Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Ukraine and the Russian invasion, 2022-24

I don't think China would tbh, maybe you think they'd find it easy to project force thousands of miles - I'm not so sure they would, being as they don't have a network of foreign bases unlike the Americans, British and French.
They're already doing a USA economically, projecting power throughout the world via funding and outright purchasing. As the undisputed superpower, they would have the extra cash to drop on whatever they wanted. Maybe they'd decide that they can do enough with money that they don't need any more missiles than they already have, but I think it would tempt them far too much.
 
They're already doing a USA economically, projecting power throughout the world via funding and outright purchasing. As the undisputed superpower, they would have the extra cash to drop on whatever they wanted. Maybe they'd decide that they can do enough with money that they don't need any more missiles than they already have, but I think it would tempt them far too much.
You don't think the collapse of America might just have some negative economic impacts on China as well?
 
Strawman. What on earth does it have to do with Russia invading Ukraine?

It's pretty straightforward, you are supporting for the call for the US to arm Ukraine. They don't do so for nothing. You are encouraging them to be the world police, actively supporting them doing so.

I'd also point out that if the US had a civil war tomorrow, China would simply step up to fill the gap, the same way that the US did when Britain waned. Things get a bit less global when you go back further than that, but certainly the Spanish gave it a go in Europe before then. Someone is going to be the Big Bad and play World Policeman. Small countries were much, much worse off during the Cold War because you had two countries playing copper, so you had double the chance of your local rebels getting a fat cheque and destabilising the country. So long as they're not total monsters (you know, actual Nazis), there is some good out of there being a single superpower.
Grossly naive in many, many, ways. There wasn't a 'world police' before the collapse of the USSR, that's what Yalta was all about. Earlier empires were generally interested in specific territories, not in starting world wars. That didn't change until the twentieth century, where there were a couple of attempts to do so. And small countries weren't 'much much worse off' during the cold war, they had the ability to play the big blocs against each other, to extract a slightly better deal. It didn't always work, obviously, but quite a few places (Africa & S America especially) took advantage to break away from their colonialist powers.

Single superpowers only look any better if you are part of their bloc, which is why so many countries haven't voted in favour of those UN motions.
 
I don't think China would tbh, maybe you think they'd find it easy to project force thousands of miles - I'm not so sure they would, being as they don't have a network of foreign bases unlike the Americans, British and French.
They are working quite hard on that.....See Solomon Islands see Sri Lanka see belt and road + Chinese overseas police stations see artificial islands in disputed territories see military bases on other side of rivers that form natural boundaries + 5 aircraft carriers by 2030 and some challenging ideas about what is 'so called' foreign or even what is 'so called' peaceful. Also managed to deliver a load of knock off S300 SAMs to Serbia using their military logistics.

It's other countries that might find it harder in the future what with Xi playing monopoly with other people's ports
 
Last edited:
It's pretty straightforward, you are supporting for the call for the US to arm Ukraine. They don't do so for nothing. You are encouraging them to be the world police, actively supporting them doing so.


Grossly naive in many, many, ways. There wasn't a 'world police' before the collapse of the USSR, that's what Yalta was all about. Earlier empires were generally interested in specific territories, not in starting world wars. That didn't change until the twentieth century, where there were a couple of attempts to do so. And small countries weren't 'much much worse off' during the cold war, they had the ability to play the big blocs against each other, to extract a slightly better deal. It didn't always work, obviously, but quite a few places (Africa & S America especially) took advantage to break away from their colonialist powers.

Single superpowers only look any better if you are part of their bloc, which is why so many countries haven't voted in favour of those UN motions.

The only country that's done really well out of playing East vs. West (and is still doing it) is Egypt. The other big one was Saddam, someone we'd possibly not look to emulate. Every other case resulted in an unstable country, and while countries flipping their regimes/allegiances may play out well for your opinions on the world stage, it's usually pretty fucking horrifying for the people that live there. Look at Chile in the news right now digging up their past. It's undeniable that with a really, really major exception (Iraq), there's been a lot less of that bullshit about in the past 30 years compared to the 30 years before that. America (and the Brits and the French really do try and take part) is to blame for half of that, for sure, but without someone else doing the same thing all over the globe it's been a lot less prevalent.

