[Mentalist]

Nicodimas, on 28 August 2014 - 06:45 PM, said:

Quote

But a lot of Russia's nukes are inoperable as the government has no money for their upkeep

^Can you prove this. I was always certain the reason US/ Russia went away from the Megaton City busters to the 100 kilotons yields was they were cheaper to operate and lasted way longer.

Btw, you all think this is going to go Nuclear for real?

This one won't, but it sure as hell will push a lot of countries who are currently on the fence about nukes to get them asap. I can see no reason for anyone to tell Iran they can't don't need nukes to feel safe, when there's a clear example of a country that gave up its nukes and then got dismembered less than 20 years later.

[Ghjhero]

To suggest we are in the verge of a nuclear war is ridiculous. Ukriane isn't even part of NATO, sure the EU and US will protest anything Russia does, but let's be honest no one is willing to start WW III over Ukriane. The most Ukraine can hope for is economic and military aid, there's no way that any Western powers are going to send troops to fight Russian backed rebels.

[Mentalist]

Ghjhero, on 28 August 2014 - 06:55 PM, said:

To suggest we are in the verge of a nuclear war is ridiculous. Ukriane isn't even part of NATO, sure the EU and US will protest anything Russia does, but let's be honest no one is willing to start WW III over Ukriane. The most Ukraine can hope for is economic and military aid, there's no way that any Western powers are going to send troops to fight Russian backed rebels.

ffs....

they are Russian regulars...

[Ghjhero]

Mentalist said:

1409252653[/url]' post='1146172']

Ghjhero said:

1409252112[/url]' post='1146171']
To suggest we are in the verge of a nuclear war is ridiculous. Ukriane isn't even part of NATO, sure the EU and US will protest anything Russia does, but let's be honest no one is willing to start WW III over Ukriane. The most Ukraine can hope for is economic and military aid, there's no way that any Western powers are going to send troops to fight Russian backed rebels.

ffs....

they are Russian regulars...

You're missing the point, regardless of who or what they are Ukriane is going to have to go this one alone. As I said probably the biggest response NATO will have is to station more troops in eastern NATO countries such as Poland and fortify the defenses that exist there.

[Mentalist]

Ghjhero, on 28 August 2014 - 07:32 PM, said:

Mentalist said:

1409252653[/url]' post='1146172']

Ghjhero said:

1409252112[/url]' post='1146171']
To suggest we are in the verge of a nuclear war is ridiculous. Ukriane isn't even part of NATO, sure the EU and US will protest anything Russia does, but let's be honest no one is willing to start WW III over Ukriane. The most Ukraine can hope for is economic and military aid, there's no way that any Western powers are going to send troops to fight Russian backed rebels.

ffs....

they are Russian regulars...

You're missing the point, regardless of who or what they are Ukriane is going to have to go this one alone. As I said probably the biggest response NATO will have is to station more troops in eastern NATO countries such as Poland and fortify the defenses that exist there.

If NATO sells us weapons, I'll be happy enough.

And no, I'm not missing the point. But there's an important distinction between meddling in a sovereign country's affairs via proxies,and doing so directly. Not to mention redrawing borders and formally annexing territory.

I know that the West won't go to war over UA. I've known this since the beginning. But just because I know this, doesn't make me think they are any less wrong to do this. The appeasement strategy does not work. It never worked. It leads to bigger appetites, and the confrontation that appeasement is meant to avoid remains inevitable.

[Ghjhero]

Yes I agree with all you said. But what would it actually take from Russia to make NATO seriously consider going to war with Russia? I don't think Putin really thinks he can win if he were to attack a NATO state and so do the Western powers. The general consensus seems to be that while Russian aggression is alarming the most anyone can be bothered to do is issue sanctions. Theoretically if Russia gets what they want and helps eastern Ukraine break away/annex those regions (sorry) is there another country Putin will turn his gaze towards or will he be satisfied?

[Mentalist]

Ghjhero, on 28 August 2014 - 08:08 PM, said:

Yes I agree with all you said. But what would it actually take from Russia to make NATO seriously consider going to war with Russia? I don't think Putin really thinks he can win if he were to attack a NATO state and so do the Western powers. The general consensus seems to be that while Russian aggression is alarming the most anyone can be bothered to do is issue sanctions. Theoretically if Russia gets what they want and helps eastern Ukraine break away/annex those regions (sorry) is there another country Putin will turn his gaze towards or will he be satisfied?

