Lethaface

Apparently what people feel like doing, do you want to force them to do something you feel like instead?

Good point we have the same system so direct technical rationing would be difficult. Although in the UK I have seen 'metered' gas meters which you need to top up with chipcards even back in the early 2000s. Not easy to install on a dime though. However like you say price can already do quite a bit. Slapping fines on usage above a certain amount per household could approach rationing ;-). Plenty of other options when one needs to get creative. One of the less creative options is reopening the Dutch gasfield which has ~800Bn gas left in it iirc. However when push comes to shove... We'll see

I think you are Worst case gas would have to be rationed, what would happen exactly if people keep their house heated until 12C and wear an extra sweater indoors? Apart from a lot of complaining

Don't mess up our new datacenter/PzH2000 with your dirty shoes!

Because they wear flip flops inside

From someone who followed the first ~3 months closely, last ~2 months more on macro level it at least seems that Russia at least has adjusted it's ways and has actually started conducting a war instead of a 'spastic operation'. While geopolitically / strategically there is only partial loss-aversion on the table imo, at least operationally / tactically Russia seems to have adapted into doing stuff they are capable of and doing it in a (sort of) capable way. They can 'grind' for territory. Looks like they have adjusted the size of the 'grinder' to chunks they can actually deal with and in sustainable fashion, at least for the time being. The obvious question being whether Ukraine can take the initiative and disturb this in some way. It seems that the recent heavy artillery / MLRS deliveries and exploding stuff in Russia's rear is at least affecting the capability for Russia to 'grind'. I have no information regarding how bad these strikes are affecting Russia's capability keeping their guns well fed/operated/directed but any disruption on the artillery front will have a significant impact on any battle/operation imo.

@Grigb This whole thread is info overload when one's busy with 'own' life ;-), however it is interesting to be able to read perspectives which are normally not as easily accessed for non-Russian speakers (auto translate is often very limited). Of course everything can always be improved. I liked the headers with bulletpoints structure.

They still have issues.

Isn't this also a question of taking time to make sure every aspect of the process is understood and refined when there is time (i.e. during peacetime), so that when **** hits the fan and there are REAL deadlines those involved can do the same thing under pressure and 'more rapid' without just 'checking the boxes' and go with it? That's basically what I got from methodology and doctrines/frameworks in my field of work; it's often overkill for the situation at hand, especially when there's no burning platform. But when stuff needs to get done quickly and with good enough quality, you need to have the capabilities to know/feel where you can cut corners (or fix later) and where you can't; that knowledge/experience takes a lot of time and effort to learn.

Thanks for your response. I think it's fair to say that developments in Ukraine will eventually lead to 'healing', maybe not in a similar way compared to Germany post WW2, but conceptually with the same end result. Many other other (Western) countries are undergoing a similar process, for example in NL the history of the 'special operations' in Indonesia. In turn imo this also offers a theoretical perspective for the same process in Russia, although it will require a different (form) of government.

Where there any Ukrainian soldiers In WW2 toilet bowl stealing Red Army?

He just confirmed it.

did you try typing in another name for the save? Without underscore? I've had this message a few times, but it disappeared after trying again IIRC.

Of course I don't mind One interesting part is that where the 'center' lies probably differs from country to country. For example our 'conservative' party / traditional right wing is probably more left than the 'democratic' party in USA. Being 'social-democratic' isn't thought of as 'far left' here. Another interesting part is imo, political parties catering to 'what the people seem to want in their eyes' and implementing policies stuff from wherever on the spectrum. But indeed over the last few decades there have been shifts in politics across the globe, probably to cater to the changes happening around the world.

Imo calling left more about 'collectivism' and 'right' more about 'individualism' does indeed make (much) more sense. However it doesn't necessarily address the nuances in policy differences that exist and are currently incompetently defined by 'left' and 'right'. Well, I arrived at this discussion with that idea basically "Although I think the terms 'left' vs 'right' are inadequate and lead to narrowmindedness". This discussion started with your suggestion that changing left/right into freedom/control would improve stuff. I have argumented why I don't think it will change anything and why it's not a good idea in my opinion.

