2 hours ago, PeterMP said:

 

Your initial post made a comparison between the Soviet Union's attempt to put nuclear missiles in Cuba and NATO expansion.  There is no real comparison.  NATO expansion has not come with an expansion of our nuclear weapons systems and especially not nuclear missiles.  Our nuclear missile system is now further from Russia's border than it was at the time of the Cuban missile crisis.

Completely disagree on both counts.  Putin doesn't want NATO on his doorstep, the same way we didn't want the Soviet Bloc in the Caribbean (or in the western hemisphere).  Cuba housed those ICBMs to assure their defense at the time.  

NATO nations have 100+ nuclear weapons we own, deployed in support of their mission.  Which is a capability they only have at their disposal, because of NATO.  Fact of the matter is, the same way those publicly known locations of nuclear weapons are shared, others (with more mobile means of delivery) likely are as well.  So the concept that anywhere we 'know' houses nuclear weapons, is the *only* place they can be deployed, isn't based in reality.

2 hours ago, PeterMP said:

What we're moving closer to Russia is really missiles that are part of an anti-missile/air craft defense system.

That can be easily outfitted in an offensive configuration...in fact into the same retaliatory air strike capability we've used extensively over the past 30+ years...you're keying in on missiles literally being pointed, but our relationship w/ N. Korea right now, is pretty much dependent on whether we're conducting training exercises w/ ROK or not.  There's also a lot of agitation with China over disputes in the S. China Sea...I could see someone picturing the Black Sea being a new playground for more cold war maneuver nonsense.   

2 hours ago, PeterMP said:

 

It made sense to expand because those countries worried about their security and they were new democratic regimes that needed support.  We expanded because those countries WANTED to join NATO.

 

Poland, Estonia, etc, didn't want to join NATO for no reason and our reasons for letting them join are the same reason they wanted to join.

 

To protect them from Russian aggression and Russian attempts to control and subjugate them as it was doing to Chechnya at the time that we opened expansion up to them.

 

Those countries didn't just say hey we want to join NATO and we didn't just say yes hey why not.  Russian actions lead to NATO expansion.

Same applied to Cuba, for communism.  Really don't see the point of admitting countries we really aren't intending to *defend*, and have no strategic importance to the alliance.  More of a keep away move designed to agitate Russia.  Well congrats, Russia's agitated.  At the time of the expansion of NATO in central Europe in the '90's, it wasn't because of Russian aggression, they were reeling from the Soviet Union's dissolution and more interested in partnering with the US.  

Quote

On May 2, 1998, immediately after the Senate ratified NATO expansion, I called George Kennan, the architect of America’s successful containment of the Soviet Union. Having joined the State Department in 1926 and served as U.S. ambassador to Moscow in 1952, Kennan was arguably America’s greatest expert on Russia. Though 94 at the time and frail of voice, he was sharp of mind when I asked for his opinion of NATO expansion.

 

I am going to share Kennan’s whole answer:

“I think it is the beginning of a new cold war. I think the Russians will gradually react quite adversely and it will affect their policies. I think it is a tragic mistake. There was no reason for this whatsoever. No one was threatening anybody else. This expansion would make the founding fathers of this country turn over in their graves.

 

“We have signed up to protect a whole series of countries, even though we have neither the resources nor the intention to do so in any serious way. [NATO expansion] was simply a lighthearted action by a Senate that has no real interest in foreign affairs. What bothers me is how superficial and ill informed the whole Senate debate was. I was particularly bothered by the references to Russia as a country dying to attack Western Europe.

 

“Don’t people understand? Our differences in the Cold War were with the Soviet Communist regime. And now we are turning our backs on the very people who mounted the greatest bloodless revolution in history to remove that Soviet regime. And Russia’s democracy is as far advanced, if not farther, as any of these countries we’ve just signed up to defend from Russia. Of course there is going to be a bad reaction from Russia, and then [the NATO expanders] will say that we always told you that is how the Russians are — but this is just wrong.

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/02/21/opinion/putin-ukraine-nato.html

39 minutes ago, PeterMP said:

 

B61s (bombs not missiles) have been part of our nuclear sharing program for years.  And note, none of those countries are part of the more recent NATO expansion.

 

Also, I don't think there is a current treaty to be in violation of with respect to land based missiles.  Both us and Russia withdrew from the INF years ago.  With both sides saying the other had violated it and not happy that other people hadn't signed (especially China for us and other NATO countries for Russia).  But even that wasn't related to nuclear weapons for us.  Russia wasn't happy with our development of drones claiming they were essentially achieved the same objective as missiles.  