Putin wants to grab as much as he can. I wrote earlier, there are many non-nato targets left. for starters, if allowed to push into southern Ukraine and towardas Odessa, he will border both Transnistria and also the Gagauz autonomous region of Moldova--which is prime for annexation already.

In the Kavkaz, there's a frozen conflict between Azerbaijan and Russia's ally Armenia over Nagorno-Karabakh. That war could go hot, and Azerbaijan can suffer.

There were also some very eager Russians talking about how there's a large number of Russian-speakers in Northern Kazakhstan. And other bits of Central Asia may end up being places where Russia has "interests".

Then there are non-NATO Finland and Sweden. why? and why the hell not?

And then you get to the Baltic states. Which are part of NATO, but Russia may need its corridor to Kaliningrad. And, really, will NATO got to war with Russia over some tiny country most people can't even find on the map?

[HoosierDaddy]

Mentalist, on 28 August 2014 - 04:52 PM, said:

Tapper, on 28 August 2014 - 12:15 PM, said:

Well Ment, the top NATO brass is talking with no hesitancy regarding Russian intentions and involvement:

http://www.theguardi...-russian-threat

I'd consider that quite a strong statement regarding Russia, and a very clear intent towards future relations with the Ukraine.

Incidentally, this week Russia has violated Finland's air space three times....

And now Finland and Sweden are entering into talks with NATO to not enter as member nations, but to becomes signees of a treaty that would let them ask for NATO aid in an emergency. Ukraine should have jumped on this band-wagon a long time ago.

[HoosierDaddy]

Mentalist, on 28 August 2014 - 08:38 PM, said:

Ghjhero, on 28 August 2014 - 08:08 PM, said:

Yes I agree with all you said. But what would it actually take from Russia to make NATO seriously consider going to war with Russia? I don't think Putin really thinks he can win if he were to attack a NATO state and so do the Western powers. The general consensus seems to be that while Russian aggression is alarming the most anyone can be bothered to do is issue sanctions. Theoretically if Russia gets what they want and helps eastern Ukraine break away/annex those regions (sorry) is there another country Putin will turn his gaze towards or will he be satisfied?

Putin wants to grab as much as he can. I wrote earlier, there are many non-nato targets left. for starters, if allowed to push into southern Ukraine and towardas Odessa, he will border both Transnistria and also the Gagauz autonomous region of Moldova--which is prime for annexation already.

In the Kavkaz, there's a frozen conflict between Azerbaijan and Russia's ally Armenia over Nagorno-Karabakh. That war could go hot, and Azerbaijan can suffer.

There were also some very eager Russians talking about how there's a large number of Russian-speakers in Northern Kazakhstan. And other bits of Central Asia may end up being places where Russia has "interests".

Then there are non-NATO Finland and Sweden. why? and why the hell not?

And then you get to the Baltic states. Which are part of NATO, but Russia may need its corridor to Kaliningrad. And, really, will NATO got to war with Russia over some tiny country most people can't even find on the map?

Yes. I believe most Europeans and Americans with some sense of world-affairs would easily locate the Baltic States. Presented with the reinvigorated USSR attempting to becomes Big Bad #1 again? I'm sure there'd a groundswell of support to smack them the fuck back down. Poland and Findland would certainly shit their pants and that'd probably engage Germany.

[Nicodimas]

edited..wow..got excited don't mind me.

This post has been edited by Nicodimas: 28 August 2014 - 09:31 PM

[Obdigore]

Mentalist, on 28 August 2014 - 08:38 PM, said:

Ghjhero, on 28 August 2014 - 08:08 PM, said:

Yes I agree with all you said. But what would it actually take from Russia to make NATO seriously consider going to war with Russia? I don't think Putin really thinks he can win if he were to attack a NATO state and so do the Western powers. The general consensus seems to be that while Russian aggression is alarming the most anyone can be bothered to do is issue sanctions. Theoretically if Russia gets what they want and helps eastern Ukraine break away/annex those regions (sorry) is there another country Putin will turn his gaze towards or will he be satisfied?

Putin wants to grab as much as he can. I wrote earlier, there are many non-nato targets left. for starters, if allowed to push into southern Ukraine and towardas Odessa, he will border both Transnistria and also the Gagauz autonomous region of Moldova--which is prime for annexation already.

