On 15-Apr-22 16:18, RustyHinge wrote:
> On 15/04/2022 13:53, Tease'n'Seize wrote:
>> Nick Odell wrote:
>>
>>> I understand that there are four other big Russian warships in the Med
>>
>> Yes, the two sister ships of the Moskva sailed around
>> scandihoovia/ireland
>> and the land of the rising sun/suez to join in, I remember one making
>> the news.
>>
>> <https://youtu.be/DmxJsRy4ty0>
>>
>>> which are waiting to sail through to the Black Sea but that Turkey has
>>> invoked a treaty of 1936 to stop them. I wonder how long they will be
>>> able to hold that particular line?
>>
>> Those pointy launchers on the Slava class are bloody huge, what pops
>> out of them are effectively not much smaller than a single engine jet
>> fighter with wingses.
>
> Crude missiles?
>
No. There's no room for a crew.

--
Sam Plusnet

On 15-Apr-22 10:50, Nick Odell wrote:
> On Thu, 14 Apr 2022 23:24:44 +0100, RustyHinge
> <rusty.hinge@foobar.girolle.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> On 14/04/2022 22:55, Tease'n'Seize wrote:
>>> RustyHinge wrote:
>>>
>>>> Playground bully gets a black eye.
>>>
>>> And gets the pride of their fleet converted into a submarine!
>>>
>>> All sailors evacuated after the "fire" then it sunk while being towed
>>> back to port, if so, then I see no downside :-)
>>
>> All in a phantom 'storm'.
>>
>> I would see no downside either, *BUT* one should unforget the sort of
>> weapons available to an international criminal bully's rage at someone
>> gainsaying his aims. I am entertained by ?ussian attempts to cover-up
>> their military ineptitude thobut.
>
> I understand that there are four other big Russian warships in the Med
> which are waiting to sail through to the Black Sea but that Turkey has
> invoked a treaty of 1936 to stop them. I wonder how long they will be
> able to hold that particular line?
>

As a member of NATO, Turkey ought to prevent passage until the war is
ended.
Given their almost absolute dependence on Russian energy, let's see.

--
Sam Plusnet

On 2022-04-15, Sam Plusnet <not@home.com> wrote:
> On 15-Apr-22 10:50, Nick Odell wrote:
>> On Thu, 14 Apr 2022 23:24:44 +0100, RustyHinge
>> <rusty.hinge@foobar.girolle.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>> On 14/04/2022 22:55, Tease'n'Seize wrote:
>>>> RustyHinge wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Playground bully gets a black eye.
>>>>
>>>> And gets the pride of their fleet converted into a submarine!
>>>>
>>>> All sailors evacuated after the "fire" then it sunk while being towed
>>>> back to port, if so, then I see no downside :-)
>>>
>>> All in a phantom 'storm'.
>>>
>>> I would see no downside either, *BUT* one should unforget the sort of
>>> weapons available to an international criminal bully's rage at someone
>>> gainsaying his aims. I am entertained by ?ussian attempts to cover-up
>>> their military ineptitude thobut.
>>
>> I understand that there are four other big Russian warships in the Med
>> which are waiting to sail through to the Black Sea but that Turkey has
>> invoked a treaty of 1936 to stop them. I wonder how long they will be
>> able to hold that particular line?
>>
>
> As a member of NATO, Turkey ought to prevent passage until the war is
> ended.
> Given their almost absolute dependence on Russian energy, let's see.
>
>

All depends on treaties going back to 1857 or so, I think
--
greymausg@mail.com
General "Buck" Turgidson; `ten to twenty million killed, tops.'

On Fri, 15 Apr 2022 16:18:53 +0100
RustyHinge <rusty.hinge@foobar.girolle.co.uk> wrote:

> Crude missiles?

Nah just the slogans painted on them.

--
Steve O'Hara-Smith
Odds and Ends at http://www.sohara.org/

On 15/04/2022 10:19, Peter wrote:
>
> Once again the bar stewards are playing with their toys while the whirled
> becaomes less livable for the rest of us.

You're missing the Big Picture. A nice nuclear winter will do a cracking
job of reversing global warming.