 

Sharing nuclear bombs and aircraft to deliver them under the deal isn't anything new and it has known about the Russians since they have been the Soviets.  It is something we do to keep European states from developing their own nuclear weapons.  And we haven't added any of the newer NATO countries to the list of countries we share them with.

 

 

Putin's problem is the missile launchers moving closer and closer to their border via NATO's expansion.  So saying NATO expanding east poses no threat to Russia just isn't true, even if it's not the intention.   It's not a new position, it's not a secret, and Putin's been pretty consistent on it.  

If we're being honest it never made much sense to expand NATO (in the 90's) after the Soviet Union collapsed...IMO it planted the seeds for this conflict, and others.  

51 minutes ago, PeterMP said:

 

What has been installed there are defensive weapons (they can't fire Tomahawks).

 

There's a big difference between having what are defensive surface-to-air and an anti-missile defense system (that we've offered to let the Russians inspect) nearby than having nuclear weapons.  There are no nuclear weapons in Poland, Romania, or Japan.

 

Letting Ukraine join NATO is about letting the Ukrainians have a right to their self-determination.  It is LETTING them.  If the Ukrainians (and other countries in the Russian "sphere of influence") want to join NATO, then they should look at themselves. 

Guess it depends on what you believe.  Russia seems to believe it has 'more' than a defensive capability.  MK 41s can be used in both defensive and offensive postures.  So saying you're setting them up for defense when it's easy to change the configuration to fire Tomahawks isn't exactly a reassurance. 

Keep in mind there's treaties governing the use of land based missile systems, which NATO may or may not be following, depending on your vantage point.     

Quote

NATO’s nuclear deterrence also relies on US nuclear weapons deployed in Europe and supporting capabilities and infrastructure provided by Allies. A number of European NATO members have dual-capable aircraft dedicated to the delivery of these US nuclear weapons. The United States maintains full custody of these weapons at all times. These “nuclear-sharing arrangements” predate and are fully consistent with the Non-Proliferation Treaty

nato.int/nato_static_fl2014/assets/pdf/2020/2/pdf/200224-factsheet-nuclear-en.pdf

NATO has ~150 B61s deployed in Belgium, Germany, Italy, Netherlands, Turkey as part of its Nuclear Weapons Sharing Program.  

5 minutes ago, PeterMP said:

 

With NATO expansion, there hasn't come a move of NATO missiles.  I'm seeing this several places.  

 

We agreed to remove our missiles from Turkey for the Soviet Union not putting them in Cuba (most likely).

 

And we haven't moved them since.

 

Further, the US has never invaded Russia and when Russia has been invaded the two times this century we've actually come to their assistance.  

Aegis is in Romania, Poland, Japan with talks of expanding to Spain and potentially Guam.  The ability to launch ICBMs from planes, subs, trucks and rail means silos aren't much of a thing anymore.  But the nukes are still there (overseas), just not tucked in a silo.  

Can't discount Putin's discomfort anymore than the discomfort we had with Cuba.  The concept that they'd be conducting military training exercises and flaring tensions in the Black Sea isn't that hard to picture.    

Letting Ukraine into NATO would be more about playing 'keep away' from Russia than any strategic advantage the country itself has for NATO.  

1 minute ago, CousinsCowgirl84 said:

Why does he have legitimate concerns? NATO wasn’t threatening Russia and the military units that make up nato are a shell of what they were looking n 1990

Russia has had longstanding grievances with the expansion of NATO.  He said Ukraine in NATO is a red line for him.  Also since he relies on neighboring countries (like Ukraine) to transit oil & gas, doubt he wants western powers interfering with his ability to manipulate supply/prices.    

37 minutes ago, PeterMP said:

 

That isn't the way he's talked in the last 48 hours.  He's been talking about Ukraine being part of Russia and the Ukrainians and Russians being the same people.

He doesn't want Ukraine to be in NATO, and wants guarantees it won't happen.  Doubt he'll get NATO restored to the 1990 membership level, but he has a legitimate concern about NATO's eastward expansion backing him into a corner.  

Seem to recall a similar situation when another superpower didn't like the idea of a neighboring country pointing missiles at them...just have to hope Ukraine is his endgame.  

1 minute ago, DCSaints_fan said:

I can kinda see where you're going with this.  But its not like the US tried to annex Iraq, or completely destroy it as nation, like what Putin has already done and is attempting to do with Ukraine.  And the 2003 invasion can thought of as a continuation of the 1991 where Saddam was the aggressor.