You know, I don't think it's about Putin doing a landgrab. I feel like he has to have pressure from somewhere that we are unaware of to show 'russia's might'. I mean I have no proof and no real way of getting it, but invading for shits and giggles isn't a thing, especially for a successful ruler of a country. No offense to Ukrainians, but there isn't anything in Ukraine that Russia/Wants/Needs control over. It isn't a logical, at all, action by a man who has proved extremely logical for years. It just seems off.

Quote

In the Kavkaz, there's a frozen conflict between Azerbaijan and Russia's ally Armenia over Nagorno-Karabakh. That war could go hot, and Azerbaijan can suffer.

There were also some very eager Russians talking about how there's a large number of Russian-speakers in Northern Kazakhstan. And other bits of Central Asia may end up being places where Russia has "interests".

Then there are non-NATO Finland and Sweden. why? and why the hell not?

And then you get to the Baltic states. Which are part of NATO, but Russia may need its corridor to Kaliningrad. And, really, will NATO got to war with Russia over some tiny country most people can't even find on the map?

Yes. If Russia touches a member of NATO, regardless of their size, I guarantee you that the vast majority of Americans, many of them not wanting another war, will support a decision to 'protect our allies'. It would also be an excuse for declaring straight up war on Russia. And you know what would happen? They would get kicked the fuck out of eastern europe, and then China would invade Siberia. Putin would be removed from his 'Presidency' and the Russians would sue for peace.

[Tsundoku]

Mentalist, on 28 August 2014 - 07:37 PM, said:

If NATO sells us weapons, I'll be happy enough. And no, I'm not missing the point. But there's an important distinction between meddling in a sovereign country's affairs via proxies,and doing so directly. Not to mention redrawing borders and formally annexing territory. I know that the West won't go to war over UA. I've known this since the beginning. But just because I know this, doesn't make me think they are any less wrong to do this. The appeasement strategy does not work. It never worked. It leads to bigger appetites, and the confrontation that appeasement is meant to avoid remains inevitable.

Hence my reference to 1938.

Obdigore, on 29 August 2014 - 08:55 AM, said:

Yes. If Russia touches a member of NATO, regardless of their size, I guarantee you that the vast majority of Americans, many of them not wanting another war, will support a decision to 'protect our allies'. It would also be an excuse for declaring straight up war on Russia. And you know what would happen? They would get kicked the fuck out of eastern europe, and then China would invade Siberia. Putin would be removed from his 'Presidency' and the Russians would sue for peace.

And some dipshit might push the button. Or some dipshit in a paranoid neighbouring country might push the button. Any of which is what is making people very hesitant to put boots on the ground.

With regard to an earlier reference about globally-aware Americans being able to find Ukraine and the Baltic nations, I hope you realise you just described a mere 5% of the population. The rest can't even name their own President half the time. But I'm damn sure they know what those Kardashians have been up to. Or tip buckets of water over their heads for no reason that they can fathom. FFS, they confuse my damn country with the Governator's birthplace.
Add that ignorance to a genuine (and I believe quite justified) desire to stay the fuck out of other countries (because look how well that's gone for them lately), and I have precisely zero confidence in any USAnian-led rescue party. And if the USA doesn't move, NATO doesn't move.

Let's just sell the Ukis some seriously badarse gear. That's about as far as I see it going. Maybe some stricter sanctions (whoop-de-fucking-do) and the ultimate fuck-you of rescinding their invitation to our hosting of the G20 this year. Yeah ... that'll show them Russki bastards.

[Obdigore]

Sombra, on 29 August 2014 - 09:23 AM, said:

Mentalist, on 28 August 2014 - 07:37 PM, said:

If NATO sells us weapons, I'll be happy enough. And no, I'm not missing the point. But there's an important distinction between meddling in a sovereign country's affairs via proxies,and doing so directly. Not to mention redrawing borders and formally annexing territory. I know that the West won't go to war over UA. I've known this since the beginning. But just because I know this, doesn't make me think they are any less wrong to do this. The appeasement strategy does not work. It never worked. It leads to bigger appetites, and the confrontation that appeasement is meant to avoid remains inevitable.

Hence my reference to 1938.

