|
Post by garry on Mar 7, 2022 20:35:55 GMT
And now only permitting refugees to leave Ukraine if they go to Russia or Belarus? Ie basically saying “oi you lot you’re mine now whether you like it or not”, which seems to be a bit like throwing a new version of the Berlin Wall up. It’s just plain nasty. In other news, this is the first time I’ve posted here from what the screen tells me is an altitude of 11,881m somewhere currently over Vienna. The wonders of modern tech. I hope you’re in a plane! Re the safe routes out of Ukraine, the war zone is mostly on the Russian/Belarus border. Routes immediately south have been damaged to slow the Russian invasion. It must be 400 miles to the Polish border from the war zone.
|
|
|
Post by garry on Mar 7, 2022 20:10:14 GMT
So just to prove how much Putin wants to see the stability of Ukraine as a non-NATO state his solution is to make it uninhabitable. Has he made the same statement about Finland? and what his response have been if NATO said they didn't like a Russian puppet-state in Belarus as a NATO neighbour and demand that no Russian military action could ever be launched from there? Yes a simplistic kind of demand from Putin to feed his simplistic advocates, but not really any kind of simple solution. As ever the Russian simple solution is as we are seeing being played out. The Rouble is just about half the value it was before this invasion - even his simplistic advocates must see that he's a dickhead as they work out if they're having half a loaf of bread or only 2 hours of heating a day. I thinks it’s incredibly simplistic to see Putin as bad, his opponents as good. It also sounds a little over the top to describe Ukraine as uninhabitable - I don’t want to downplay the horrific personal cost to those poor citizens who’ve lost their lives, but the vast majority of the country hasn’t seen any conflict. Finland isn’t part of NATO and hasn’t made moves to be part of it for the very reasons I say Ukraine should not join. The problem with arguing ‘what if nato didn’t like Belarus as a neighbour’ is that nato has expanded to the Belarus border. It has an expansionist policy that is central to the issue with Putin.
|
|
|
Post by garry on Mar 7, 2022 15:27:44 GMT
|
|
|
Post by garry on Mar 7, 2022 9:31:04 GMT
etron - the comfort
|
|
|
Post by garry on Mar 7, 2022 9:14:38 GMT
The etron has three levels of regen. After a year I still don't like the driving feel of regen so it's off. My bigger concern is what it means to someone following you. I'm not sure what my brake lights are doing and feel that I might look like a nervous nelly with an ever flickering brake light or they will end up in the back of me because there was no indication I was slowing down. Also, is it really efficient? Thinking back to my university days, the second law of thermodynamics says that energy is wasted every time it's transformed. So unless I'm stomping on the brakes i can't see how coasting is less efficient than regen. Has anyone tested gentle driving vs regen? Perhaps I should do an experiment.
|
|
|
Post by garry on Mar 5, 2022 8:41:47 GMT
Why does he want a buffer zone? Because he doesn’t want what he sees as hostile and expansionist forces camped on his border. NATO started as 8 countries, its now 30. Most of that growth coming from Eastern Europe. It’s hard to argue that it’s not expansionist. And if Ukraine can join NATO can Cuba establish a military alliance with Russia?w Yes, Cuba can - but would it be along the lines of NATO? Putin sees NATO as as hostile and expansionist but in reality its expansion is by countries that were subjugated by Moscow for half a century+. They made the choice to join NATO not for aggression but to protect themselves from the horrors and restrictions they had already experienced. NATO does not tell each nation state how to behave but offers a guarantee of joint action to protect - something done to avoid a divided internal European war. Putin doesn't like NATO not because it is expansionist and aggressive but because it prevents Russian domination of its neighbour states, who (I'll repeat) have independence from one another and both Russia and the USA.* The Warsaw Pact era was nothing like that: you did what the Kremlin said or were imprisoned or shot and so were your family and associates. This is why attempting to blame the NATO expansion as the cause of Putin's aggression riles many: it's an excuse to grab very fertile and ore-rich lands for Moscow's benefit not for the befit of the local nation or the wider market. *Even the EU states have independence from one another and EU wide rules and directives are only enacted after representatives from ALL member states have ratified them. This independence was clearly demonstrated by the individual rules applied by states during COVID. Last time they tried there was that little problem called the Cuban missile crisis.
|
|
|
Post by garry on Mar 5, 2022 8:36:06 GMT
And for clarity I’m not a Putin supporter. I’m a right-of-centre free marketeer who wants to live in a world where the playing field is level and kids from any background and any region have the same opportunities that I’ve had to carve out the life that I want. I’m also a pragmatist. Putin is a bad man, but he’s what we’ve got to work with. To write him off as our version of Hitler seems short sighted and potentially dangerous.
