Zoraptor

Well, originally it was Scythia. That was ~1000BC though, so of limited relevance except that it was unlikely Stalin killed the original inhabitants (as is the way of things, it was probably the Sarmatians/ Scythians killing whoever was there before them). Ironically, if you go by historical precedent/ longevity the best claimant is probably Iran- or Ossetia- since the Alans were there for ~800 years and the Sarmatians (Scythians) ~1000 before that. Then about 500 years of turkic Cumans and Tartars. Can't give that to Turkey though, as they're almost entirely greeks/ armenians/ anatolians/ kurds or in Erdogan's case georgian who just larp as turkic. You'd have to give it to one of the independent 'stans, or tartaristan. Donetsk and especially Lugansk were ethnically East Slav early though, as they just didn't have very big populations of anyone. The Cossacks of the Sich/ Hetmanate were East Slav*. Most of Lugansk oblast was near continuously part of Russia since the early 16th century (Vasili III) and not part of the Sich. Donetsk was first taken by Ivan Grozny, but lost later (and was part of the Sich). There's essentially zero historical link to Ukraine prior to Brest Litovsk in 1918; they weren't part of the Kievan Rus and they weren't part of the East Slavic P/LC areas either. Kind of early for my biennial rant on ethnicities, so I'll limit myself to saying that the East Slav ethnic divisions are particularly stupid and arbitrary. There's no objective difference between Belarussians/ Russians/ Ukrainians. *not Ukrainian, though as above the distinction is entirely subjective. Indeed, they regarded the modern Ukraine with a fair bit of disdain due to them being under the yoke of catholic poles.

Zelensky did say that Ukraine would potentially look to reacquire nukes at the Munich conference last week- in context, if it couldn't get into NATO. That isn't a new position either, first(?) floated last year. (Probably not a serious proposition but designed to put pressure on NATO/ the west. Also probably not a sensible way to do it, since it hands Putin an extra stick to beat them with)

It's unlikely that they'll join Russia, at least in the short term. The 1991 referendum formed the legal basis of the Crimean decision and for whatever international law is worth was legal since all the i's were dotted and t's crossed in terms of Ukraine approving it. Legally, Crimea left Ukraine then. Which is, of course, why it never gets mentioned in the media and they like to pretend that the only referendum was the 2014 one as they can legitimately complain about that one. What exactly the media think the 1992 constitution was that was referenced in the 2014 referendum and how/ why that option meant independence from Ukraine without referencing the 1991 referendum, who knows? Lugansk and Donetsk are at this point equivalent to South Ossetia and Abkhazia, intended primarily as leverage* in that they can ask to join Russia and be approved, but haven't. If they joined Russia it would be irreversible, as it stands it's still eminently reversible. Russia would probably still be happy with Minsk being implemented, but... Fundamentally the problem is that Minsk was signed when Ukraine was losing badly, and froze the conflict before it was decided outright. Of course Russia got most of what it wanted in those circumstances, since they could have just taken what they wanted. Now, Ukraine has had 8 years of being told how much better its armed forces are and how they'll get support from US/ UK/ Poland and Russia will have its economy destroyed if the conflict resumes; and domestically 8 years of being told how unfair Minsk is and how it was made at gunpoint. Any pressure from France and Germany to get it implemented is cancelled out by the support from others for it not being implemented. The only way it gets implemented is if there's enough pressure, and if there's a difference between the pressure required for outright war or pressure required for implementation it's very fine. From Russia's pov recognising independence gives Russia the benefits of Minsk without having to implement their side and increases pressure on Ukraine to fold on other issues. It's also gives a lot of difficulty to the west in terms of response; the hawk side will want a robust response** that promotes escalation (or to be more charitable, a desire to show strength in the supposed belief that it will de-escalate, somehow), the dove side will want a weaker response that leaves diplomacy open. *it's also unclear if the recognition is for the full oblast or just controlled areas. About half of each is controlled by Ukraine. That decision obviously provides further potential leverage **ironically, that's generally had a detrimental effect on Ukraine despite supposedly being supportive, which is why Zelensky has repeatedly tried to get the rhetoric turned down. It's all very well the US and UK shouting from the sidelines, it's not going to cost them anything being inflexible and inflammatory.

Clearly cheese causing nightmares is not an urban myth, and those fatalities are caused by thrashing about during those nightmares, wrapping bed sheets about yourself and presumably your last thoughts being that you're getting throttled by an enormous anaconda*. Does being right handed make you more likely to get covid? The facts speak for themseves: 88% of people who have covid are right handed. Only 12% of people who have covid are left handed. That's an 8 fold difference. Quod erat demonstrandum, I think is the phrase I'm looking for. *no, people with dirty minds, not in the Sir Mixalot sense.