Obdigore, on 29 August 2014 - 08:55 AM, said:

Yes. If Russia touches a member of NATO, regardless of their size, I guarantee you that the vast majority of Americans, many of them not wanting another war, will support a decision to 'protect our allies'. It would also be an excuse for declaring straight up war on Russia. And you know what would happen? They would get kicked the fuck out of eastern europe, and then China would invade Siberia. Putin would be removed from his 'Presidency' and the Russians would sue for peace.

And some dipshit might push the button. Or some dipshit in a paranoid neighbouring country might push the button. Any of which is what is making people very hesitant to put boots on the ground.

With regard to an earlier reference about globally-aware Americans being able to find Ukraine and the Baltic nations, I hope you realise you just described a mere 5% of the population. The rest can't even name their own President half the time. But I'm damn sure they know what those Kardashians have been up to. Or tip buckets of water over their heads for no reason that they can fathom. FFS, they confuse my damn country with the Governator's birthplace.
Add that ignorance to a genuine (and I believe quite justified) desire to stay the fuck out of other countries (because look how well that's gone for them lately), and I have precisely zero confidence in any USAnian-led rescue party. And if the USA doesn't move, NATO doesn't move.

Let's just sell the Ukis some seriously badarse gear. That's about as far as I see it going. Maybe some stricter sanctions (whoop-de-fucking-do) and the ultimate fuck-you of rescinding their invitation to our hosting of the G20 this year. Yeah ... that'll show them Russki bastards.

I think you are downplaying just how bloodthirty people can be, and how easy it is to get people all riled up with 'Our Allies, Our Friends, People Just Like US! are under attack from the COMMIE RUSKIES'.

If you don't think there isn't a large percentage of the US population that doesn't think the cold war is still going I don't know what to say to you.

[Tsundoku]

Obdigore, on 29 August 2014 - 09:54 AM, said:

I think you are downplaying just how bloodthirty people can be, and how easy it is to get people all riled up with 'Our Allies, Our Friends, People Just Like US! are under attack from the COMMIE RUSKIES'.

Maybe, but then again most of those people play the banjo.

Quite well, admittedly.

Quote

If you don't think there isn't a large percentage of the US population that doesn't think the cold war is still going I don't know what to say to you.

Well, tbh did it ever really completely stop? I think it just went into a lull while the USSR, sorry the Russian Federation licked their wounds for a while until they felt ballsy enough and that the West (read: the USA) was tired enough of foreign wars, to try their old tricks again. A ridiculously-high proportion of Russians still lament the loss of the "good old days" under Stalin after all. They voted in large numbers in that vein. And look what we have.

EDIT:
This made me chuckle

http://www.bbc.com/n...ending-28961152

This post has been edited by Sombra: 29 August 2014 - 10:05 AM

[Obdigore]

Totally thought you were going here

http://vimeo.com/87939821

[Tapper]

Mentalist, on 28 August 2014 - 07:37 PM, said:

Ghjhero, on 28 August 2014 - 07:32 PM, said:

Mentalist said:

1409252653[/url]' post='1146172']

Ghjhero said:

1409252112[/url]' post='1146171']
To suggest we are in the verge of a nuclear war is ridiculous. Ukriane isn't even part of NATO, sure the EU and US will protest anything Russia does, but let's be honest no one is willing to start WW III over Ukriane. The most Ukraine can hope for is economic and military aid, there's no way that any Western powers are going to send troops to fight Russian backed rebels.

ffs....

they are Russian regulars...

You're missing the point, regardless of who or what they are Ukriane is going to have to go this one alone. As I said probably the biggest response NATO will have is to station more troops in eastern NATO countries such as Poland and fortify the defenses that exist there.

If NATO sells us weapons, I'll be happy enough.

They probably will, and they might even go so far as to actually place troops there as part of a training regimen or holding military war games together, but I really think that it will happen only after this conflict is over.

Quote

And no, I'm not missing the point. But there's an important distinction between meddling in a sovereign country's affairs via proxies,and doing so directly. Not to mention redrawing borders and formally annexing territory.

I know that the West won't go to war over UA. I've known this since the beginning. But just because I know this, doesn't make me think they are any less wrong to do this. The appeasement strategy does not work. It never worked. It leads to bigger appetites, and the confrontation that appeasement is meant to avoid remains inevitable.