|
|
|
Post by garry on Mar 5, 2022 8:18:09 GMT
As I said before, I don't believe for one moment that victory in Ukraine will be the last big project of Putin. And if people would like to explain why he is not like Hitler, I'm all ears - he faces a more connected world and a much more unified opposition than Hitler ever did, but his ramblings about Russian speaking peoples, and buffer zones, and so on are very familiar. As are his total focus on the outcome while playing at diplomacy entirely to distract - what we say or offer makes no difference. And his propaganda grip on his own people, cult of personality, and public chiding of his close circle are eerily similar also. He has used banned chemical and radioactive weapons on UK soil, he has invaded a major European democracy with an army hundreds of thousands strong, he does not give a flying fuck what we might offer him in terms of NATO limitations. Give him what he wants there, and he'll crack on with whatever his master project is with some other bunch of pretexts. Hitler was an expansionist, Putin is a protectionist.Hitler invaded how many countries? 10? What’s Putin record? 2? In a league table of world leaders with a penchant for invading sovereign nations he’s languishing at the lower end of the board with the likes of the Bush clan. Putin shows no New World Order type mindset, just a “leave me the f… alone”. And this point that keeps getting raised about the NATO thing being a smokescreen and he’ll continue with his master project. I’m keen to know how people are so sure of this. The two countries he has invaded are both related to membership of NATO. Both times he said it was a red line, both times he was brushed off, both times he invaded. He couldn’t really give a clearer signal.
|
|
|
Post by garry on Mar 5, 2022 8:01:22 GMT
I get very annoyed with the "its ours/the US's fault for taking Ukraine away from Russian influence" point of view. The citizens of countries within Putin's influence, as in the Communist days, have looked at what he and the West have to offer and have chosen the flawed - but better - options for democracy, freedom, safety and personal development/wealth in the west. Ukrainian voters went that way, we did not force them. NATO is not the US. It's a battle of ideologies between cronyist dictators and western democracy and is it any suprise voters in those countries have gone the way they have? This is idealistic and simplistic. Most countries have political and military limitations because of where they are geographically and who exerts power around them. The extent of those limitations mostly diminishes with distance (but not always, America was worried enough about the rise in communism in Asia to start a war with Vietnam). Canada has self determination, but it could not have become a member of the Warsaw pact. International peace is finely balanced and requires compromises that take away some rights from some regions.
|
|
|
Post by garry on Mar 5, 2022 7:39:22 GMT
I found this interesting: edition.cnn.com/2022/03/02/europe/russia-ukraine-shifting-map-analysis-intl-cmd/index.htmlThe somewhat worrying conclusion of which would be that Putin would need to re-take the Baltic states, and possibly Poland, to really secure his position. As people have said - what does he need a buffer zone for??? Like with China in the south china sea, it suggests a desire to crack on with things that he knows the world will object to, and he wants to get into what he perceives an invulnerable position first. Why does he want a buffer zone? Because he doesn’t want what he sees as hostile and expansionist forces camped on his border. NATO started as 8 countries, its now 30. Most of that growth coming from Eastern Europe. It’s hard to argue that it’s not expansionist. And if Ukraine can join NATO can Cuba establish a military alliance with Russia?
|
|
|
Post by garry on Mar 4, 2022 15:41:43 GMT
This is a simple fact. Big, powerful countries exercise more sovereign rights than their near neighbours when it comes to security. It's not ideal, but it's true. Is Mexico free to exercise its sovereign rights and form an alliance with Russia? Could Canada form a military alliance with China? We should also be very careful on what we wish for with regards to self determination. Let the buffer zone countries become members of NATO and because of Article 5 a minor regional conflict could escalate to world war three. That's a slippery slope to go down, because it means going back to the days of colonisation. I don't think that's where we want to be heading towards. It's not a slippery slope. It's the playing field we've been on for generations. What were the Cuban missile crisis or the Vietnam war or the Georgian war about? The slippery slope is to pretend that powerful countries cannot and do not exert a sphere of influence. Imagine a world where every country decides it has the right to complete self determination - how many minutes after Taiwan joined NATO would an invasion start?