Elex 2's system requirements are really oddly put together. Do you actually need a RDNA AMD card in the 1070Ti class when a 1060 will do on the nVidia side? Why is a 2070 class 5700XT the rec for AMD but a 2060 on the nVidia side? You might explain the latter with dlss, but the 1060 doesn't have that- but it does have a garbage cut down 3GB version which is even worse comparatively, and they don't specify the 6GB version. Why specify a 9500F processor as a rec spec? It performs identically to a 9500 non F as the only difference is the presence/ absence of an irrelevant iGPU.

Elex 2 will be out this year, really. It's out in literally 9 days* (March 1st). Suppose I should even pre-order, since GOG will give me 10% off and I'll buy it for sure anyway. *I would have to admit I only found that out last week, and was pretty surprised myself it was so soon. And I thought I'd been following it pretty closely. They don't seem to have been exactly shouting the date from the rooftops.

Yep, though that's a different issue to the question of the legality of the intervention itself. And, since I have the figures at hand, and it rather illustrates the point... Civilian casualties, Battle of Aleppo, population ~2.2mn, 2016 (a little less than 12 months): ~3500 (all sides, for those specifically attributed it's ~40/60 split rebel caused/ government (inc Russian) caused, but I've included all of them) Civilian casualties, Battle of Mosul, population ~2mn, 2016-7, 9 months: 6000-10,000, With outliers of 2500 and 40,000 (which was also the latest one, and only one to include actual bodies actually recovered as a basis of the estimate) Civilian casualties, Battle of Raqqa, population ~400k, 2017, 4 months: ~1700 The higher estimate for civilian casualties in Mosul is greater than the death toll (including all combatants) in the entirety of Aleppo province (pop: just under 5mn), over the course of the Syrian Civil War from 2012-2018. You wouldn't know that going by the media coverage and governmental presentations made about the two though. When you take populations and length of time into account the 'indiscriminate' campaign actually caused by far the fewest casualties. Of course, the situations aren't directly equivalent (and can't be), but still, shows a pattern of demonisation that makes it hard to take claims of western good intentions at face value. And in order to be actual whataboutism the point made has to be irrelevant. If someone complains about being punched and the response is "but you punched the guy ten seconds earlier" then that person is not practising whataboutism, no matter how much the first person might shout it. Him punching the guy first is certainly relevant to him getting punched back no matter how much he might like the conversation to be about his unique and unjustified suffering and that alone.

Yeah, nah. I'm not saying that you're engaging in whataboutism because yeah, I brought up the comparison. But in order to be whataboutism it has to be comparing something irrelevant. I've had this argument before a lot, and the most common response to criticism of the legality of NATO's actions in Libya once you quote the actual Resolution in general is: 'well but what about Russians in Syria then!!!'. That is whataboutism because the intervention in Syria is legal, while regime change in Libya wasn't; so it's not actually a relevant comparison. I have a decent amount of sympathy for people who think it is because, basically, the press never questioned if the resolution said what NATO claimed it did, but has always portrayed the Russian intervention in Syria as illegitimate. If you only got your information from secondary sources then that's the picture you got. OTOH, my comparison was to the reactions to the two campaigns, despite one being legal and the other not. That's certainly relevant to whether Russia thinks it can trust the west or not- a deliberate policy of misrepresentation does not promote trust.

They don't need approval from the UN, since they were invited in by the recognised government*. It's kind of indicative that the West treats it like they did need its approval though, isn't it? And plenty of people think whataboutism only works one way... *unlike the US and friends. Position is Verhunka. Lots of people saying it's a Druzhba pipeline which is an export one and absolutely massive, but it isn't, judging by the pictures. That's a local line.

You know, I was going to say those are pretty pedantic objections. But then I remember that every time I see a class designation of Destroyer I get an urge to ask where the torpedo boats it's meant to Destroy are. So, maybe not.