I don't think any politician will call this appeasement. Because Russia is not getting its way right now, which is what appeasement is.
I actually wonder if France will have to forego delivering those Mistrals now as part of the sanctions.

[Terez]

HoosierDaddy, on 28 August 2014 - 08:53 PM, said:

Mentalist, on 28 August 2014 - 08:38 PM, said:

...And then you get to the Baltic states. Which are part of NATO, but Russia may need its corridor to Kaliningrad. And, really, will NATO got to war with Russia over some tiny country most people can't even find on the map?

Yes. I believe most Europeans and Americans with some sense of world-affairs would easily locate the Baltic States. Presented with the reinvigorated USSR attempting to becomes Big Bad #1 again? I'm sure there'd a groundswell of support to smack them the fuck back down. Poland and Findland would certainly shit their pants and that'd probably engage Germany.

Obdigore, on 29 August 2014 - 08:55 AM, said:

Yes. If Russia touches a member of NATO, regardless of their size, I guarantee you that the vast majority of Americans, many of them not wanting another war, will support a decision to 'protect our allies'. It would also be an excuse for declaring straight up war on Russia. And you know what would happen? They would get kicked the fuck out of eastern europe, and then China would invade Siberia. Putin would be removed from his 'Presidency' and the Russians would sue for peace.

For the record, Americans who cannot find Ukraine on a map are significantly more likely to want to militarily intervene there. I don't know about studies re: other countries, but I imagine if Russia invaded another country, it would be the same scenario.

[Mentalist]

HoosierDaddy, on 28 August 2014 - 08:53 PM, said:

Mentalist, on 28 August 2014 - 08:38 PM, said:

Ghjhero, on 28 August 2014 - 08:08 PM, said:

Yes I agree with all you said. But what would it actually take from Russia to make NATO seriously consider going to war with Russia? I don't think Putin really thinks he can win if he were to attack a NATO state and so do the Western powers. The general consensus seems to be that while Russian aggression is alarming the most anyone can be bothered to do is issue sanctions. Theoretically if Russia gets what they want and helps eastern Ukraine break away/annex those regions (sorry) is there another country Putin will turn his gaze towards or will he be satisfied?

Putin wants to grab as much as he can. I wrote earlier, there are many non-nato targets left. for starters, if allowed to push into southern Ukraine and towardas Odessa, he will border both Transnistria and also the Gagauz autonomous region of Moldova--which is prime for annexation already.

In the Kavkaz, there's a frozen conflict between Azerbaijan and Russia's ally Armenia over Nagorno-Karabakh. That war could go hot, and Azerbaijan can suffer.

There were also some very eager Russians talking about how there's a large number of Russian-speakers in Northern Kazakhstan. And other bits of Central Asia may end up being places where Russia has "interests".

Then there are non-NATO Finland and Sweden. why? and why the hell not?

And then you get to the Baltic states. Which are part of NATO, but Russia may need its corridor to Kaliningrad. And, really, will NATO got to war with Russia over some tiny country most people can't even find on the map?

Yes. I believe most Europeans and Americans with some sense of world-affairs would easily locate the Baltic States. Presented with the reinvigorated USSR attempting to becomes Big Bad #1 again? I'm sure there'd a groundswell of support to smack them the fuck back down. Poland and Findland would certainly shit their pants and that'd probably engage Germany.

I apologize for playing that particular sterotype. I was quite frustrated. Though I still excpect at least 30% of Americans will have only heard of Latvia from that one Seinfeld episode.

Sombra, on 29 August 2014 - 10:03 AM, said:

Obdigore, on 29 August 2014 - 09:54 AM, said:

I think you are downplaying just how bloodthirty people can be, and how easy it is to get people all riled up with 'Our Allies, Our Friends, People Just Like US! are under attack from the COMMIE RUSKIES'.

Maybe, but then again most of those people play the banjo.

Quite well, admittedly.

Quote

If you don't think there isn't a large percentage of the US population that doesn't think the cold war is still going I don't know what to say to you.

Well, tbh did it ever really completely stop? I think it just went into a lull while the USSR, sorry the Russian Federation licked their wounds for a while until they felt ballsy enough and that the West (read: the USA) was tired enough of foreign wars, to try their old tricks again. A ridiculously-high proportion of Russians still lament the loss of the "good old days" under Stalin after all. They voted in large numbers in that vein. And look what we have.

