Base32

But you can also read the sources on those pages. The first link alone cites over 600 sources. Unless you are prejudiced, I'll give you 10 days for a source by source riposte. And its not true that "anyone can write anything" on Wikipedia. While there is no block, in the main, to stop particular pages being edited, some pages are restricted to only registered users editing them. For instance, go try and change the age on the Holucaust and see how long your beliefs will be allowed to stand. There are Editorial policies. Articles must be unbiased and present all significant viewpoints fairly. Information must be backed by reliable, published sources (books, academic journals, mainstream media). No original research. So your charge is comlete and utter bilge.

Alex Garland skips (wisely) the hows and whys in his provocative movie, but in the opening scene, acknowledges such a move would be seen as illegal. I thought it was an interesting film, with individual vignettes quite plausible. But I don't think there is a single modern country where seccession does not require some sort of support from the legislature or executive. Scotland got into trouble when it tried to hold an independant referendum without the agreement of Westminster. Then the Catalan declaration of independance which lead to seperatists going on the run in France. Yugoslavia infamously and bloodily fell apart in a way that reminded us that when it comes to sheer brutality to one another, kith and kin, we Europeans are a master at it, give the right circumstances. And now, we are seeing in in Ukraine, this time based around a fake Russian ethnicity. Most secessions fail, usually after conflict and the most bloody fraticide. Some succeed after conflict and the most bloody conflict. The American Declaration of Independance was an Act of Treason, the conspirators of which deserved to suffer the death of a traitor. So would have been the history if things had gone differently. The legality of that treasonous act made little difference in the eventual outcome, even though the so-called Patriots were only ever a minority of the population of the 13 colonies (no more than 40%. Hardcore Loyalists were 20%, the rest I would characterise as people who wanted to obey the law, like most of us today). In that sense, the later American Civil War remains an open sore; the seccession was brutally put down, and to this day, the South remains economically backward. in someways bearing the Mark of Cain as punishment on successive generations for daring to have independant thought (that's one characterisation). The Law matters little as to whether Secession succeeds. That depends on the Will, either the Will to stick to your principles, or the Will to kill your family. The British lacked the latter. Later on, the Americans seemed pretty happy to do the latter. If a State was to secede, Congress or any other body, can't stop it trying.

I suspect some discussion will centre around the Legalese concerning "Sovereignty" versus "Territorial Concession". Ukraine might concede territory as de facto controlled by Russia; Russia has de facto sovereignty, but will retain de jure sovereignty. What practical difference will that mean? An end to the war, in some form, with Russia controlling much of the Donbas, will likely result in a relaxation of sanctions on much of Russia, but not entirely all of Russia. Those areas under de facto Russian control will remain under effectively an embargo. We can look at Northern Cyprus as an example. Northern Cyprus, under Turkish control, remains a relatively squalid country, with an under developed tourist industry. You can't fly there directly, you can't ship anything directly. It all has to go through Turkey. You won't get outside investment there, least not from non-criminals. No Western bank will be investing in mining operations in the Donbas. The Hilton and Holiday Inn groups won't be building hotels in the Crimean riviera. Yes, Crimea has beaches. "Inside Russia" is a Russian Youtuber stuck in Uzbekistan raging most weeks at Putin. But he wasn't always so. He was broadly a pro-American conservative Russian, with a lean towards Putin. So much so, he was calling Crimea Russia's best beach. The Kerch Bridge, besides guaranteeing resupply of Crimea, was also built because the oligarchs were busy seizing abandoned hotel properties, with dreams of the same sort of tourism Bulgaria is seeing on nearly AI hell Sunny Beach. As long as Ukraine doesn't give up sovereignty, the Donbas will remain this crappy corner of New Russia, filled with shonky North Korean built apartment blocks, Chinese casinos, and large areas off limits due to UXBs. The other side of the Line of Control, thanks to mining deals, should in theory, see money pouring in. Of course establishing that Line of Control is another issue. Last time,

