Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

4 minute warning?

No, I never said that. It was the method not the content which is instructive. It involved intensive shuttle diplomacy back and forth to hammer out an agreement acceptable to all parties. By contrast China's peace plan involved talking only to Moscow and nobody else and listing some incredibly vague principles. They have since - after several months - had an hour phone call with Zelensky but haven't updated their peace plan in any way as a result.
The only way the Adams leadership made it acceptable to the ira was by lying, not only of course to the ira but to the nationalist and republican communities of the North
 
And you think these agreements represent a model for for ending conflict between two states.

The war in Ukraine will stop when Washington decides to stop it.

When enough weapons have been used and replaced, when enough dodgy deals have been signed to profit from a dystopian post-war Ukraine and enough political and economical damage done to Europe generally.

When that happens the GFA etc. do give an idea to what possibly be a way forward in the SE of what is currently legally Ukraine.
 
No, I never said that. It was the method not the content which is instructive. It involved intensive shuttle diplomacy back and forth to hammer out an agreement acceptable to all parties. By contrast China's peace plan involved talking only to Moscow and nobody else and listing some incredibly vague principles. They have since - after several months - had an hour phone call with Zelensky but haven't updated their peace plan in any way as a result.
No, no it doesn't stand. The promise that no arms would be given up for example when it was a plain lie. The only reason the gfa was acceptable to swathes of the ira was because it was presented very differently by Adams and mcguinness. And even then they had to use a range of organisational ploys to get it past the ra.

And putin is rather less trustworthy than either gerry Adams or Tony Blair
 
The war in Ukraine will stop when Washington decides to stop it.

I don't think that's true.

If Washington reaches the point where they are no longer willing to support Ukraine with arms, that doesn't mean Russia won't take the opportunity to proceed to Odessa or Kyiv. This conflict is really more about Russia's declining geopolitical status than it is about the status of Crimea, Donetsk or Luhansk.

Also, by the time that happens it is possible that Ukraine can still get arms from other places. For example, Poland and other European states are boosting their ammunition production to support Ukraine. Very unlikely that they (Poland and others) will be able to produce as much as the US but perfectly possible that within a year or two they will be able to cover enough to replace the US.

 
No, no it doesn't stand. The promise that no arms would be given up for example when it was a plain lie. The only reason the gfa was acceptable to swathes of the ira was because it was presented very differently by Adams and mcguinness. And even then they had to use a range of organisational ploys to get it past the ra.

And putin is rather less trustworthy than either gerry Adams or Tony Blair
Well quite, which is why I don't think a peace agreement is likely to work. But if there were to be one, it would have to look more like the GFA than just pulling 16 vague points out your arse without talking to anyone.
 
I don't think that's true.

If Washington reaches the point where they are no longer willing to support Ukraine with arms, that doesn't mean Russia won't take the opportunity to proceed to Odessa or Kyiv. This conflict is really more about Russia's declining geopolitical status than it is about the status of Crimea, Donetsk or Luhansk.

Also, by the time that happens it is possible that Ukraine can still get arms from other places. For example, Poland and other European states are boosting their ammunition production to support Ukraine. Very unlikely that they (Poland and others) will be able to produce as much as the US but perfectly possible that within a year or two they will be able to cover enough to replace the US.


Russia in itself is possibly or probably declining. But the BRICS multipolar world is rising. The American empire is thrashing to survive.

Although what is happening in Ukraine is horrible, it is only part of a broader picture.

Sure Poland has it's interests, it sees itself as a rising regional power. Even if it doesn't actually bite off whatever remains of Ukraine after the war, it already has in place a framework to control the area around Lviv as an economic protectorate.

Capitalism eh.
 
Well quite, which is why I don't think a peace agreement is likely to work. But if there were to be one, it would have to look more like the GFA than just pulling 16 vague points out your arse without talking to anyone.
The gfa was many years in the making and couldn't have happened hadn't channels been open between the ira and British govt over decades. If adams hadn't seen off what became rsf in the 80s. If there hadnt been ceasefires in the 90s. I don't see any channels open now really between Ukraine and Russia where any comparable discussions prior to a negotiation can be held and since the russians were supposed to guarantee Ukrainian territorial integrity you're having a laugh if you think shuttle diplomacy will happen or any grouping required to guarantee a settlement is going to emerge to meet Ukraine's natural desire to avoid a repeat of this conflict
 
The gfa was many years in the making and couldn't have happened hadn't channels been open between the ira and British govt over decades. If adams hadn't seen off what became rsf in the 80s. If there hadnt been ceasefires in the 90s. I don't see any channels open now really between Ukraine and Russia where any comparable discussions prior to a negotiation can be held and since the russians were supposed to guarantee Ukrainian territorial integrity you're having a laugh if you think shuttle diplomacy will happen or any grouping required to guarantee a settlement is going to emerge to meet Ukraine's natural desire to avoid a repeat of this conflict

I don't think it would happen, I just brought it up to contrast it to China's peace plan.

It is very unlikely for there to be a peaceful solution for the foreseeable future.
 