On 15/04/2022 21:32, maus wrote:
> On 2022-04-15, Sam Plusnet <not@home.com> wrote:
>> On 15-Apr-22 10:50, Nick Odell wrote:
>>> On Thu, 14 Apr 2022 23:24:44 +0100, RustyHinge
>>> <rusty.hinge@foobar.girolle.co.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 14/04/2022 22:55, Tease'n'Seize wrote:
>>>>> RustyHinge wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Playground bully gets a black eye.
>>>>>
>>>>> And gets the pride of their fleet converted into a submarine!
>>>>>
>>>>> All sailors evacuated after the "fire" then it sunk while being towed
>>>>> back to port, if so, then I see no downside :-)
>>>>
>>>> All in a phantom 'storm'.
>>>>
>>>> I would see no downside either, *BUT* one should unforget the sort of
>>>> weapons available to an international criminal bully's rage at someone
>>>> gainsaying his aims. I am entertained by ?ussian attempts to cover-up
>>>> their military ineptitude thobut.
>>>
>>> I understand that there are four other big Russian warships in the Med
>>> which are waiting to sail through to the Black Sea but that Turkey has
>>> invoked a treaty of 1936 to stop them. I wonder how long they will be
>>> able to hold that particular line?
>>>
>>
>> As a member of NATO, Turkey ought to prevent passage until the war is
>> ended.
>> Given their almost absolute dependence on Russian energy, let's see.

Don't disremember Яussia's arrq for cash, in whatever currency...

> All depends on treaties going back to 1857 or so, I think
>
Яussia does not honour inconvenient treaties.

--
Rusty Hinge
To err is human. To really foul things up requires a computer and the BOFH.

In article <t3eksf$a3i$1@dont-email.me>, RustyHinge <rusty.hinge@foobar.
girolle.co.uk> on Sat, 16 Apr 2022 at 15:46:38 awoke Nicholas from his
slumbers and wrote
>On 15/04/2022 21:32, maus wrote:
>> On 2022-04-15, Sam Plusnet <not@home.com> wrote:
>>> On 15-Apr-22 10:50, Nick Odell wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 14 Apr 2022 23:24:44 +0100, RustyHinge
>>>> <rusty.hinge@foobar.girolle.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 14/04/2022 22:55, Tease'n'Seize wrote:
>>>>>> RustyHinge wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Playground bully gets a black eye.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And gets the pride of their fleet converted into a submarine!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> All sailors evacuated after the "fire" then it sunk while being towed
>>>>>> back to port, if so, then I see no downside :-)
>>>>>
>>>>> All in a phantom 'storm'.
>>>>>
>>>>> I would see no downside either, *BUT* one should unforget the sort of
>>>>> weapons available to an international criminal bully's rage at someone
>>>>> gainsaying his aims. I am entertained by ?ussian attempts to cover-up
>>>>> their military ineptitude thobut.
>>>>
>>>> I understand that there are four other big Russian warships in the Med
>>>> which are waiting to sail through to the Black Sea but that Turkey has
>>>> invoked a treaty of 1936 to stop them. I wonder how long they will be
>>>> able to hold that particular line?
>>>>
>>>
>>> As a member of NATO, Turkey ought to prevent passage until the war is
>>> ended.
>>> Given their almost absolute dependence on Russian energy, let's see.
>
>Don't disremember ?ussia's arrq for cash, in whatever currency...
>
>> All depends on treaties going back to 1857 or so, I think
>>
>?ussia does not honour inconvenient treaties.
>
From Wikipedia:

After the dissolution of the Soviet Union, Ukraine held about one third
of the Soviet nuclear arsenal, the third largest in the world at the
time, as well as significant means of its design and production.

In 1994, Ukraine agreed to destroy the weapons, and to join the Treaty
on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT).