Indeed; there is a misunderstanding of Article 5, which actually doesn't compel members into an armed response, but merely to consider the event at hand. Article 5 argues about an armed attack. 911 showed that was open to interpretation; a Boeing airliner is not a weapons system, but it was used as a weapon. If fallout fell onto a NATO member's territory, those governments, could argue that they have been harmed, or attacked. Ultimately, Article 5 requires a political decision. Article 4 initiates urgent discussions if a member is threatened. The NATO leadership has already that there would be "severe consequences" if Moscow attacked Ukraine with a nuclear weapon. The US NSA has warned of "catastrophic consequences". Members of Congress have already stated that such an attack would be considered by them as an attack, and trigger collective defense consequences. Idiots who don't understand the NATO treaty think its some sort of automatic mechanism that if Moscow is clever, can avoid activating. Decisions are taken politically, and that is a deliberate feature of the Treaty, to strengthen deterrance, to blur what response might happen. A limited nuclear strike would be very harmful to Russia. It reveals their hand, reveals where certain assets are, how those assets were deployed. NATO might well respond, but quite possibly in a massively conventional way, reducing Russia's options for a response. In WW2, both sides thought chemical weapons would be extensively deployed. But they never were; even as the enemy were at the gates, Germany did not deploy its sarin and tabun stockpiles (and it turned out only Germany at the time had weaponised these nerve agents). Possibly Germany was afraid of retaliation in kind, because it wasn't sure what the allies had, but possibly "super weapons", even mythical one, was also a source of power. Remove the Emperor's Clothes; would Hitler have ended up swinging from a lamp post. At what point did the Italian opposition believe that Mussolini had lost his power? Russia keeps talking about its Poseidon system; autonomous nuclear powered nuclear torpedoes, probably about 2MT. Russia has plans for about 30 of these. Probably 6 so far, with no known sea trials. These are launched by "mother ship" submarines, and can remain at sea indefinitely, in theory. Deploying these is not something you do as some sort of retaliation; these are fast for underwater vehicles, at 70 knots or so, but much slower than a missile. The longer these things remain at sea, the more likely there is a technical failure, resulting in Blue on Blue, or mistaking Shanghai for LA. Russia's options to retaliate against a NATO conventional attack are more limited, ICBM only, which they know will invite a massive strategic response, and its not even a surprise attack anymore, so might not be "successful". A Russian tactical strike is less likely because it results in a weakened Russia, not a strengthened. Resistance to it inside the Kremline will likely not be because of some moral indignation, because likely it would dismantle part of Russia's guarantee of survival (as a political entity). The men running Russia are all Slavs. The government is overwhelmingly Slavic, but the population is 30% non-slavic. Its a racist state, somewhat different to the USSR which did have a genuinely diverse political leadership (a Georgian lead it for much of its history). As such, its at risk from ethnic civil wars, eg Chechenya.

That footage originated from "Russia Today", the Russian state funded news channel. Arrse isn't a "British Army" forum; its a forum for fans of the British Army, which includes a fair few ex-members, but also fan bois, gamers, even a few Russians pretending to be Britis (famously, one account purporting to be a veteran from the wars in Iraq, living in Australia, raging constantly about the problems of Western policy, until he forgot his own back story and was caught posting on St Petersberg time. I wouldn't consider members fo "ARRSE" to be OSINT experts. Your disengenuous reportage fails to note that only a single forum member suggested it was a fake.

To call Ukraine’s struggle unwinnable is to confuse weariness with inevitability. Russia was meant to take Kyiv in three days — it failed. It was meant to crush Europe’s unity — it failed. It was meant to outlast Western arms — it is failing still. Yes, victory demands industry, money, and sacrifice. But decline is not destiny unless we choose it. Europe is not a spectator; it is a combatant through its weapons, sanctions, and resolve. History is not a bar fight where the weaker man must bow. It is a contest of will and coalition strength. And on those terms, Putin is already smaller than he pretends. The real delusion is not Western confidence — it is Russian inevitability. The cause of the war lies not in the West, but in the East, and one inadequate man who has not accepted teh tide of history. The Russian Empire is still unravelling; all the other great Empires have gone. Putin is acutely aware that Slavs are literally dying out, to be over taken in the modern Russian Empire by non-slavic peoples. The Russian Federation is not a federation of equals. He doesn't accept the sovereignty of any of the former Soviet Republics. You highlight, without any statistics, Ukrainian desertion rates, and use the mere fact that there are deserters in a time of war as a way to delegitimise Ukraine. You pointedly don't mention the even worse desertion rates in the Russian Army, revealing your inherant Pro-Putin, Communist bias. We heard the same nonsense during the Cold War, usually from people who spent their sunday evenings tuned into Radio Moscow. They too considered Soviet domination of Europe to be inevitable, and there was no point resisting, and were generally shocked when the Poles, East Germans, Romanians and others showed otherwise. You adopt a typically pro-Russian viewpoint who argues that it is the West and NATO that is obsolete, rather than their own institutions. Either you are a champion of the Russian cause, or you are a useful idiot, who laps up their propaganda. You might want to consider desertion and turncoat numbers among the British Army in WW2. One of the reasons for the British collapse in Malaya, for instance, was the actions of an RAF officer who was passed over for promotion; he promptly passed onto the Japanese the locations of every RAF base. He was caught, subject to a drumhead court martial on Singapore Docks in the final hours, despatched with a shot to the head and dumped in the harbour. In Germany, several hundred British and Empire troops joined the German Army. The fact that there were British deserters doesn't mean the British cause was wrong, nor hopeless. Your opinion obviously matters to you, given your posts on the topic.

