Padraig

I know people love to speculate but this statement is doing so much heavy lifting to justify what follows it. And this. Speculating about something that is so extremely unlikely.

Yes. A few months ago, not many people would have expected Munster to take a title and nothing for Leinster again. The Leinster defeat wasn't a confident boost for the WC but this partly makes up for it. And interesting to see Crowley do well. Might be finally getting some serious options post-Sexton.

Including a rocket launcher!

Ironically though, Erdogan has given the Presidency a considerable amount of power in recent years, so a loss would definitely be a game changer. Even if the parliament elections aren't as favourable. In fact, part of the reason the media has gotten so excited about the election is that all the implications are difficult to quantify. One is free to wildly speculate. But if and when Erdogan wins, then it will all be wasted time. In fairness, I don't think anyone suggested it was likely. The more interesting EU question is when it will face its structural problems highlighted by Hungary. I think it would like to ignore it eternally but if Turkey ever became serious about joining again, then the EU would have to tell it no or try to find a solution.

Based on what we know is happening in Turkey, there is a legitimate possibility that Erdogan could be defeated. Odds are still against it because of all the advantages he still has, but a "very distant hope" is certainly underplaying the possibility. At the same time, certain media articles have got way too excited about it. Maybe you didn't quote all the "hopes and dreams" the article mentions but all of the above would seem likely to happen if Erdogan was defeated. Of course, Erdogan losing is a big if so they are all but hopes and dreams (if that is what you mean). Turkey was in no position to join the EU when Erdogan realised power initially. In fact, his victory was initially viewed as a positive step towards EU accession (as Turkey looked like it was finally escaping from military affiliated governments) and the initial years were also positive. In those days, there were arguments on this board about whether Turkey should be allowed to join as it seemed at least a possibility. Its an interesting "what-if" but Turkey would have been a very different country if it had been able to join the EU, so it doesn't tell us a lot.

True. I wasn't been very comprehensive. I was thinking of the more acclaimed Hitchcock movies and I had created a story in my head about them. Marnie and Frenzy are probably viewed as later lesser Hitchcock. But I might give them a go. Although, I should go back and watch early Hitchcock like Rope first.

Into the late 1950s for me. I was vaguely aware that Hitchcock made Rear Window (a little twisted), followed by Vertigo a few years later (extremely twisted) and then a few years after that, he made Psycho. You could see the progression. Now, I was aware he made movies between those but I didn't realise that North by Northwest was one of them (Vertigo didn't do very well at the time unsurprisingly, so it probably was a reaction to that). In fact, it is hard to imagine a movie that was more different from Vertigo than North by Northwest (and still be a Hitchcock movie). A great caper. The scene in the auction house was hilarious and it has several other stand out scenes. In fact, hard to imagine any other director had ever made 3 movies in 3 years that would stand the test of time like Vertigo, North by Northwest and Psycho (although, I haven't watched the latter yet). Quite different in their own ways. And just to say again, I had seen Vertigo before but i'm still shocked at how twisted it is. I doubt James Stewart ever played a darker character. I also saw Night of the Hunter with Robert Mitchum. You can see how it would be quite influential for directors. Decent movie but I wonder do you need to be more in touch with the religious experience in the US to really appreciate it. And I saw Ten Commandments. Might have been the first of those big Biblical/Roman epic movies that came out in the 1950s and 60s. I really liked the first half of the movie but once it reached the story we are all familiar with, less impactful. I'm sure at the time the special effects wowed people though. Heston was also very good. And another classic. 12 Angry Men. I had seen this movie years ago but first thing that struck me this time was that it was a little surprising that all male juries was still relatively normal in the late 1950s. Anyhow, very simple story, very well told.

HBO does survive though, right? Its just the streaming service changes.

Well sure. Most politicians know to place a kerrnel of truth in their arguments. So yes, there were discussions about NATO in the early 90s. And sure, the Russian government argues that Ukrainians are essentially Russian, whether Ukrainians like it or not. Its good to know these arguments but I believe most people in the West think they don't particularly matter. And I can only agree.

Huh. 6 episodes revolving around tHK. With an apparently very faithful episode 1. They obviously can expand the story a little as the episodes progress but still, fascinating.

Huh. I wonder how they'll turn the Hedge Knight into at least 8 hours of TV. There probably is around 2 hours of material in the story itself? They could expand the scope of the series but part of the charm of the story is that it focuses on just 2 people and the big epic moments only slip in now and then. Admittedly, not sure would a faithful rendition work (outside of a movie). I am a little intrigued.