It was a 'regime change':  and we've had plenty of them (Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya).  Seems like Putin's end game is a non-alignment treaty, possibly a regime change as well.  

45 minutes ago, tshile said:

It almost sounds like simply stationing troops on the Ukraine border with Russia and Belarus would have been enough to stop this whole thing. It sounds like Russia is completely incapable of confronting us. And it sounds like Putin us at least somewhat aware of that. But it was a huge risk and I understand why we wouldn’t do it. 

Disagree.  Most of NATO is reliant on Russian oil & gas.  Which is why they're still waffling on how hard of sanctions they're willing to levy...and why they consider removing Russian banks from SWIFT as the nuclear option.  Russia would stop deliveries and many economies would suffer.  They were never going to stick a coalition of troops in Russia's backyard, and there's a low likelihood they can substantively sanction Russia without hurting themselves.  

2 hours ago, justice98 said:

 

Probably only because they didn't know what they were doing.  I suspect if he went somewhere where he had confidence in the front office and coach, he wouldn't be expecting input.  But even then, part of his irritation is they promised him input and reneged.  Ron would never promise such a thing to begin with.  Houston shouldn't have either.

You can't say that when his reasoning for wanting out was being left out of ownership decision making.  His original unhappiness stemmed from them trading Hopkins.  Do you really think Ron is going to seek his approval before he makes roster changes,  or hires front office personnel? 

Or that Ron's going to intentionally bring in someone to tempt Snyder's worst instincts?   

9 minutes ago, KDawg said:

 

If we are willing to trade the farm for Watson I think our current roster falls short of the goal (Lombardi) and the trade crushes our multi season outlook to do the same. 
 

I think he is blinded the success and the fact that his GM reports to him means there is no one looking out for the long term health of the franchise. 

Don't think Watson would fit the Ron-centric setup... is Ron gonna commit to run FO decisions by Watson?   That's the reason he wants out of Houston...

13 hours ago, redskins59 said:

They need better Data Scientists. I was reading the other day that Republicans were mining social media such as twitter and facebook to make people vote.  As a result, Trump gained 10 million from the 2016 numbers. Of course, Republicans didn't care about the virus, so they knocked on more doors. That mattered too, but it appears to me that Republicans use certain things better.

With PhD types leaning more towards Democrats than Republicans, you need to do better and find elite data scientists.

Republicans did better tham expected locally.  So they will draw the map however they want. And yes, they will use Data Scientists and Statisticians for this.  The newer maps will be even more gerrymandered. So, Democrats are screwed.

Dunno, man.  I'm in the field, and not so convinced Republicans are poaching the best and brightest.  I'm convinced the messaging is more important than any empirical underlying facts.   Republicans did more analysis on messaging from a marketing perspective and used that to inform Trump's platform.  I don't think anyone has attempted to do what Obama's team did then, since.   Dems were overconfident in '16.  

I don't think anyone with a legitimate future would align themselves professionally with dudes creating forecasts of covid deaths using stock Excel trendlines to tell the most favorable possible story...

Having said that,  there's definitely room for improvement in the dem strategy.  

21 hours ago, Mooka said:

 

Last time this scandal was around it was noted a few teams in the league haven't had cheerleaders for a long time. The NY Giants for example have never had any cheerleaders and no one even notices or cares. 

 

All you need is some people to run around, pump up the crowd and toss some t-shirts. Like in basketball. 

Another sign of how antiquated this teams thinking is.   I mean we still had/have a marching band.  

47 minutes ago, Califan007 said:

Let me ask...what was it that anyone saw in Scott Turner's career that made you feel optimistic about his being named OC for the Skins?

 

I didn't even know Norv had a son lol..nonetheless one that was coaching in the NFL. So my only optimism was that my ignorance of his coaching meant he could have been one of those "up and coming" coordinators that have been on GMs' radars. That, and he was Norv's son so maybe some of Norv's better coordinator qualities are entrenched in Scott as well. But that was it.

 

What were the things people liked about Scott Turner before he came here?

I was hoping he was an up & coming guy who had some of the offensive brilliance of his dad.  Norv wasn't a great leader of men, but he could scheme an offense.

Seems to me like Scott rose too fast.  He didn't spend much time being a QB coach in Carolina, before he was elevated to OC due to Ron's firing.  Probably wouldn't be nearly as much of an issue, if Norv was here as well.     

