Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

The Kiss Your Arse Goodbye Thread

They’ve actually pushed Russia back a little around Bakhmut in the last couple of days, still not a great situation but holding out OK. Russia making a push on many fronts though, utilising their increased numbers from mobilisation. To some extent they were using Wagner as a stop-gap with expendable troops until the restocked battalions were ready. They’re now wasting those by the thousand too, so expect more mobilisation, rinse and repeat. There’s a short window before the springtime mud glues everything in place.
 
So is the EU (and Britain-Brexit has made no difference in this respect) at war with Russia or not? It's also unclear what Borrell means by the war being over when Russia is consumed by making small advances in the territories it currently prioritises.


www.theguardian.com

Ukraine war ‘over’ unless EU boosts military support, says top diplomat

Foreign affairs chief tells Munich security conference provision of ammunition has to be solved quickly
www.theguardian.com www.theguardian.com


'“We are in urgent war mode,” he said. “This shortage of ammunition has to be solved quickly; it is a matter of weeks.” He said if it was not the war would be over.'

'Kallas, speaking at the same event, said Russia was in a wartime mode, producing ammunition across three shifts, adding there needed to be a similar war footing in Europe.'
 
hmm so we are getting nuked right :hmm:

are russia scared of the response for downing that drone ?
 
I can’t remember which of the countless documentaries about the Cold War I have watched over the years it was, but I do recall a claim that the Soviet Union top brass had at some point considered the merits of a surprise first strike.

According to the documentary, they reckoned that if they launched first unexpectedly during a period of relatively low tension, and had made secret preparations beforehand to get as many key officials and civilians into shelters before the surviving American ICBMs arrived, they could keep the casualty figures under 20% and maintain a functioning government afterwards, whilst predicting an almost total devastation of the USA and its end as a functioning country. Apparently some people in the Soviet governing committee argued this was a reasonable price to pay :eek:
 
  • Wow
Reactions: Ax^
T & P said:
I can’t remember which of the countless documentaries about the Cold War I have watched over the years it was, but I do recall a claim that the Soviet Union top brass had at some point considered the merits of a surprise first strike.

According to the documentary, they reckoned that if they launched first unexpectedly during a period of relatively low tension, and had made secret preparations beforehand to get as many key officials and civilians into shelters before the surviving American ICBMs arrived, they could keep the casualty figures under 20% and maintain a functioning government afterwards, whilst predicting an almost total devastation of the USA and its end as a functioning country. Apparently some people in the Soviet governing committee argued this was a reasonable price to pay :eek:
Click to expand...

In one of his books Suvorov did say that the Soviets couldn't really get their heads around the idea of a gradual escalation of tensions progressing via conventional war into a nuclear exchange; IIRC he described it as being like a cowboy film where the hero keeps getting the chance to up the stakes on his adversary.
 
In the latest of his series of hysterical articles about Ukraine, Tisdall again seems to imply that in order to prevent Putin from 'blowing up the world' (a strangely adolescent way of putting it), Russia's western adversaries must risk blowing up the world. This is wholly in line with his deranged calls for NATO 'boots on the ground.' He is the perfect example of why journalists who are trusted with opinion pieces should probably be forced to retire at about 55.

Impunity is Putin’s middle name. Now he must pay for his crimes | Simon Tisdall
 
It seems to have escaped his notice that his arguments are undermined by one of the very articles he links to. As far as his ravings go, it seems he thinks, in true contemporary liberal warmongering fashion, that a huge dose of goodwill combined with constantly upping the military ante, can head off the inevitable.

thehill.com

The rules-based international order is ending. What will replace it?

The new order, reflecting a more multipolar and multicivilizational distribution of power, will not be built by Washington for Washington.
thehill.com thehill.com
 
krtek a houby said:
Asking because it seems a bit more heinous, than someone writing about risking blowing up the world.

Which he hasn't done, specifically.

How would this mandatory requirement be enforced? Would journalists who go against the grain be imprisoned?
Click to expand...
Jesus Christ, it was an off-the-cuff remark, meant to be gently humorous.
 
This is the most interesting passage in the article from The Hill linked above. What we are seeing with Ukraine is essentially an attempt to recreate the inevitably short-lived 'uambiguously liberal international order' of the immediate post-Cold War in conditions which make it impossible. I suspect that in coming decades the Cold War period will be see as the only period in history when the world was at peace (even if it wasn't and never had been). Combined with multiple other global threats, not to mention the ecomomic instability that will inevitably arise from it all, coming generations aren't going to know whether they're on their arses or their elbows. And this when Gramsci's political faith, or anything similar, no longer has any purchase.


'Indeed, one might even say, as did the Italian political theorist Antonio Gramsci in the similarly auspicious interwar period, “the old world is dying, and the new world struggles to be born.” And we might even be tempted to conclude, as did Gramsci, that this is necessarily a terrifying time — as he put it, a “time of monsters.”

But while this time of monsters may be frightening, it shouldn’t be at all surprising. The RBIO, like all international orders, is simply moving through its natural life cycle. Born as a truly global system in the aftermath of the Cold War, what was then an unambiguously liberal international order flourished during the ensuing unipolar moment. With no viable competitors, the liberal norms and ideals of the Cold War victors suffused and animated the institutions of global governance as never before, giving them a coherence and vitality that they had lacked during the era of Soviet-American rivalry.