Being mounted in an armored vehicle also helps protecting troops from artillery / mortar fires.

Do you have any foundation for these statements / assumptions outside of your theories? For example, compared to USA Sweden is a much more 'left' oriented country. But in Sweden you have more chance to move between classes compared to USA. Privileged groups certainly exists in countries where 'the market' decides relatively more than countries where there is more control from the elected Government. For example my country has more 'control' than the USA, but I doubt we have more 'privilidged' groups. If you look at wealth distribution, you could come to wildly different conclusions. This database might interest you, it gives a couple of scales which say much more about a country: https://www.hofstede-insights.com/country-comparison/ For example try putting in Sweden vs United States. It is a product of the French revolution. It's not only the 'traditional' model, it IS the CURRENT model. However, thinking that 'freedom' can be on one side of a scale (in your case the right) of the scale and explain all political ideologies is shortsighted. You only have to read about Abraham Lincoln's sheep & wolfs concepts to arrive at that conclusion. What actually is 'freedom'? Is that 'freedom for everyone' or rather 'freedom for the wolf'? I'm not sure we can all follow 'the logic' your thinking of. According to both our Military Intelligence Service and General Intelligence Service, Russia is currently a extreme-right system of government and is mainly attracting 'extreme right' ideologies in our country. This is the general consensus. https://nos.nl/artikel/2426805-oorlog-rusland-voedt-denkbeelden-extreemrechts-in-nederland-waarschuwt-aivd But like Steve, others and me have said: there is virtually not much difference between extreme left or extreme right.

Good points

Thanks! There are indeed various fallacies Erwin has some habit of using ;-). Once my English was supposed to be of academical level, but like everything one doesn't use often it rusts. Working in the Dutch (semi) public sector for 10 years doesn't help lol. I'm very happy for our separation of Church and State. On that note it is funny that many countries across the world have become more 'strict' on the subject of religion conformity since the 60/70/80s.

Erwin's distraction and the fact that I've been rather busy delayed my response a bit. Anyway; I understand the idea of providing a simpler scale for political identity by making the scale about government control with one side being no control and the other side being maximum control. It would surely be a simpler scale than the vague left and right we have now. The issue's I see with it are: A) redefining established concepts, no matter how vaguely defined, on another scale is always a bad idea. But that could be solved by choosing other terminology (i.e. no left/right). B ) there are nuanced differences in policy flavoring, currently incompetently addressed left vs right, which aren't included in the 'more/less government control scale'. So political parties will still need another scale to differentiate from each other. I don't see how this solves anything basically. Conceptually it wouldn't be that different from "Ok, from now on we will name all things considered 'problems' as 'challenges' instead" and believing that it would make a difference with regards to addressing any of these problems/challenges. My solution is to just forego the left right spectrum and look for policy I can identify with or is imo wise. It is not required to be 'binary' when it comes to governmental policies just because someone once thought up that there ought to be 'a left' and 'a right'. Might be me though, if someone tells me to go either left or right I'll probably try crashing through the middle

I've been trying to find the good stuff you're smoking, but even in NL they don't sell that unfortunately or it just ain't working for me. You're selectively quoting a passage from my post and from there somehow connect the west / white nations being supposedly the only nations welcoming 'others', to a generalization of China, Japan, ME or India, culminating in most 'other' (?) nations could be called fascism according to what I posted. My advise for you would be to visit some countries outside the West for a change and experience how the world actually is.

I hope/expect it's Russian people, after that the most probable SBU. Although I guess Boris the fool (I bought one of his books so that's allowed ) might have certain moist dreams

Don't watch too much of such filth, it will affect you ;-). Basically it's blablabla we can make good glass when we also turn into glass.

Ok, guess some of our politicians are a bit more generous with motions of distrust lol (mainly Wilders one of our local far right loons). So, do you think it will come to a vote?