A weak article by Neil, reduced to a mere columnist for the Daily Fail. I realise you are constantly fond of talking up Putin and the Russian, and so seek any article that supports your own conceit, rather than parroting your own view in anything like a cogent manner. Andrew Neil declares that Europe has been reduced to the role of spectator in a world being “remade.” But let’s pause. Was it mere spectators who rallied billions to Ukraine when Washington wavered? Was it passive observers who doubled defence budgets, forged new security pacts, and began the most serious rearmament since the Cold War? To claim Europe is condemned to silence because Trump and Putin staged theatre in Alaska is to confuse venue with influence. The summit may have taken place on American soil, but the consequences play out on European battlefields and in European treasuries. And in those arenas, Europe is not watching—it is underwriting, it is arming, it is deciding. Neil suggests the continent has lost agency. Yet it is Europe that has written the cheques, supplied the tanks, trained the soldiers, sheltered the refugees, and set the red lines. You know how many Ukrainian troops the UK alone has trained? 5 divisions worth, through Operation Interflax. The EU, through EUMAM, has put together almost 7 divisions. The US; about 1 division. The U.S. may thunder in headlines, but it is Europe that sustains the war effort day after grinding day. Observers do not mobilise entire industries for war production; architects do. Indeed, the very reason Trump rushed to meet Putin in Alaska is because Europe’s stance has boxed Russia in. Putin knows he cannot fracture European unity, so he looks westward for concessions. That is not Europe’s irrelevance—that is its leverage. The truth is simple: Europe is not condemned to watch history being made. Europe is making it. What Neil mistakes for sidelining is in fact a redistribution of weight—one in which Europe is no longer content to play junior partner to America, but is learning, painfully and necessarily, to stand on its own. So no; Europe is not an observer at someone else’s play. It is authoring the next act.

Some blokes would have fellated Tojo and Hitler to stop WW2.

How a War Criminal and Child Abuser is wined and dined. Notably Chef couldn't whip up a Waldorf Salad, New England Clam Chowder, Texas Brisket, Mac n Cheese, Tater Tots, finished with American Pie and Cool Whip. Not even a cold Big Mac.

How the F do you think he's going to do that? Riding on a clapped out T34 towed by Donkeys? The Russian Arm is a bag of shiite, only fit for raping grannies and their own men, after they raped the dog of course. A million men lost in 3 years, and gaining negative land, against an oppostions equipped with cast offs from the Soviet Empire and whatever 30 year old surplus NATO had stashed away. By next year, EU shell production will exceed Russian production, and the EU is barely breaking a sweat. Meanwhile Russia's having to scour pensioners and Bangladeshis for workers. Obviously the legalisation of ganja in the LOS has rotted many a brain.

Has the First Lady had a stroke or something? She's writing to the world's biggest Child kidnapper/abuser. A bit like trying to appeal to Jimmy Savile's better side.

Federal agent assaulting an elderly army veteran. This is not what they are taught at Police School or wherever they are trained to act in a professional and lawful manner. Some thug on this forum will no doubt try and defend this.

Says the Cryptic-Stalinist

Thanks for confirming that you are an individual possessed of seriously deranged moral practices. There is so much twisted and sick with your statement.

"Accused murderer", so you think the thug didn't do it, or you support his motives. Disgusting. He was caught bang to rights, and if there was justice, he'd be hung drawn and quartered, old school style, and go out crying like a baby. I bet if Charles Manson had said some hing about bad about some Democrat politician, you'd be there applauding the psycho, saying he's got a point.