On December 5, 1994 the leaders of Ukraine, Russia, Britain and the
United States signed a memorandum to provide Ukraine with security
assurances in connection with its accession to the NPT as a non-nuclear
weapon state. The four parties signed the memorandum, containing a
preamble and six paragraphs. The memorandum reads as follows:[10]

The United States of America, the Russian Federation, and the United
Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland,

Welcoming the accession of Ukraine to the Treaty on the Non-
Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons as non-nuclear-weapon State,

Taking into account the commitment of Ukraine to eliminate all
nuclear weapons from its territory within a specified period of time,

Noting the changes in the world-wide security situation, including
the end of the Cold War, which have brought about conditions for deep
reductions in nuclear forces.

Confirm the following:

1. The Russian Federation, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and
Northern Ireland and the United States of America reaffirm their
commitment to Ukraine, in accordance with the principles of the Final
Act of the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe, to respect
the independence and sovereignty and the existing borders of Ukraine.

2. The Russian Federation, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and
Northern Ireland and the United States of America reaffirm their
obligation to refrain from the threat or use of force against the
territorial integrity or political independence of Ukraine, and that
none of their weapons will ever be used against Ukraine except in self-
defence or otherwise in accordance with the Charter of the United
Nations.

3. The Russian Federation, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and
Northern Ireland and the United States of America reaffirm their
commitment to Ukraine, in accordance with the principles of the Final
Act of the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe, to refrain
from economic coercion designed to subordinate to their own interest the
exercise by Ukraine of the rights inherent in its sovereignty and thus
to secure advantages of any kind.

4. The Russian Federation, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and
Northern Ireland and the United States of America reaffirm their
commitment to seek immediate United Nations Security Council action to
provide assistance to Ukraine, as a non-nuclear-weapon State party to
the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, if Ukraine
should become a victim of an act of aggression or an object of a threat
of aggression in which nuclear weapons are used.

5. The Russian Federation, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and
Northern Ireland and the United States of America reaffirm, in the case
of Ukraine, their commitment not to use nuclear weapons against any non-
nuclear-weapon State party to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of
Nuclear Weapons, except in the case of an attack on themselves, their
territories or dependent territories, their armed forces, or their
allies, by such a State in association or alliance with a nuclear-weapon
State.

6. Ukraine, the Russian Federation, the United Kingdom of Great
Britain and Northern Ireland and the United States of America will
consult in the event a situation arises that raises a question
concerning these commitments.
—?Memorandum on Security Assurances in Connection with Ukraine’s
Accession to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons

Another lesson; unilateral nuclear disarmament is a no brainer.
--
0sterc@tcher -

"Où sont les neiges d'antan?"

RustyHinge said:
>>
> Яussia does not honour inconvenient treaties.

Perhaps we should clean our own act up before we go pointing fingers
elsewhere ?

--
Richard Robinson
"The whole plan hinged upon the natural curiosity of potatoes" - S. Lem

My email address is at http://qualmograph.org.uk/contact.html

On Sat, 16 Apr 2022 14:11:36 +0100
Mike Fleming <mike@tauzero.co.uk> wrote:

> On 15/04/2022 10:19, Peter wrote:
> >
> > Once again the bar stewards are playing with their toys while the
> > whirled becaomes less livable for the rest of us.
>
> You're missing the Big Picture. A nice nuclear winter will do a cracking
> job of reversing global warming.

It'd be a long time before anyone worried about overpopulation
TAAAW.

--
Steve O'Hara-Smith
Odds and Ends at http://www.sohara.org/

On 2022-04-16, Nicholas D. Richards <nicholas@salmiron.com> wrote:
> In article <t3eksf$a3i$1@dont-email.me>, RustyHinge <rusty.hinge@foobar.
> girolle.co.uk> on Sat, 16 Apr 2022 at 15:46:38 awoke Nicholas from his
> slumbers and wrote
>>On 15/04/2022 21:32, maus wrote:
>>> On 2022-04-15, Sam Plusnet <not@home.com> wrote:
> concerning these commitments.
> —?Memorandum on Security Assurances in Connection with Ukraine’s
> Accession to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons
>
> Another lesson; unilateral nuclear disarmament is a no brainer.

It is indeed a no-brainer. AsFarAsIAmAware, as part of the agreement to
allow East Germany to join West Germany, NATO agreed not to accept
former Warsaw Pact countries to join with NATO.