EDIT:
This made me chuckle

http://www.bbc.com/n...ending-28961152

Actually, there was a very brief spell when majority of Russians were genuinely enamoured with the West. It's just that "becoming friends with the West" brought them poverty, reduction in a standard of living, and a very visible gap between rich and poor. And the stuff they were supposed to get in return (such as freedom of speech, free and democratic elections etc,) never really materialized, because after 2 years of euphoria, the "democrat" Yeltzin shot up the Parliament with tanks, and then 3 years later with the tacit approval of the West he began to suppress independant media to prevent the chance of a Communist being voted in. ANd then 2 years later they had a default. and the economic recovery that followed (due in large part to the spike in oil prices) are firmly associated with a tougher, more authoritarian Putin's regime. Which is precisely why Russians consider the word "democrat" an insult these days.

As to what someone else said about Putin being reasonable: he had a 2-hour meeting with a "patriotic youth summit". In his 2 hour speech he casually dropped the line that "Historically, the Kazakhs never really had their own governance or a state". Just a reminder: Kazakhstan, along with Belarus is part of Customs Union, and is generally one of Russia's firmest international allies.

This post has been edited by Mentalist: 29 August 2014 - 07:51 PM

[Mentalist]

loads of war-related shit, hard to follow.

Bottom line is: with Russia throwing in about 20k troops, Ukraine's numerical advantage has been severely undercut. Moreover, a large chunk of Ukrainian forces have ended up surrounded. Yesterday it were the forces in the south, around Illovaysk and Amvrosiyevka. Among those surrounded--majority of the volunteer battalions, whose fate is a constant worry of anyone that had anyhting to do with the Revolution, and a constant headache to the politicians and the generals in the ATO HQ.

The latest update is that the volunteer battalions "Donbass" and "Dnipro-1", (along with some Ukrainian regulars and parts of other battalions) have tried to break through the encirclement, but only managed to get about 15 klicks south, before being again surrounded and blockaded. After some very high-level negotiations, they will supposedly be allowed through to the Ukrainian front, but only with their handheld weapons--all heavy tech will be destroyed, so as not to give it to the Russians.

Today, the danger has spread to the forces beseiging Luhansk from the south. Command needs to act quickly and decisively to deal with the situation, but there's just about 0 political will to do that. Due to this, the situation looks grim.

A sizeable group of Ukrainian troops formerly stationed on the border with Russia now prepares to defend Mariupol. Local citizens, who have already tasted the joys of DNR occupation are taking a pretty active stance in the defense, helping to dig ditches and fortify the approaches to the city. Lots of people fleeing westward, as well, but a lot of people staying, and volunteering to defend the city.

The situation looks incredibly grim. Due to the fact that the govt continues to ignor the popular call to institute total mobilization--right now the ATO forces (since the govt continues to stubbornly label it as such) simply don't have the manpower to maintain a strong presence along such a stetched out front.

The problem continues to be this--the govt is afraid of another round of Revolution, and so it is terrified of arming the patriots, who currently support it, but whom it can't control. They continue to believe that Putin is the lesser evil, and they expect they'll be able to cut some kind of deal with him.

Internationally, huge props to UK, who has suggeste Russia be cut off from SWIFT banking system--Iran-level sanctions, basically cutting off Russia from the global electronic banking network. The supposed draft of tomorrow's EU summit which "increases the sanctions" by introducing embargoes on Russian vodka, caviar and furs seems like a really bad joke.

I really don't know what to think now. it's a very fragile situation right now. Russia's also on a timer--RUble plunged to an all-time low today, and it's possible it'll keep falling tomorrow. The more Russians go home in coffins and the more Russian prisoners Ukrainian army shows, the harder it will be for Putin to deny involvement even at home. And while there may well be a good 70% who didcheer and worship Putin for "Crimea is ours!", once Russians are told they are really at war with Ukrainians, opinions are likely to shift somewhat. I can't guess if it will be enough of a shift, but there will be some resistance to it at home.

Also, Uki govt is to present Parliament with a law to abolish Ukraine's "non-blckable" constitutional status--a pre-requisite for declaring we are mving towards NATO. Uki diplomats are working overtime--a lot of hopes are pinned on Congress recognizing UA as an ally of the US--but I'm not expecting any miracles.

[EmperorMagus]

Article

Mentalist, I'm very interested to hear your thoughts about this.