1 hour ago, Riggo#44 said:

 

You're absolutely right--but it's also just fair to ask if our OL are dumb, untalented, or both.  I think it's a combination of mediocre skill level and inexperienced coaching.

 

 

I haven't made an excuse for anyone, I try not to do that, sometimes I will. I also prefer to not overreact and scream **** like "coaching malpractice" over a player being put in a difficult situation.

Asking Alex Smith to operate in that manner, on an idyllic fall day is stupid.  During a torrential downpour, with no protection is incomprehensible.  It means he ignored the game, the situation, the weather, the personnel.  And he ignored the fact that the line couldn't sustain a passing game of ANY kind.  

I can't see how anyone can look at what's unfolding and feel confident that it's ALL talent.  If it's your preference to hope these things will self-resolve, fine.  The other games had elements of the same mistakes, sprinkled throughout. 

Honestly, I don't see how he can become a successful coordinator with the volume of mistakes he's making.  There's no Christian McCaffrey here to make everything you call, look good.  

15 minutes ago, Riggo#44 said:

 

And this is the problem with this sort of analysis--is this on the coaching or on the players? Being confused by stunts could be either. Maybe we need smarter OL? I understand John Matsko is pretty highly regarded, so it could be a combination of both? The main problem I have with immediately blaming coaching staff is we have next to no information what they called, what the protection scheme set up is. Who has responsibility for what. We can make analysis or educated guesses, but for the most part we have little information. (However, it's clear when Wes Martin plays on roller skates or gives the ole block.) To be clear, I am not defending anyone--and the jury is WAY out on Turner--but I think people are getting to worked up about a myopic view. This year was ALWAYS about the long run--I never got to worked up, even over the season-opening win. I never thought they should even attempt to win the division, and chalked all that up to bull**** coach speak. It's more about the process, and I'll stick by that all year.

I'm very much into empirical evidence...but how many guys are running free?  Who is exactly is operating in space?  Coaches scheme...if we witness performances like Sunday, questioning whether the team was adequately prepared is fair game.  Noticing dudes dancing with air or double teaming guys while someone else runs free doesn't take an understanding of the highest level of football.  It's amateurish to the naked eye.  

15 minutes ago, Riggo#44 said:

 

So assume you have a medical background, have seen his x-rays, charts, all his medical information and can make an accurate diagnosis?

Read the words again.  Putting Alex Smith back there, with the D's ears pinned back, and no running game made him a sitting duck.  You had to know he wasn't going to be able to protect himself.  And in a downpour, you're asking him to drop back and throw, over and over. 

Sounds like you'd rather make excuses for guys than talk football...please help me see the light of how it was a good coaching decision.  How it gave our team the best chance to compete/win?  That's what we're doing now, right?

38 minutes ago, Riggo#44 said:

 I do find it funny how Turner is criticized so for not having a top offense, while Haskins is excused for "not having anyone to work with." I guess that's how agenda's work.

 

One thing Rivera said that sticks with me through this whole year: results are less important this year. The process, effort, work ethic, and improvement are paramount.

Here's the problem:  Whether you consider this year 'evaluating the team' or trying to 'win the division' THIS offense doesn't put the team in a position to do either.  I'm not seeing very much professional stuff occurring on that side of the ball.  And it's not something that just started happening.  The o-line looked absolutely confused and baffled that some Balt defenders rushed, while others dropped.  Guys blocking air, or looking overwhelmed by stunts.

Putting Alex Smith back there to endure that punishment was coaching malpractice.  Especially with those weather conditions, which I'd imagine would impact most coach's gameplan.  

Quote

Washington Football Team was Running on Empty

...

If you're keeping score at home, that's 23 called passing plays and five called runs from the time Smith entered at the two-minute mark of the first half. 

A lot of that was NOT score and situational dictated. Sorry. Some of it was. It's not illegal to run the ball inside of two minutes when you have all three of your timeouts left. 

It's absurd to not run the ball in a 20-10 game with a steady rain shower dumping down. 

When you're offensive line can't block a soul and when you are allowing a very good pass rush to pin their ears back and tee off, that's on you. 

https://www.si.com/nfl/washingtonfootball/fantasy-gambling/washington-football-team-was-running-on-empty

Agree fully with this take.  I'm not sure why/how Turner is escaping criticism for this?

22 minutes ago, Dissident2 said:

Greg Blache...

 

 

Shame that all of his risk taking was confined to off the field shenanigans...