Pretty traditional though. Terms like spastic and cretin were medical terms before entering common usage. Yeah, just try substituting Russia with NATO in that situation and see if anyone would accept 'poor job' as an excuse. You don't even need to, just look at how the Russian intervention in Syria was portrayed. They didn't just do a poor job. It wasn't an accidental misinterpretation. They 100% deliberately used it as an excuse to do exactly what they wanted to do, whatever it actually authorised. Having spent days getting an acceptable compromise resolution through they ignored every bit of compromise in it. And then had the temerity to cry about not being given similar powers again and how China and Russia were big meanies; they also systematically lied about the content of the resolution. So not only dishonest in application, dishonest in justification too. The original question was why Russia would distrust NATO anyway, and that shows pretty much absolutely why they wouldn't. Regime change was 100% not authorised, regime change was 100% pursued from the outset. There'd be a 0% chance of the US being directly involved in something like that. If they wanted a provocation there are plenty of Ukrainians they could get to do it completely deniably. While most Ukrainians have a more or less realistic assessment of what would actually happen in a war- they'd lose, badly- there are most definitely enough who think it'd end with Novgorod and Vladimir-Suzdal being reunited with the motherland to do something stupid if encouraged.

Except they didn't, they went for regime change which was not authorised. When the rebels attacked Sirte, or Tripoli, under the actual terms of the UNSC resolution (and relevant section quoted below) NATO should have started bombing the rebels, but didn't. That abrogation is why they never got a resolution that even approached allowing force in Syria. Of course, NATO likes to pretend that the resolution allowed regime change- but then that's part of the problem isn't it, NATO pretending it's allowed do stuff that it shouldn't. It's always a special case with special justifications when NATO does something against the rules, but somehow only when NATO breaks the rules. No mention of bombing only one side, it just says that civilians should be protected. Maybe the rebel grads and artillery etc fired only pot pourri and fluffy bunnies? Oh yeah, and the NATO backed side used chemical weapons too, in Bani Walid.

Own a corrugated iron shack. Have a dozen people living in it. Don't have power (or jack the lines to get free power). Get water from public access. That's how much of the world's population still lives.

That seems likely, there have been a few too many 'accidental' mentions of Ukraine agreeing not to join NATO in the last few days that look far too much like proposals being floated. Zelensky's patience with some of the pro war rhetoric from the UK and US has also clearly run out, since he's being about as overtly passive aggressive about things like the announcement of the Feb 16th invasion date as I've ever seen a politician be with supposed close friends.

If beating the war drums includes frenzied handwaving we've had two nights (Ukraine time) of US journalists saying that they've got the good oil from their Pentagon sources that the Russians were moving to firing positions and war was absolutely imminent. CBS even managed to have new intelligence from US officials about the Russians deploying to firing positions, on both nights. Hardly surprising, lest we forget the only organisation punished for inaccurate reporting in the lead up to the 2003 Gulf War was the war skeptical BBC. All the dodgy intelligence used then was laundered freely through 'respected' outlets like the NYT. Indeed launderers in chief like Michael Gordon are still employed, and still writing on foreign affairs. In much the same vein. Not really NATO. Its most prominent player by far has been pledging undying and unyielding support for Ukraine's current position and no compromising. France and Germany though sure, since it was their diplomatic baby, even if they're largely sidelined in the current narrative in the anglosphere. They don't have any leverage over Ukraine to get them to implement though, not when the US and UK are shouting about compromise being treason.

Ukraine has buried the Minsk Accords already. They've publicly said they can't/ won't implement them on their side and they want the agreement replaced. At least formally, they probably accept that practically there won't be a renegotiation as they have no leverage. Russian peacekeepers were in Georgia for 16 years with no real issues in terms of escalation. They've been in Transnistria for 30 years too. It took Sakashvili directly attacking them in a sustained manner to get a (per OSCE, ad hoc, unprepared) response in Georgia, and that was very much the consequence of Sakashvili's deliberate choices. The design for them being present is very much to freeze the situation. Recognition is an escalation, but it's a more or less rhetorical one compared to, say, recognising their independence then having them join the RF (which happened with Crimea; but hasn't with South Ossetia or Abkhazia)- it's also a door that was very much opened by NATO itself deciding that chopping up countries was legitimate. It may even be designed to put pressure on Ukraine to implement Minsk, which could effectively give Russia its desired veto over NATO membership.

Netflix is making a Bioshock movie. Wonder if Ken Levine will bring all that experience from MASH to the party...

Hey guys, Tyson Fury is meant to come to my house and punch me on the nose today. If he doesn't, it's because I've successfully deterred him. In terms of response South Ossetia/ Abkhazia is probably a closer comparison since they're pretty much direct equivalents, just Georgian, though they were justified as legal thanks to the stupidity of Kosovo's 'unique case'. Also had more of the genuine genocide adjacent about them since the Georgians were confirmed to have ethnically cleansed 100k ethnic Ossetians. Not that you'll see that particular fact mentioned very much; and that isn't the case for novorossiya no matter the rhetoric of Bandera fans. They'll throw a wobbly about Russian peacekeepers moving in. They'll do nothing about it except maybe some toys coming out of the cot. Doesn't make any practical difference anyway, that's the effective status quo already.