|
|
|
Post by garry on Mar 4, 2022 12:42:48 GMT
And just to cheeer everyone up, I see Russian forces shelled a nuclear power station yesterday, starting a fire. I can think of a few reasons why they'd do that: They're fucking stupid They think that if they cause a nuclear meltdown Ukraine will capitulate Putin knows that any meltdown will hit the west worse than Russia due to the prevailing winds so this is his "response you've never seen before" He's trying to goad NATO into taking action What are the risks with shelling a nuclear power station? It sounds like a crazy thing to do and certainly gets lots of attention, but I suspect the chances of a shell penetrating a nuclear core are zero. I seem to remember reading that a fully loaded commercial jet flown into one was very unlikely to penetrate to the core. These will be water cooled reactors so I guess worse case scenario is that they will shut down. Feel free to correct me if anyone knows more about this topic, but I strongly suspect that the risk of some nuclear explosion is zero (there'd be nothing like the density is a nuclear reactor vs a nuclear bomb) and the chances of radiation leaks are tiny (see above). Not suggesting it's a good idea, but i think it might be more calculated and 'sane' than first appears.
|
|
|
Post by garry on Mar 3, 2022 14:58:53 GMT
He doesn’t want a NATO border but is happy to keep moving west until he meets one…… then another …… then another. When the Soviets controlled Hungary they didn’t like the relative freedoms of Czechoslovakia so went there in 1968. A bit of poetic licence there! As well as being 50 years ago, in the Soviet era when the Warsaw Pact was in full swing, the two events were 15 years apart I think?
|
|
|
Post by garry on Mar 3, 2022 14:33:14 GMT
Putin's true intentions seem quite transparent. When NATO flirted with Georgia becoming a member he said it was a red line. They ignored him, he started a war. Now NATO flirted with Ukraine becoming a member he said it was a red line. They ignored him, he started a war.
Not quite triangulation, but a pattern of behaviour.
We can make any number of assumptions as to why he doesn't want a NATO border, but he's pretty clear that he doesn't. As for him wanting a greater Russia, perhaps he does, but it strikes me that it's worth exploring whether the thing that he keeps telling us he wants (and starting wars because he says it's so important) is the thing he actually wants.
|
|
|
Post by garry on Mar 3, 2022 13:47:49 GMT
Putin argues that his sovereign concerns trump those of Ukraine, the Baltic States, Finland etc, and that effectively those countries do not enjoy the same sovereign rights as others to self-determination. This is a simple fact. Big, powerful countries exercise more sovereign rights than their near neighbours when it comes to security. It's not ideal, but it's true. Is Mexico free to exercise its sovereign rights and form an alliance with Russia? Could Canada form a military alliance with China? We should also be very careful on what we wish for with regards to self determination. Let the buffer zone countries become members of NATO and because of Article 5 a minor regional conflict could escalate to world war three.
|
|
|
Post by garry on Mar 3, 2022 13:28:04 GMT
As recently as November last year Putin asked Biden to make legal guarantees that NATO would not expand eastwards. He didn't even get a response from Biden, but from the NATO secretary general who completely rejected the request. This is like the meat head neighbour down the road asking you not to park your car on his lawn and you sending your little sister to tell him to f... off. It surely wouldn't much of a shock if he slashed your tyres and punched you in the face. This makes the assumption that the US runs NATO, which it doesn’t. Asking the POTUS to give an assurance from NATO highlights the mentality of Russia feeling that Europe is overrun and guided by the US, which is an historical view based on the occupied post war years. It also ignores the fact that a lot of US culture, values and population is essentially European (which is where the bond comes from) and the fact that European industries are as rife in US territories as the US ones are in Europe so there’s less domination. Putin also wants to undermine the European trading and security bloc on his doorstep by still prattling on about the power of the US as opposed to the EU. I get all of that. Doesn't take away from the fact that Putin considers the issue so important that he raised it with Biden in one of their few conversations
|
|
|
Post by garry on Mar 3, 2022 10:29:27 GMT
I'd agree that none of the countries that Putin sees as creating that buffer wants to be part of Russia’s NATO buffer. I guess I see that as a potentially worthwhile compromise when the alternative seems to be a Russian tank tuning up in your cul-de-sac. I'd disagree that no other country feels the need to create a buffer - the Cuban Missile crisis was surely an example of this? I can't imagine America being very understanding if Canada aligned with Russia and installed a missiles on the border.
The Hungarian issue has a fundamental difference. Hungary wanted to leave the Warsaw Pact, the Soviets said they couldn't. NATO had nothing to negotiate with and were left with either letting the invasion take place or starting a war with the Soviet Union to push them out of Hungary. In this instance Ukraine wants to join NATO, Russia say they can't. NATO can negotiate on the inclusion of Ukraine in NATO.