Germany agreed to not seek to recover lands east of the Oder-Neisse,
from where the ethnic German population had fled in 1945. That included
the Northern part of East Prussia, which was occupied by Russia. As
Poland is threatening to occupy that land now, it would mean that Poland
would occupy more former German lands.

Like putting down a line of dominoes and starting them to fall.

--
greymausg@mail.com
General "Buck" Turgidson; `ten to twenty million killed, tops.'

On 16/04/2022 17:23, Richard Robinson wrote:
> RustyHinge said:
>>>
>> Яussia does not honour inconvenient treaties.
>
> Perhaps we should clean our own act up before we go pointing fingers
> elsewhere ?

Whom have we invaded?

--
Rusty Hinge
To err is human. To really foul things up requires a computer and the BOFH.

On 16/04/2022 16:46, Nicholas D. Richards wrote:

> Another lesson; unilateral nuclear disarmament is a no brainer.

When at fpubby I belonged to our debating society. On one occasion I was
Proposer for a motion supporting CND, whose aims I only partially
understood (was in fact, lied to, to get me to join).

When I confidently stated that CND supported nuclear disarmament, but
not Unilateral Nuclear Disarmament I was disabused of this notionand I
raised a Point of Information to ascertain the truth.

I learnt that I had been lied to, and that CND advocated unilateral
disarmament.

I considered my position: should I carry on 'for the sake of argument',
or fly my true colours?

Aftera few moments' thought I removed my CND badge and stated that I'd
buun duped, and that I could no longer support the motion, as in my mind
it was crassly stupid to throw away the bargaining chip of MAD.

At the end of the debate I Said very little, just that I had nothing to
say in support of CND, and duly voted against the motion, which was lost
by a huge majority, I'm pleased to report.

Afterwards I was complimented on my 'bravery' by several members of
staff. I didn't consider myself brave - just outraged by being lied to
by CND members.

I have since been called 'a thrawn owd ubggre' more than once, and I
wear *that* badge with pride.

--
Rusty Hinge
To err is human. To really foul things up requires a computer and the BOFH.

maus wrote:

> AsFarAsIAmAware, as part of the agreement to
> allow East Germany to join West Germany, NATO agreed not to accept
> former Warsaw Pact countries to join with NATO.

I've heard that; I've also heard that was informally discussed and not finally
agreed to, is anything written on a piece of paper anywhere?

RustyHinge said:
> On 16/04/2022 17:23, Richard Robinson wrote:
>> RustyHinge said:
>>>>
>>> Яussia does not honour inconvenient treaties.
>>
>> Perhaps we should clean our own act up before we go pointing fingers
>> elsewhere ?
>
> Whom have we invaded?

I'm ashamed to say that I've lost count of the number of countries we've
benn involved in dropping explosions on since the turn of the century.

Afghanistan, Iraq. I don't know if there were any actual Brits on the
ground in Libya, but 'we'[1] definitely helped in the destruction.
Syria, I think - Parliament refused a proposal to bomb $someone, and
shortly after there was another proposal to bomb $someone-else in
support of the $someone that weren't bombed previously. Then I gave up.

Serbia's so last-century, of course.

[1] "not in my name" was more ritual than factual, I didn't stop paying
the taxes that fund it.

But the inconvient treaty I was actually thinking of had to do with
refugees.

Our rulers also appear to find even the domestic legislation they pass
themselves too inconvenient to adhere to.

--
Richard Robinson
"The whole plan hinged upon the natural curiosity of potatoes" - S. Lem

My email address is at http://qualmograph.org.uk/contact.html

On Sat, 16 Apr 2022 20:16:43 +0100
RustyHinge <rusty.hinge@foobar.girolle.co.uk> wrote:

> On 16/04/2022 17:23, Richard Robinson wrote:
> > RustyHinge said:
> >>>
> >> Яussia does not honour inconvenient treaties.
> >
> > Perhaps we should clean our own act up before we go pointing fingers
> > elsewhere ?
>
> Whom have we invaded?

It's been a while true, but there used to be this thing called an
Empire that resulted from quite a lot of invading.