It reached full maturity in the era of hyperglobalization, when liberal norms and ideals related to free markets, democracy and human rights were both embedded in, and promoted by, international organizations and non-governmental organizations alike.

The now-rebranded RBIO then entered its senescence in the early 2010s. The rise of China, the relative decline in U.S. power, the COVID-19 pandemic, repeated financial crises, the accelerating trend toward decoupling and deglobalization — all have acted like corrosive acids, hollowing out institutions of global governance that were erected or renovated in the heyday of globalizing liberalism.

And now, the RBIO is in its death throes. To be sure, there are those who cling to the idea that the old order can still be salvaged. But they are largely whistling past the graveyard.

The economic and geopolitical base upon which the institutional superstructure of liberal global governance was built has simply evanesced. The old order is beyond salvation, even if the new is still struggling to be born. This is indeed a time of monsters.'
 
Last edited:
Ax^ said:
the hill jesus you might as well analysis article from fox news
Click to expand...
It doesn't matter where the article comes from as long as it provides food for thought. And anyway, it was the liberal Tisdall, who agrees with you and the other prominent Ukraine war enthusiasts on here, who linked it originally.
 
RD2003 said:
It doesn't matter where the article comes from as long as it provides food for thought. And anyway, it was the liberal Tisdall, who agrees with you and the other prominent Ukraine war enthusiasts on here, who linked it originally.
Click to expand...

For clarification, what exactly do you mean by "Ukraine war enthusiasts on here"?

Do you mean people here who are enthusiastic about the war, or Ukrainian people here who are enthusiastic about the war, or perhaps you mean people here who have posted a lot about the war?

Thanks in advance.
 
RD2003 said:
This is the most interesting passage in the article from The Hill linked above. What we are seeing with Ukraine is essentially an attempt to recreate the inevitably short-lived 'uambiguously liberal international order' of the immediate post-Cold War in conditions which make it impossible. I suspect that in coming decades the Cold War period will be see as the only period in history when the world was at peace (even if it wasn't and never had been). Combined with multiple other global threats, not to mention the ecomomic instability that will inevitably arise from it all, coming generations aren't going to know whether they're on their arses or their elbows. And this when Gramsci's political faith, or anything similar, no longer has any purchase.


'Indeed, one might even say, as did the Italian political theorist Antonio Gramsci in the similarly auspicious interwar period, “the old world is dying, and the new world struggles to be born.” And we might even be tempted to conclude, as did Gramsci, that this is necessarily a terrifying time — as he put it, a “time of monsters.”

But while this time of monsters may be frightening, it shouldn’t be at all surprising. The RBIO, like all international orders, is simply moving through its natural life cycle. Born as a truly global system in the aftermath of the Cold War, what was then an unambiguously liberal international order flourished during the ensuing unipolar moment. With no viable competitors, the liberal norms and ideals of the Cold War victors suffused and animated the institutions of global governance as never before, giving them a coherence and vitality that they had lacked during the era of Soviet-American rivalry.

It reached full maturity in the era of hyperglobalization, when liberal norms and ideals related to free markets, democracy and human rights were both embedded in, and promoted by, international organizations and non-governmental organizations alike.

The now-rebranded RBIO then entered its senescence in the early 2010s. The rise of China, the relative decline in U.S. power, the COVID-19 pandemic, repeated financial crises, the accelerating trend toward decoupling and deglobalization — all have acted like corrosive acids, hollowing out institutions of global governance that were erected or renovated in the heyday of globalizing liberalism.

And now, the RBIO is in its death throes. To be sure, there are those who cling to the idea that the old order can still be salvaged. But they are largely whistling past the graveyard.

The economic and geopolitical base upon which the institutional superstructure of liberal global governance was built has simply evanesced. The old order is beyond salvation, even if the new is still struggling to be born. This is indeed a time of monsters.'
Click to expand...
The only period when the world was at peace. For world read Europe and in particular western europe as people from Hungary, the former czechoslovskia and Poland, among others, could question the claim. Even in western europe the irish might reasonably point to 30 years of conflict
 
krtek a houby said:
For clarification, what exactly do you mean by "Ukraine war enthusiasts on here"?

Do you mean people here who are enthusiastic about the war, or Ukrainian people here who are enthusiastic about the war, or perhaps you mean people here who have posted a lot about the war?

Thanks in advance.
Click to expand...
You know very well what I mean. We've been over it many times. Check your revision notes.
 
Pickman's model said:
The only period when the world was at peace. For world read Europe and in particular western europe as people from Hungary, the former czechoslovskia and Poland, among others, could question the claim. Even in western europe the irish might reasonably point to 30 years of conflict
Click to expand...
Yes exactly. The disspiriting future that awaits today's young generation means that even if they're geographically situated in a place where they can escape the worst effects of war, one of the many other global threats will undermine their hopes and dreams. The 20th century, for all its catastrophes, may come to seem like the golden period for the human race.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Dogsauce
The Russian defenestration thread
2
Replies
43
Views
5K
Dystopiary
Dystopiary
Raheem
Make fun of Vladimir Putin thread
2
Replies
41
Views
2K
bluescreen
B
High Voltage
Buy your own Russian soldier
Replies
14
Views
788
High Voltage
High Voltage
Back
Top Bottom