2025 gets nearer by the day. There will be no peaceful solution. And as you can see from the last September's prism The 21st Century's Great Military Rivalry any conflict with China could be both prolonged and of an uncertain outcome.
In the year 2025, if man is still alive
If woman can survive, they may find
In the year 3535
Ain't gonna need to tell the truth, tell no lie
Everything you think, do and say
Is in the pill you took today
In the year 4545
You ain't gonna need your teeth, won't need your eyes
You won't find a thing to chew
Nobody's gonna look at you
In the year 5555
Your arms hangin' limp at your sides
Your legs got nothin' to do
Some machine's doin' that for you
In the year 6565
You won't need no husband, won't need no wife
You'll pick your son, pick your daughter too
From the bottom of a long glass tube
You’ll put on the beans before cheese
And Starmer will quadruple tuition fees
 
Russia in itself is possibly or probably declining. But the BRICS multipolar world is rising. The American empire is thrashing to survive.

Although what is happening in Ukraine is horrible, it is only part of a broader picture.

Sure Poland has it's interests, it sees itself as a rising regional power. Even if it doesn't actually bite off whatever remains of Ukraine after the war, it already has in place a framework to control the area around Lviv as an economic protectorate.

Capitalism eh.
USA's share of global GDP is indeed declining, but that doesn't mean the BRICS form a coherent bloc. Rivalry between India and China is likely to be a defining geopolitical factor in Asia for the rest of the century, with Russia reduced to a peripheral role. And neither India nor South Africa are opponents of the US really, more like allies.

A multipolar world is emerging, and in fact already exists, but surely this means that an anti-imperialist, internationalist perspective now means decentering the US from your analysis. It is short sighted to celebrate the decline of US empire if it merely means the emergence of new, potentially worse Empires. Neither Chinese fascism, Russian oligarchy, nor India with their caste system look likely to bring about much improvement over US dominance.

This will probably be dismissed as a very woolly and naive liberal idea, but supporting the formation of EU-like regional blocs that prevent a single power from dominating seems a more realistic anti-imperialist idea than cheering for India or China or Russia to replace US dominance. Closer integration of the African Union, ASEAN, and some Latin American grouping - maybe some kind of relaunch of ALBA - is a good way to prevent them being captured by a comprador class - or invaded - under a new empire.

Some of the people who are inevitably going to sneer at this as liberal for mentioning the EU in a positive light were likely also cheering for ALBA as a way for Latin America to break from US influence 10 years ago, but it is essentially the same principle. The problem is these people are still stuck in 20th Century thinking and overrate the power of European countries, but the fact is that Europe is more an object than a subject of history these days, and without the EU we would be even more so - simply becoming client states of larger, predatory powers seeking to divide and rule. PwC predicted that by 2050 the only European states about the top 10 economies by size will be Germany and the UK, at number 9 and 10 respectively. And they are likely wrong about the UK.
 
USA's share of global GDP is indeed declining, but that doesn't mean the BRICS form a coherent bloc. Rivalry between India and China is likely to be a defining geopolitical factor in Asia for the rest of the century, with Russia reduced to a peripheral role. And neither India nor South Africa are opponents of the US really, more like allies.

A multipolar world is emerging, and in fact already exists, but surely this means that an anti-imperialist, internationalist perspective now means decentering the US from your analysis. It is short sighted to celebrate the decline of US empire if it merely means the emergence of new, potentially worse Empires. Neither Chinese fascism, Russian oligarchy, nor India with their caste system look likely to bring about much improvement over US dominance.

This will probably be dismissed as a very woolly and naive liberal idea, but supporting the formation of EU-like regional blocs that prevent a single power from dominating seems a more realistic anti-imperialist idea than cheering for India or China or Russia to replace US dominance. Closer integration of the African Union, ASEAN, and some Latin American grouping - maybe some kind of relaunch of ALBA - is a good way to prevent them being captured by a comprador class - or invaded - under a new empire.

Some of the people who are inevitably going to sneer at this as liberal for mentioning the EU in a positive light were likely also cheering for ALBA as a way for Latin America to break from US influence 10 years ago, but it is essentially the same principle. The problem is these people are still stuck in 20th Century thinking and overrate the power of European countries, but the fact is that Europe is more an object than a subject of history these days, and without the EU we would be even more so - simply becoming client states of larger, predatory powers seeking to divide and rule. PwC predicted that by 2050 the only European states about the top 10 economies by size will be Germany and the UK, at number 9 and 10 respectively. And they are likely wrong about the UK.
All of this will break down under the stress of climate change and the resultant conflicts over resources and migration, not to mention the fungi affecting crops
 
Had to scroll up to check thread title.


I don't think any one is throwing nukes into the mix of Northern Ireland prevailing wind issues for one thing
 
An an interesting documentary.

tldr - Canadians are utterly fucked. :(



I've not seen that one cheers!
I absolutely love 60s, 70s and 80s nuke films from Them! to Threads to Miracle Mile. so if anyone has a favourite I'd love to hear about it. I've seen loads but there's still a few I've missed. I particularly enjoy "made for TV" films as this one is what got me into it all.
thedayafter-e1601449653262.jpg

Really useful reasearch to set the mood for when it happens 😂
 
I've not seen that one cheers!
I absolutely love 60s, 70s and 80s nuke films from Them! to Threads to Miracle Mile. so if anyone has a favourite I'd love to hear about it. I've seen loads but there's still a few I've missed. I particularly enjoy "made for TV" films as this one is what got me into it all.
View attachment 373300

Really useful reasearch to set the mood for when it happens 😂
It's not about the effects of nuclear disaster, but the original 80s version of A Very British Coup does have a scenario involving how the MI5 types deal with nuclear disarmament and there's a suspicious David Kelly-like death of a weapons expert.
 
I'll have to rewatch that as it's been a, while. Cheers krtek a houby
 
Thanks very much, that's me sorted for a while
 
Back
Top Bottom