As recently as November last year Putin asked Biden to make legal guarantees that NATO would not expand eastwards. He didn't even get a response from Biden, but from the NATO secretary general who completely rejected the request. This is like the meat head neighbour down the road asking you not to park your car on his lawn and you sending your little sister to tell him to f... off. It surely wouldn't much of a shock if he slashed your tyres and punched you in the face.
|
|
|
Post by garry on Mar 3, 2022 7:25:37 GMT
But whenever somebody says to me “oh this is the West’s fault”, my response to that is to question what that person wants to achieve by advancing that argument. Is it to legitimise what Putin is doing? If not, then what is it? I don’t think there are many voices saying “this is the West’s fault”. There are people (myself included) that say it’s more nuanced than ‘Putin bad, West good’. My reason for advancing that argument is that I’d like to see a resolution before tens of thousands of Ukraine civilians are slaughtered and the lives of thousands of young Russian soldiers are snuffed out. There is no chance of getting to a resolution if you believe the other party is an evil bastard with no legitimate viewpoint. Just like any negotiation, empathy is the key. The NATO thing might be a red herring, but it’s worth exploring and it might enable Putin to save face and withdraw . My bet it that if this doesn’t end with the destruction of civilisation than the likely outcome is a NATO free buffer zone around Russia. It would be better to get there without the unimaginable horror of a war that destroys the lives of countless innocent families.
|
|
|
Post by garry on Mar 2, 2022 20:47:15 GMT
There needs to be an agreement that the Ukraine will never join NATO. It’s what Putin wants. He said so a few months ago. “On 30 November 2021, Russian President Vladimir Putin stated that an expansion of NATO’s presence in Ukraine, especially the deployment of any long-range missiles capable of striking Russian cities or missile defence systems similar to those in Romania and Poland, would be a “red line” issue for Russia. Putin asked U.S. President Joe Biden for legal guarantees that NATO would not expand eastward or put “weapons systems that threaten us in close vicinity to Russian territory.” He got a response from the NATO Secretary General “ It’s only Ukraine and 30 NATO allies that decide when Ukraine is ready to join NATO. Russia has no veto, Russia has no say, and Russia has no right to establish a sphere of influence to try to control their neighbors.”. He’s showing NATO that Russia does have a say. Imagine if Canada had wanted to join the Warsaw Pact. How long would it be before America invaded? Also worth remembering that less than a decade ago the country had a democratically elected pro-Russian president that was overthrown in a coup. Russia doesn’t see the Ukraine government as legitimate. Doesn’t take away from the awfulness of the situation, but a broader perspective is needed. The comparison of Putin to Hitler is hyperbole. His actions are closer to Bush and the war on terror (where Bush used his military superiority to invade and occupy a sovereign state).
|
|
|
Post by garry on Feb 1, 2022 14:15:21 GMT
I have a deposit down on a new Macan GTS, but that just gets you on the waiting list for an allocation and I understand that it unlikely to see I would take delivery until about this time next year. It's refundable (and I can fiddle with the spec) until such time as I get an allocation, which Mayfair Porsche thinks will be in 8-9 month's time. Unfortunately, putting down a deposit doesn't lock in the price. In the meantime, I continue to keep an eye out for a used one in a spec/condition/price I like, and the dealer has promised to do likewise. Being a Porsche Salesperson must be an easy job. You've got many more customers than you have cars. You just need to be handy with excel to build up your waiting list and call them every so often to tell them it will be a little longer!
|
|
|
Post by garry on Feb 1, 2022 10:40:38 GMT
I’m thoroughly pissed off with cyclists silently speeding up behind me and brushing past without warning, when I’m out walking the dog. No warning, no bell. Twats. My patience is running thin and the next one that does it is going in the hedge. These changes are a cunt’s charter. The new rules try to address this. To be honest, I have no idea why the new cycling rules are causing so much uproar. Cyclists are being told to ride more defensively (i.e. Don't ride in the gutter and own your road space on narrow sections and at junctions) and drivers are being told to give them adequate space. To play devils advocate the latter part would be unnecessary if drivers behaved themselves. I lose count how often I'm overtaken by cars with inches to spare. The new rules won't change how I cycle or how I drive because I already follow these rules. I would hope most people on here do too. The one I'm unsure about is giving pedestrians priority at junctions. I can imagine turning off a busy shopping street might be nigh on impossible.
|
|
|
Post by garry on Jan 30, 2022 19:59:03 GMT
This is the updated guidance for cyclists that I saw on the government website.
