Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

The Kiss Your Arse Goodbye Thread

Ax^ said:
of course you do :)
Click to expand...
Wouldn't anybody barring children be aware of the obvious dangers of escalation?

If you don't like what the articles and those involved in the war or fuelling it are saying, I can't help it.
 
problem with threating to set the world on fire for months its starts to lose its potency

also when you gone from a world power to a fucking embrasement

but hey ho Putin problems are still and always be Natos Fault
 
Ax^ said:
problem with threating to set the world on fire for months its starts to lose its potency

also when you gone from a world power to a fucking embrasement

but hey ho Putin problems are still and always be Natos Fault

right up to when someone puts a bullet in his head
Click to expand...
None of this has anything to do with those articles, nor what escalation could easily lead to.
 
iqp-fgzpfc.jpg
 
'Wonderful world, beautiful people...' (Add music.)



The number of nuclear weapons in the world is set to rise in the coming decade after 35 years of decline as global tensions flare amid Russia’s war in Ukraine, researchers say.

The nine nuclear powers - Britain, China, France, India, Israel, North Korea, Pakistan, the United States and Russia - had 12,705 nuclear warheads in early 2022, or 375 fewer than in early 2021, according to estimates by the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI).

The number has come down from a high of more than 70,000 in 1986, as the US and Russia have gradually reduced their massive arsenals built up during the Cold War.

But this era of disarmament appears to be coming to an end and the risk of a nuclear escalation is now at its highest point in the post-Cold War period, SIPRI researchers said.

Matt Korda, one of the co-authors of the report, told Agence France-Presse:

Soon, we’re going to get to the point where, for the first time since the end of the Cold War, the global number of nuclear weapons in the world could start increasing for the first time.
That is really kind of dangerous territory.”
Click to expand...
After a “marginal” decrease seen last year, “nuclear arsenals are expected to grow over the coming decade”, SIPRI said.

During the war in Ukraine, Russian President Vladimir Putin has on several occasions made reference to the use of nuclear weapons.

Meanwhile several countries, including China and Britain, are either officially or unofficially modernising or ramping up their arsenals, the research institute said.

It’s going to be very difficult to make progress on disarmament over the coming years because of this war, and because of how Putin is talking about his nuclear weapons”, Korda said.
Click to expand...
These worrying statements are pushing “a lot of other nuclear armed states to think about their own nuclear strategies”, he added.


44m ago23.26
 
You don't have any practical suggestion, other than say 'don't escalate'. War was made, by Russia, that's where we are and the least shit outcome of a shit war is the only hoped for but not guaranteed outcome.
 
Humberto said:
You don't have any practical suggestion, other than say 'don't escalate'. War was made, by Russia, that's where we are and the least shit outcome of a shit war is the only hoped for but not guaranteed outco
Click to expand...
Let's have your practical suggestion then. It will remain just a post on here, but we might as well have it.
 
RD2003 said:
Ukrainian neutrality is sensible. Could have averted the war in the first twatting place.
Click to expand...
You reckon invading Ukraine and restoring the empire wasn't part of Putin's long term plan? That maybe he's saying all this stuff about Peter the Great because it sounds better than saying he invaded because he was afraid an enlarged NATO was going to attack Russia? What were his reasons for the invasion of Crimea, or Georgia come to that?
 
RD2003 said:
Ukrainian neutrality is sensible. Could have averted the war in the first twatting place.
Click to expand...
I don't think it would have personally.

There would have been some other valid reason, nazi's or the oppression of ethnic Russians. Neither of which I believe are the genuine reasons for the invasion, which are more about the quest for a greater Russia and more importantly resources.

The west played a role in creating today's Russia, with shock therapy and the decimation of its post soviet economy, but after Putin Ukraine's safety would only have been guaranteed if it was to be a vassal state like Belarus.
 
bluescreen said:
You reckon invading Ukraine and restoring the empire wasn't part of Putin's long term plan? That maybe he's saying all this stuff about Peter the Great because it sounds better than saying he invaded because he was afraid an enlarged NATO was going to attack Russia? What were his reasons for the invasion of Crimea, or Georgia come to that?
Click to expand...
Doubt it was. The Putin of today is markedly different from the Putin of ten years ago, and even more so than the man large sections of the western ruling classes all but admired in his very early days, if only for bringing stability and the opportunity to better do business in Russia, after the chaos of the Yeltsin years.
 
nogojones said:
I don't think it would have personally.