It is difficult to see how this could be overcome though? Even if one has a great argument against it, it is almost impossible to convey that information to the Russian people, given the controls over media there. There are two related questions for me. 1) What is the legitimate reach of any one country. 2) Should neighbours be treated differently. The first question is quite simple. There are no limits. Countries are always encouraging other countries to follow their advice. Tradition or distance doesn't stop them. To take an example, while France has traditionally been very prominent in the Sahel region in Africa, over the last few years Russia has extended its reach into a number of countries there, leading to the withdrawal of French troops and the entrance of Wagner troops. Russia didn't shy away from this opportunity when presented with it. COVID vaccines was another example of this with Russia and China selling vaccines into Hungary (and South America) to increase their influence there. Conversely, was the US wrong to encourage democracy in Ukraine and membership of the EU? To me, there was nothing particularly unusual about any of this activity. The second question is more complex. Russia feels Ukraine should be under its thumb because of certain historical ties. But the question can also be reduced to a very simple idea. Can one country tell another what it is allowed to do and if it refuses to listen, invade. The first part of that sentence is simply restating question one above. People sometimes ask how would the US feel if Mexico or Canada suddenly jumped into China's or Russia's sphere of influence (I'm ignoring Cuba). While the question is somewhat stupid, it is also quite instructive. Why don't they? Its not that they fear invasion. Its simply that they realise they benefit hugely from their current arrangement with the US. Russia should have been able to offer Ukraine something similar (a large market on its border, with shared historic, religious and language ties). But Ukraine realised that it would gain more from pursuing EU membership. And it was prospective EU ties (not NATO) that kicked things off in 2014. And then the question becomes, is it ok for Ukraine be significantly worse off because Russia is so corrupt that it can't offer Ukraine anything constructive? As Mormont said, Russia used corruption and blackmail to maintain control and when that didn't work, it had nothing to offer except war. Because yes, Russia should have good links with Ukraine (and all its other neighbours). But Russia doesn't seem to able to create those links except via a master/slave type relationship. I can see why the Russian population sees that it is wrong that their near neighbour has turned its back on them but the problem isn't Ukraine. Its very difficult to persuade a country that the problem is themselves though.

I essentially agree with you but I view it more in terms of risk. Joining NATO permanently reduces the risk of invasion. Things may change for better or worse in future (who really knows) but the risk remains lowered compared to the alternative.

In fairness, Hungary was pure wishful thinking (people thought Orban’s connection with Putin would work against him). But anyone looking at what was going on in Hungary could see he was going to win. In the same way, Poland will see the current government retain power there (if I understand politics there correctly). But the polls in Turkey are not as clear cut. Sure, Erdogan will presumably win (that is why I said I’ll be disappointed) but at least there is some basis to thinking the opposite, not just wishful thinking. Feel free to be pessimistic though. I find it interesting that people are complaining about food prices going down in those countries. I wonder what the comparator is? Last year, prices went up a lot because of the war. So are people now comparing with those increased prices or 2021 prices? Good that food is getting out of Ukraine anyhow. That was a serious concern last year.

There actually is a possibility that Erdogan may lose. I mean, I shouldn't have even checked since I will now be even more disappointed by the results but it might be the easiest way for Sweden to join NATO.

Modern day diplomacy is not based on this though. Unless you have a great love for monarchy, arguing about what land some distant ancestor used to live in or own is deemed irrelevant. Fluid border create wars. Allowing Russia to bring back war for conquest would be a terrible precedent. Its not similar at all to the Ukraine situation but to look at Ireland for a moment. Up to 1999, the Republic of Ireland claimed the whole of the island of Ireland. You could understand why but whether they liked it or not, the border existed and the majority of the people across the border were happy with that. So, your claims didn't really matter. With a less modern viewpoint though, sure, people could justify murdering civilians for the sake of some historical truth. That thinking isn't completely gone either. I'd love to see the military industrial complex be reduced though. And to echo this. This is my fear. If things don't change much over the next year then who knows where we will end up. In that case, people may be right to question whether throwing more arms into this war is the right answer. It possibly will be but context is everything and I can't guess what the context will be in a year or two.

Yes, I can only wish I had an opportunity to go to the Baltics! And yes to this too. Nobody thinks the Baltics are currently at risk of invasion, so why not help Ukraine and push the risk even further into the future. I'm very surprised that this could be debated!