--
Steve O'Hara-Smith
Odds and Ends at http://www.sohara.org/

Tease'n'Seize said:
> maus wrote:
>
>> AsFarAsIAmAware, as part of the agreement to allow East Germany to
>> join West Germany, NATO agreed not to accept former Warsaw Pact
>> countries to join with NATO.
>
> I've heard that; I've also heard that was informally discussed and not
> finally agreed to, is anything written on a piece of paper anywhere?

I have heard that it was stated as a definite promise but not written
down; but I think the wording I heard was "no eastwards expansion". I
don't know where the story originates.

But I'd say that watching NATO expansion since '89 would be highly
likely to worry a Russian state that's lost all the buffers that Stalin
went to such trouble[1] to set up to make sure they never got invaded
from the west again.

[1] "put other people to such trouble", rather.

--
Richard Robinson
"The whole plan hinged upon the natural curiosity of potatoes" - S. Lem

My email address is at http://qualmograph.org.uk/contact.html

On 2022-04-16, RustyHinge <rusty.hinge@foobar.girolle.co.uk> wrote:
> On 16/04/2022 17:23, Richard Robinson wrote:
>> RustyHinge said:
>>>>
>>> Яussia does not honour inconvenient treaties.
>>
>> Perhaps we should clean our own act up before we go pointing fingers
>> elsewhere ?
>
> Whom have we invaded?
>

Iraq?
Syria?
Afganistan? (Which has started to hang drug dealers again)
Palestine?
Libya?
Grenada..
Long list of other countries

--
greymausg@mail.com
General "Buck" Turgidson; `ten to twenty million killed, tops.'

maus said:
> On 2022-04-16, RustyHinge <rusty.hinge@foobar.girolle.co.uk> wrote:
>> On 16/04/2022 17:23, Richard Robinson wrote:
>>> RustyHinge said:
>>>>>
>>>> Яussia does not honour inconvenient treaties.
>>>
>>> Perhaps we should clean our own act up before we go pointing fingers
>>> elsewhere ?
>>
>> Whom have we invaded?
>
> Palestine?

Uh ? My father's Uncle Fred was shot dead in Gaza while being part of a
British army, but TBF it was in the wholesale days when lots of countries
were competing to see who could invade who, in which case the list
should be a lot longer.

> Grenada..

My "we" meant the UK, I took Mr. Hinge's to mean the same.

--
Richard Robinson
"The whole plan hinged upon the natural curiosity of potatoes" - S. Lem

My email address is at http://qualmograph.org.uk/contact.html

On 16/04/2022 21:25, Tease'n'Seize wrote:
> is anything written on a piece of paper anywhere?

Eccles had the time written on a piece of paper,if that helps?

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

Tone

On Saturday, April 16, 2022 at 4:15:08 PM UTC-5, Tone wrote:
> On 16/04/2022 21:25, Tease'n'Seize wrote:
> > is anything written on a piece of paper anywhere?
> Eccles had the time written on a piece of paper,if that helps?
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ctM_Rvgjfpo
>
> Tone

My father was in a needed stateside occupation , that of being an auto mechanic, and he was in the National Guard so he did not wind up in Sicily pushing up daises depriving the shed of my irritating presence.

On Sat, 16 Apr 2022 16:14:54 -0500, Richard Robinson
<richardR@privacy.net> wrote:

>maus said:
>> On 2022-04-16, RustyHinge <rusty.hinge@foobar.girolle.co.uk> wrote:
>>> On 16/04/2022 17:23, Richard Robinson wrote:
>>>> RustyHinge said:
>>>>>>
>>>>> ?ussia does not honour inconvenient treaties.
>>>>
>>>> Perhaps we should clean our own act up before we go pointing fingers
>>>> elsewhere ?
>>>
>>> Whom have we invaded?
>>
>> Palestine?
>
>Uh ? My father's Uncle Fred was shot dead in Gaza while being part of a
>British army, but TBF it was in the wholesale days when lots of countries
>were competing to see who could invade who, in which case the list
>should be a lot longer.
>
>> Grenada..
>
>My "we" meant the UK, I took Mr. Hinge's to mean the same.