There would have been some other valid reason, nazi's or the oppression of ethnic Russians. Neither of which I believe are the genuine reasons for the invasion, which are more about the quest for a greater Russia and more importantly resources.

The west played a role in creating today's Russia, with shock therapy and the decimation of its post soviet economy, but after Putin Ukraine's safety would only have been guaranteed if it was to be a vassal state like Belarus.
Click to expand...
I doubt Russia would have been prepared to commit everything to a reckless invasion of a Ukraine that accepted permanent neutrality. It's likely that this would have satisfied Russia's great power image adequately, at least in terms of how it views Ukraine (remember it isn't about how you or I view Ukraine, but how Russia does historically, which neither of us can help), while Ukraine could have sought good relations with both Russia and the west.

One thing is for sure-it would have been a whole lot better than a devastated and traumatised Ukraine.
 
bluescreen said:
You reckon invading Ukraine and restoring the empire wasn't part of Putin's long term plan? That maybe he's saying all this stuff about Peter the Great because it sounds better than saying he invaded because he was afraid an enlarged NATO was going to attack Russia? What were his reasons for the invasion of Crimea, or Georgia come to that?
Click to expand...

So far mostly what he's accomplished is to turn most of the western world against him and make Russia a (potential) vassel state of China.
 
Last edited:
Finland’s president, Sauli Niinistö, said both Ukraine and Russia are using heavier weapons – including in Russia’s case, thermobaric bombs.

Speaking to reporters during security policy talks at his summer residence in Naantali, Niinistö said:

We are supporting Ukraine with increasingly heavy weaponry. And on the other hand Russia has also begun to use very powerful weapons, thermobaric bombs that are in fact weapons of mass destruction.
Click to expand...
Kyiv and Nato countries, including the UK, have accused Russia of using thermobaric weapons, which are more devastating than conventional explosives.
 
RD2003 said:
Finland’s president, Sauli Niinistö, said both Ukraine and Russia are using heavier weapons – including in Russia’s case, thermobaric bombs.

Speaking to reporters during security policy talks at his summer residence in Naantali, Niinistö said:


Kyiv and Nato countries, including the UK, have accused Russia of using thermobaric weapons, which are more devastating than conventional explosives.
Click to expand...
i don't see why they need to accuse moscow of using thermobaric weapons when three months ago the russians said they were using them Russia says it’s used thermobaric weapon system in Ukraine: UK
 
RD2003 said:
I doubt Russia would have been prepared to commit everything to a reckless invasion of a Ukraine that accepted permanent neutrality. It's likely that this would have satisfied Russia's great power image adequately, at least in terms of how it views Ukraine (remember it isn't about how you or I view Ukraine, but how Russia does historically, which neither of us can help), while Ukraine could have sought good relations with both Russia and the west.

One thing is for sure-it would have been a whole lot better than a devastated and traumatised Ukraine.
Click to expand...
Russia and Ukraine are not people, so Russia doesn't have a view, historical or not, of Ukraine. Policies are decided by governing elites and when those don't go well they and quite probably the elites change.
 
tim said:
Russia and Ukraine are not people, so Russia doesn't have a view, historical or not, of Ukraine. Policies are decided by governing elites and when those don't go well they and quite probably the elites change.
Click to expand...
You know that I was using the names of the countries as shorthand for the elites though, as they are the ones that really count.

It isn't impossible that the present bloodbath will bring an end to the present governing circles in Russia eventually, but the justifications they are using for it are not confined to their thinking. They run deep, and are centuries old. Remember that it was Yeltsin, and what was probably the most western-friendly regime in Russian history, that launched the first Chechen war. His government wasn't too keen on the idea of NATO expansion eastwards either.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Dogsauce
The Russian defenestration thread
2
Replies
51
Views
5K
maomao
maomao
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