I don't think Putin has a definitive end game in mind. Except to maintain and increase Russian power (and thus Putin's power) as much as he can. Russia was reasonably happy with the Ukraine situation prior to 2014. There were pro-EU support there but Russian affiliated people could still win elections. The problem only really emerged when it became clear that it would be very difficult for pro-Russian people to win an election in Ukraine again. And Ukraine was determined to move away from Russia's orbit. Putin feels he cannot allow that (especially not Ukraine). I don't believe he feels compelled to conquer all these countries. He just wants to dominate them. Belarus, South Ossetia etc. And then more. I think you'd be very foolish to think he would stop at a certain point. If he drags big parts of Ukraine under his control, he will then start looking at what he can grab next or bring back into Russia's orbit. Could be Moldova or Kazakhstan or wherever? People can very reasonably point out that even victory in Ukraine would leave him significantly bloodied but whether its one year or 10, the logical conclusion now is that Russia wouldn't stop until it is forced to. As @Clueless Northman said, the Baltics will never not be at risk from Russia. If they go down the Belarus path, they will be interfered with. If they continue to maintain their independence, they will be at risk of being interfered with. Naturally, they see the best approach to reducing that risk is by trying to ensure that Russia really regrets its military misadventures. They will still not be completely safe but it does seem to be its best option. I believe rolling into Azerbaijan is out of the question given Turkey would significantly respond to that. I would be worried if I was Georgia though but they haven't set themselves on a firm path yet, so aren't as vulnerable as Moldova (say)

Yes. That article was a little stupid. I would also add though that i'm not sure these governments would call any purported ally "fascists". Has Hungary been so labelled? Or any of the many other fascist "allies" in the Middle East? Its an incendiary label, which is hard to imagine would help any situation. But people like labels and flinging them around. Even though the debate then ends up more about the label than anything else. I'm not sure about this though. The author of this article is certainly to the left of this debate in Israel but I don't get the impression that Moshe Ya’alon, Yair Lapid and Benny Gantz are evil from reading it, even if they are more conservative than the author of the article. We are back to labelling issues. Just because the author disagrees with a large proportion of the Israeli population doesn't mean he is labelling nearly every Israeli evil (although, he almost certainly would label Netanyahu’s and Ben-Gvir so). But ending up debating who is evil and who isn't is one of those pointless debates. And the article wasn't focused on Palestine, so I don't think it needs to denounce Palestinian led violence. I appreciate the sensitivity around that but there are many other better criticisms of that article one could call out.

Nice to see Ireland win but the last 3 matches haven't been a particular statement of dominance. There were a lot of nerves yesterday. Eyes will now move to the WC. If they were nervous yesterday, lets see what happens if we get to a Quarter Final. Still haven't ever got into the last 4.

Every team has a run of injuries at times and it seems to have befallen Ireland this time. The situation yesterday was crazy. I was thinking that if they lose this time (and things looked ropey at around 50 minutes), at least we can point of the freaky loss of both hookers and a rake of other early injuries. But they managed to pull it out of the bag again. 2 great second half tries and we should have gotten a bonus point in the end. Hopefully one of the hookers will be back for Saturday. And at least people like Furlong, Gibson Park and Henshaw got game time, so that will help. Given Doris was having such a great tournament, it would be sad if he misses out on the Grand Slam game though. But so far, our depth has done well.

Raja does seem to have read much more of the primary sources than anyone else here. That's a strength. I don't really have a strong opinion. I do know that humans are very good at seeing patterns, even when they don't exist, so i'm a little cautious about blaming China for a supposed leak. As Raja said, if the DoE has new evidence, publish it.

Italy were good. Ireland were brought back to earth after their last match. With a bit of luck, they could have cruised to victory. They gave away a soft try at the end of the first half, which let Italy back into the game. But then, Italy could have leveled the score with a little bit more composure in the second half, so it works in both directions. A 14 point win in the end seems quite generous to Ireland. We are scoring a lot of tries but it also feels like we should be scoring much more. We get very close a lot. Hopefully a few players will be back for the next match, as things are going to get really tricky now.

Sure. People have been saying forever that the solution to these huge corporations is better government/regulation. Not taking life saving medicine because you want to deprive them of more profits certainly isn't the solution. The article says that it is comparing the second year of the pandemic against the "predicted rate" (i.e. pre-COVID). So 2021 against normal 2019 (more or less).

Yes. Amazing first half of rugby when it see-sawed a lot. Ireland did need to win more given our recent record against France and maybe that told (plus playing at home) but it was a comfortable win in the end. Ireland will probably look at why they didn't score a few more tries given they were very close on a number of occasions. And France could have been down to 14 players quite early but beating a 15 man France means more. Ireland looked good in one half against Wales but both halves here, which is a positive sign, given you can't allow France much of a chance. Knowing we can win without some of our top players is also very reassuring. Even Sexton can go off early.