There is updated guidance for people cycling about positioning themselves which includes:
riding in the centre of their lane on quiet roads, in slower-moving traffic and at the approach to junctions or road narrowings keeping at least 0.5 metres (just over 1.5 feet) away from the kerb edge (and further where it is safer) when riding on busy roads with vehicles moving faster than them
Sensible advice I think.
With regards cycling in groups. Worth remembering that many riders in those groups are keen car drivers and have no desire to antagonise other road users or put themselves at risk. I’d argue that more than ten riders are better riding in a pack that’s 2 or 3 riders wide (I.e. the same type of obstacle as a slow moving car) rather then being in single file and presenting a driver with a very difficult long line to overtake safely. I personally think cycling in very big groups should be banned - it’s almost impossible for a car to safely pass circa 50 bikes strung out over 100 metres of road.
What John witnessed would seem to have nothing to do with any new rules, just some idiots with a death wish.
|
|
|
Post by garry on Jan 30, 2022 8:14:29 GMT
Hopefully they have learnt from the Evoque which they sold as 40mile electric range for 8% tax but before delivery changed to 34miles costing me £70 a month tax. That said it shows 34miles range on the 14kw battery and when it was working that is what we got....it would do the 31mile round trip to Notts on pure EV....one day the HV heater will be in stock and it will work again. It is currently back in the dealer having shat a driveshaft bearing!😳 choose the wrong wheels on the new Range Rover and you’ll jump up a bik tax bracket.
|
|
|
Random
Jan 28, 2022 16:12:10 GMT
Post by garry on Jan 28, 2022 16:12:10 GMT
Tom Cruise is four years older than Chris Whitty
|
|
|
Post by garry on Jan 28, 2022 15:52:48 GMT
|
|
|
Post by garry on Jan 28, 2022 15:05:15 GMT
Now gone on sale. Figures look interesting Co2 18g/km and electric only range of 70miles. If that second figure is official it puts the car in the 5% bik tax bracket.
|
|
|
Post by garry on Jan 27, 2022 8:51:51 GMT
My understanding is that a major issue has been a significant increase in demand that the industry hadn’t anticipated driven by automotive tech. The problem is exacerbated by the investment required to build a chip manufacturing plant (£billions) and the length of time it takes for a new factory to start producing chips (i seem to recall it takes three years ) .
|
|
|
Post by garry on Jan 21, 2022 21:44:56 GMT
John might be able to shed more light on this, but I thought BIK tax rates are going to remain at at 2022/23 levels for an additional two years - so you know what you're paying through to 2025. I cant see how the scheme makes much sense unless you go full EV - you'll be at 8% bik for the most efficient plug in hybrids which turns into quite a chunk of cash if you're a higher rate tax payer. A BMW x5 45e is just under £200 per month in BIK for me. £200 a month company car tax isn’t exactly a chunk of cash, not compared to what is used to be. As I’ve said, the EV lease charges are high, so the only saving from having something like the Model Y vs XC90 is fuel saving. With electricity prices changing, that gap will narrow but will still be a gap. If I was just replacing the Golf and look8ng to save some money, I’d probably get a top spec Polestar and keep the Range Rover for a while longer. Still might do that. I’ve not even spoken to Lindsay about it yet, although she will go with what I want when it comes to cars. But I do value her opinion (of course) although it’s sometimes difficult to get a strong view as she wants me to get what I want…. I knew about the BIK rates be8ng fixed, one of the reasons I’m thinking a 3 year deal but the other is things are changing / moving so quickly at the moment. I have an allergic reaction to giving the taxman a penny more than I need to !
|
|
|
Post by garry on Jan 21, 2022 14:53:02 GMT
John might be able to shed more light on this, but I thought BIK tax rates are going to remain at at 2022/23 levels for an additional two years - so you know what you're paying through to 2025. I cant see how the scheme makes much sense unless you go full EV - you'll be at 8% bik for the most efficient plug in hybrids which turns into quite a chunk of cash if you're a higher rate tax payer. A BMW x5 45e is just under £200 per month in BIK for me.
|
|
|
Post by garry on Jan 5, 2022 9:08:20 GMT
Nice write up. My sister had one of these on lease (don't know model number) and my overriding impression was 'This is not a Mercedes'. She was definitely sold on the three pointed star. Audi manage to retain more of their DNA in their smaller cars.
|
|