How many officers needed to arrest someone about to hand themselves in. A lot. Must be good Overtime rates https://www.hennepinattorney.org/news/news/2025/August/boelter-indictment Vance Luther Boelter NOT charged with domestic terrorism https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c30qlr528elo

Anchorage prepares to welcome President Putin. https://bsky.app/profile/saintjavelin.bsky.social/post/3lwgad2igas24

Ignoring the politics, it was an interesting interview with essentially a private citizen, expressing opinions, like we all do, on the world at large, based on what he reads and hears. There was some interesting insight. I feel in the middle he touched on the whole nub of this Epstein thing; people knew, a lot of people knew. And he's right to pour cold water on the whole "pedo conspiracy" nonsense. The act of pedophillia is a solitary act, in private. But these pedophiles make the private act public, and get away with it. You go back to Gary Glitter (Paul Gadd); no one was actually that surprised that when he dropped off his laptop to be fixed, it would be full of disgusting image. "Everyone" knew he was a wrong 'un, but never talked about it. He was fat and balding, and wore a wig, hanging out with underage groupies. But then he was caught, went to prison, got out, and promptly "came out", in liking, this time, very young girls. It isn't sexual desire to commit obscene acts against 10 year old girls. Its much more insidious; its an act that's not driven by hormones, but by psychology. And he's completely unapologetic, genuinely living without regret, or personal insight. Jimmy Savile; even more people knew. They knew about his activities concerning the corpses of children. Pedophile is the wrong word; like Glitter, there was no love there, except maybe love of oneself. That final interview with Louis Theroux; the mask slipped, and he knew, and clearly took pleasure at the idea that even when he was himself, he was basically untouchable. There are hints of that extending to this forum. Richard Burrows, aka Peter Smith of Phuket. There were many people in the expat who knew. Some probably thought they knew his well. I'd include members of the forum, who wouldn't admit to it. Burrows was a housemaster, I suppose a sort of teacher, though who knows if he had any actual qualifications. He spent over 3 decades abusing boys. I have no doubt moving to Thailand did not put a stop to that. I wouldn't be surprised if he's sitting now in his OAP prison thinking about how he got away with 25 years of abuse in Thailand. At his trial, true to form, he admitted t 43 offences, but denied 54 others. He tried to justify his actions to his brother. In Thailand, he didn't live the life of a gay man, proving that buggering schoolboys was nothing to do with sexuality, but a power trip. I suspect its no coicidence that he wormed his way into a prominant job in Phuket, where he became known on the social set. And Epstein. I think the nub of the story is that Trump, and other, all knew. And they all did nothing about it. The overriding question is why? Biden referred to his brother prosecuting a notorious doctor. People complained about him, but nothing was done. People knew, and were, in a way complicit. Savile ruined the reputation of the BBC (some people might be pleased with that. Epstein and Savile seem very similar. Savile got a Papal Knighthood. Epstein had the Dalai Llama come to stay. He'd surround himself with the great the good, and derive pleasure from the fact they knew, but did nothing, could do nothing. If this is indeed what happened, Trump could completely diffuse things by ordering a Presidential Truth and Reconciliation Commission, that might broaden out to other industries to shatter the security that those in power enjoy. That includes the churches, education, the entertainment industry, the sports industry, industry, politics. It would be a very brave thing to do, go on camera and admit, you knew, you didn't do enough, as a parent. But it won't happen; look at the British Royal Family, a 1200 year old institution now probably irretrievably damaged because of one man. Which is probably why an institution a mere 250 years old is so guarded about shining too much light on this matter.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/us/news/2025/08/13/trump-to-present-minerals-deal-to-putin-in-alaska/ https://www.newsweek.com/alaska-arctic-oil-gas-putin-trump-ukraine-war-2113437 Meanwhile in Russia Russian children are taught that America leased Alaska for 100 years, but America forged the document. Since 2017, Russian kids sing the song "Uncle Vova, We Are With You!", which include a line about how, like Sevastopol and Crimea, they are going to get Alaska back. Tweet from the lead Russian negotiator Russia has always stated it will always get back what is theirs.

How can you be neutral with a country that ran a secret police force in your country, kidnapped and disappeared people, repressed free speech, free thought, invaded your country with tanks, flattened your citizens. 1953 1956 1968 1981 1991 1993 So they were supposed to be grateful?

He's counting in Rupees.