I think Grenada is a tad more complicated. Long before 1983 when the
USA invaded, the French had invaded and then later handed the island
over to the Brits.

We (Brits) haven't always got our own way. AFAIK they don't teach the
two, failed British invasions of Buenos Aires (1806, 1807) in UK
schools but they certainly do in Argentina. And the least said about
the Battle of Vuelta de Obligado (1845) the better.

Nick

On 2022-04-17, Nick Odell <nick@themusicworkshop.plus.com> wrote:
> On Sat, 16 Apr 2022 16:14:54 -0500, Richard Robinson
><richardR@privacy.net> wrote:
>
>>maus said:
>>> On 2022-04-16, RustyHinge <rusty.hinge@foobar.girolle.co.uk> wrote:
>>>> On 16/04/2022 17:23, Richard Robinson wrote:
>>>>> RustyHinge said:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> ?ussia does not honour inconvenient treaties.
>>>>>
>>>>> Perhaps we should clean our own act up before we go pointing fingers
>>>>> elsewhere ?
>>>>
>>>> Whom have we invaded?
>>>
>>> Palestine?
>>
>>Uh ? My father's Uncle Fred was shot dead in Gaza while being part of a
>>British army, but TBF it was in the wholesale days when lots of countries
>>were competing to see who could invade who, in which case the list
>>should be a lot longer.
>>
>>> Grenada..
>>
>>My "we" meant the UK, I took Mr. Hinge's to mean the same.
>
> I think Grenada is a tad more complicated. Long before 1983 when the
> USA invaded, the French had invaded and then later handed the island
> over to the Brits.
>
> We (Brits) haven't always got our own way. AFAIK they don't teach the
> two, failed British invasions of Buenos Aires (1806, 1807) in UK
> schools but they certainly do in Argentina. And the least said about
> the Battle of Vuelta de Obligado (1845) the better.
>
> Nick

All that was what the Monroe doctrine in the US was to prevent.

The current pressure being put on Sweden and Finland to join NATO is
unlikely to succeed, as Sweden, as we see from its dealing with the
pandemic, is too sensible. The situation with Finland is more
complicated, A treaty brokered by the British in 1944 bound Finland to
never join an alliance against the Soviet Union.

--
greymausg@mail.com
General "Buck" Turgidson; `ten to twenty million killed, tops.'

On 17 Apr 2022 09:27:48 GMT
maus <maus@dmaus.org> wrote:

> The situation with Finland is more
> complicated, A treaty brokered by the British in 1944 bound Finland to
> never join an alliance against the Soviet Union.

However the Soviet Union no longer exists and I'm pretty sure
Russia no longer counts as a Socialist Soviet Republic (or is it the other
way round), I don't think anywhere does now which would present a problem
reforming a union of them.

--
Steve O'Hara-Smith
Odds and Ends at http://www.sohara.org/

maus wrote:

> A treaty brokered by the British in 1944 bound Finland to
> never join an alliance against the Soviet Union.

As NATO is a defensive organisation, can it be said to be against anyone?
Russia is unbelievably still a member of NATO's partnership for peace.

On 17/04/2022 10:27, maus wrote:

> All that was what the Monroe doctrine in the US was to prevent.
>
> The current pressure being put on Sweden and Finland to join NATO is
> unlikely to succeed, as Sweden, as we see from its dealing with the
> pandemic, is too sensible. The situation with Finland is more
> complicated, A treaty brokered by the British in 1944 bound Finland to
> never join an alliance against the Soviet Union.

Around 1959 or 1960 I met (at Roland House Scout Hostel where I lived
for a while) one Urpo Heinonen, a Finn who had just left the Finnish
(not finish) Army, in which organisation he had been a fighter pilot.

He came over on the Baltika, a Яussian ship (on which allegedly the
captain was more-or-less permanently blotto). He seemed to me to be
unduly apprehensive about anything Яussian - but then, what did I know?

Not a lot, it seems.

--
Rusty Hinge
To err is human. To really foul things up requires a computer and the BOFH.