23 hours ago, Elessar78 said:

My WiFi speeds (download) (all through WiFi, nothing hardwired)(all same distance from router):

Desktop 160 Mbps

iPhone X: 45 Mbps

iPad (6th Gen): 9 Mbps

 

Can anyone who understands tech better than me enlighten me and how do I fix my device speeds?

What's the distance?  What's your ISP's advertised 'up-to' speed? 

Is the router dual band (2.4 and 5 gHz)?   Were all devices on the same network at time of testing?  

How old is your ISP-provided router?  (If ~2 years would recommend replacing/requesting new one)

Easy steps you can take: 

• reset router to factory default (chance improper router config is doing it). 

Forget the network on each device, reconnect and retest.  (chance that network config has changed, but not picked up by device)

More advanced:

• Disable extra functionalities of router (monitoring, security features, guest networks, etc that increase router computing overhead)

Set devices to prefer 5 gHz network on router* (provided you have a 5 gHz network)

Set priority to preferred devices on router (if available)

Bottomline, most ISP routers have subpar routing capabilities to what's commercially available. 

If you have problems with wi-fi range, connectivity, or a large space to cover, many people save themselves the rental fee and spring on something better.    

4 hours ago, twa said:

 

one short term solution is to store it in govt storage we have...at a price or as deposit on future tax liabilities(much as we accept royalties in kind) at rates favorable to us in a buyers market.

 

the Tankers are perfectly capable of storing the oil in them if the folk contracted to buy it can't take it

 

I have a question on oil futures.....if you buy them and cannot take delivery is your money forfeit along with any claim to it?  

 

added

 

already in talks

https://www.worldoil.com/news/2020/4/14/doe-working-to-lease-out-23-mmbbl-of-strategic-petroleum-reserve-capacity

Hopefully they have the good sense to buy it outright.  Last time they tried RIK, they got fleeced with dubious quality oil, with light end problems.  And a bunch of environmental issues to move it.  

Theoretically you'd have to go to Cushing, OK and pick it up.  The reason why the price went negative, is that the traders (like USO ETF) who never had the capability to take deliveries, are dumping their futures contracts that had a settlement date of yesterday (May futures).  Because no one wants the oil, they're paying for the delivery and storage.

Good article summing it up:

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/21/upshot/negative-oil-price.html

20 minutes ago, HTTRDynasty said:

You’re offered a HC position just for sniffing McVay’s farts nowadays.  Zac Taylor, HC of the Bengals was the quarterbacks coach for the Rams in 2018 and the assistant WRs coach in 2017. KOC is looking to be the next young hotshot McVay disciple after LeFleur and Taylor. 

And the 2-14 season he's coming off will probably give other teams pause on continuing that strategy.  He was a terrible hire that appears to be in over his head.  Even the Dolphins got better as the season went on.  All the Bengals have to hang their hat on, is the top pick.  

2 hours ago, veteranskinsfan said:

He lands with a better team.  If he does well he gets Head Coaching offers in 2021.  

Unless he's going to be calling plays for the Rams, I'd call it a downgrade for him. What team is going to go after an OC that's only called 11 games, in a non ideal situation?  

1 hour ago, veteranskinsfan said:

Just heard on 908 interview with Scott Turner who said his dad will be on the field during the off-season and will be mentoring him.  Ugh.  So will Norv

always be around?  So he will be at Redskins Park.  Will he shake hands again with the Danny?   Will Snyder go to Riverboat Ron and say "You never

told me Norv would be here"?  The Nov years with Skins were painful.  Very interesting that Norv will be around.  Hope everyone is prepared to see

him.  If Ron wanted Norv then he should have hired Norv and let his son come to practices and learn from his dad while we pay his son a much lower coaching salary.

Dan still could hire him as a Senior Offensive Assistant (same job Cavanaugh held this season). 

I don't think that the level of animosity still exists there that we fans think is there.  If it did, I doubt Scott would've accepted the job. 

Crazy to think, after what we've experienced in the past 20 years, that Norv was fired for losing to the eventual Super Bowl Champs, with a 7-6 record in season.  

1 minute ago, goskins10 said:

I will say I am a little disappointed. I really expected a veteran OC if he moved on from KOC.

With experience between the two being a wash, if Rivera's going to roll the dice with a young coordinator, why shouldn't it be his guy?  Scott has a crap load of experience operating under his structure and game plans.  

That's just a dumb statement.  He was always going to have at least two different systems in that time.  And once Jay was canned, I don't think anyone expected us to preserve his offense (even if the choice was KOC).