some people a lot of money). It's probably closest to something like littering, maybe: sure, that one piece of plastic wrap you dropped won't make a difference but it certainly would if everyone starts doing it. (On a narrow economic basis: The trouble with 'AI' energy wise is that it already uses the same- maybe more, now- energy as the UK. That's not much less than a year/year increase either. While no tears should be shed for Gamers crying about Jensen making it uneconomic for them to buy dual 5090 Titans any more all those AI cards go into data centres and are run 24/7/365 at 1kW a pop. That mounts up, rapidly. To use a vaccum cleaner comparison it is the equivalent of running 8 low model Dyson's simultaneously, and in perpetuity, per card. Also buying up all the RAM effects people who do need computers, like for education or just because their computer broke. They now have to pay more, same as they do for the electricity going into those 8 Dyson equivalents, in a rack, in a hectare sized site. With 20 employees. Plus of course all the economic consequences of people getting sacked so 'AI' can take their jobs. Which really ought to be the big worry. All those people not contributing to taxes, being on welfare, not buying stuff because they have no money etc. It's the last one that is really the kicker, because that will put non 'AI' service economy stuff out of business. Which will all look nice on a corporation's balance sheet, right up until it doesn't any more. And all because you decided to use AI to set a reminder rather than just putting it on your calendar. Shaking my smh my head)