What is it with Scott Morrison and cringey photo ops? I'm sure I remember some old bloke telling him to f___ off at the airport when he tried to get a handshake around that time too, which was about the most stereotypically Australian thing I've ever seen. OTOH New Zealand's PMs have too many people shaking their hands. Not quite as topical though.

The Australian Federal Police Raids- on three media organisations. What sparked them. IGADF Report ('Brereton Report') on Australian SAS conduct in Afghanistan- pdf, and long. 2021 update. And for balance, the report on the allegations of war crimes by the New Zealand SAS ('Operation Burnham'; TLDR definitely killed civilians, probably didn't meet the criteria for a war crime though the systematic lying about it was a very bad look. The guy who wrote the exposé on that has definitely been the target of SIS spooks before and since, too). That should give Bruce some light reading for the next few days.

There's one problem with that- it's fundamentally incompatible with what they've already done. The whole point is that they've already made the existence of the intelligence public, so the hand is shown. It's the card equivalent of going for a lay down misère and then saying that maybe the player is bluffing instead of trying to lose. Once the cards are down it can't be a bluff because... that's the point of putting the cards down; once the intelligence is revealed you've already shown its existence. If the aim is to protect the intelligence then they shouldn't have revealed it in the first place.

Yeah, I'm not sure I've seen anyone at all who liked completed Picard. IIRC Guard Dog at least liked it up until the last two episodes, and I found it tolerable up to them. And that's about it for positivity. I wouldn't put it quite as regarding toys being broken, but I think that my opinion that the Federation has always been a busted flush* helps when it comes to not hating the programs. End of the day it's the bad plotting which ruined all the shows for me, not them being bad Star Trek. *I also watched Blake's 7 first, so I'll view any 'Federation' with an arrowhead symbol as less than intrinsically great, which helps when it comes to Picard.

So does the ambassador who made them for that matter. The ambassador to the UK making them was always a bit of an odd option (compared to, say, Germany), if they were intended as a positional change and not just made off the cuff. Kind of amusing seeing the number of Brits and Americans online who think that anything less than complete and unequivocal support for their assertions and inflexibility from Zelensky and other Ukrainians is treachery though. Apparently wanting to actually see the supposed plan that the US has for tomorrow's invasion is a completely unreasonable request, given that the Ukrainians are the ones who would actually have to fight said invasion. You'd think that would be more useful than some expired Javelins. Only really two options from that, either the plan doesn't exist or they don't actually want to help Ukraine fight it; and neither of those options is very complimentary.

On a my personal bête noir/ Discovery like Albatross round the neck from a couple of months ago; I watched Shadow and Bone on Netflix. Wasn't really expecting much, but I thought it would be a fairer comparison to Wheel of Time than S2 of The Witcher even if it wasn't effected by covid as much. Well, S&B was better in every single regard and I ended up liking it completely unironically. Better written, better effects, better acting (though that comparison at least may be unfair, doubtful the actors in WoT could have done much better with what they had), way better direction and cinematography overall, and it didn't reek of cheapness and being rushed despite all the money spent on it. It's not outright brilliant but I would outright recommend it to anyone who isn't allergic to a touch of the Young Adult Tropes, at least. At the time, those were pretty much exactly my thoughts. It wasn't good, but there was potential there to be built on.

I'd have far rather had a different vaccine than Pfizer for exactly those reasons. The funniest people* are those defending its cost- now the most expensive- as being due to all the research Pfizer had to do. The research was done by BionTech, and paid for by the fine volk of Deutschland. All Pfizer did was... license the design. I do rather like to pretend that all the people worshipping Pfizer are paid to do so, but facts have to faced: a lot are just stupid enough to fanboy an utterly morally bankrupt multi billion dollar company, for free. It's not even the best vaccine, half the reason boosters are needed is because its efficacy drops so steeply- considerably more so than Moderna's. Given it's Pfizer you might expect that being great short term and crap longer term is entirely by design, but as above they didn't actually design it so I guess that at least can't be blamed on wanting windfall profits. *OTOH the worst thing was slandering the cheaper alternatives, aided by useful idiots like von der Leyen desperate to throw poo at the UK for having the temerity to leave their club.