The UN is representative of politics and not much else. Many countries are perfectly happy to stay quiet and see how it plays out, which is true of most things where the Big countries are slugging it out. No different now, no different in the past, no different in the future. I'd advise looking at how many voted against instead of abstaining for a truer picture. The only time it was ever different was Korea because the Russians were off in a huff over including the Chinese in the Security Council and missed the vote.

Addendum: There's a guy who works on HMS Belfast who does a great talk about the Korean War and the politics around it. You'd expect a "Belfast sailed here, shelled that, sailed there, shelled other things" type of talk, but there was very little of that and a lot of talking about how it really starts with Kai-Shek and the Chinese communists before Korea even begins to kick off and just how crazy MacArthur is. Great morning/afternoon out that.
 
Last edited:
They are working quite hard on that.....See Solomon Islands see Sri Lanka see belt and road + Chinese overseas police stations see artificial islands in disputed territories see military bases on other side of rivers that form natural boundaries + 5 aircraft carriers by 2030 and some challenging ideas about what is 'so called' foreign or even what is 'so called' peaceful. Also managed to deliver a load of knock off S300 SAMs to Serbia using their military logistics.

It's other countries that might find it harder in the future what with Xi playing monopoly with other people's ports
yeh aircraft carriers - so 20th century. Submarines Will Reign in a War with China
 
This is what fascism looks like
Opposition activist Vladimir Kara-Murza has been sentenced to 25 years in jail in Russia for charges linked to his criticism of the war in Ukraine.
He was found guilty of treason, spreading "false" information about the Russian army and being affiliated with an "undesirable organisation".
The Russian-British former journalist and politician is the latest of several Putin opponents to have been arrested or forced to flee Russia.
He has denied all of the charges.
The tough sentence is a sign that in today's Russia the authorities are not only determined to silence critics but also to neutralise anything or anyone they believe represents a threat to the political system.
Russian opposition leader Alexei Navalny also weighed in on Mr Kara-Murza's sentencing, calling it "revenge" by the Kremlin "for the fact that he did not die at one time" after he allegedly survived two poisonings by Russian authorities.
Not-for-profit group Human Rights Watch, meanwhile, described the verdict as a "travesty of justice" and called on Russia to "immediately vacate the verdict and unconditionally free him".
 
I really don’t think you have a clue as to what fascism looks like.
Fascism is a far-right, authoritarian, ultranationalist political ideology and movement,[1][2][3] characterized by a dictatorial leader, centralized autocracy, militarism, forcible suppression of opposition, belief in a natural social hierarchy, subordination of individual interests for the perceived good of the nation and race, and strong regimentation of society and the economy.[2][3]
I mean... It's more akin than not.
 
I really don’t think you have a clue as to what fascism looks like.
It's you who doesn't understand how fascist regimes take control of the press and silence and punish critical voices.

Educate yourself:

Mussolini believed that that the Fascist project required a committed press. The country's newspapers must stand as a solid bloc zealously committed to the "Cause". They must obfuscate, or even better, bury, every fact, development or story hostile or negative to it.



When the Nazis came to power in 1933, the German constitution guaranteed freedom of speech and freedom of the press. Through decrees and laws, the Nazis abolished these civil rights and destroyed German democracy. Starting in 1934, it was illegal to criticize the Nazi government. Even telling a joke about Hitler was considered treachery. People in Nazi Germany could not say or write whatever they wanted.


Which leads you to this:

A Russian court has sentenced a single father to two years in a penal colony after his daughter drew an anti-war picture in class last year.
 
I mean we could discuss endlessly about whether Russia is or isn't fascist (I think it isn't tbh) but the very fact it can be discussed like that seriously should surely give people pause for thought about the type of regime that it is?
 
I mean we could discuss endlessly about whether Russia is or isn't fascist (I think it isn't tbh) but the very fact it can be discussed like that seriously should surely give people pause for thought about the type of regime that it is?
Can you explain why you think it isn't fascist?
 
I mean we could discuss endlessly about whether Russia is or isn't fascist (I think it isn't tbh) but the very fact it can be discussed like that seriously should surely give people pause for thought about the type of regime that it is?
For the record, I wasn't saying it was a fascist state - that's another argument- but I was referring to the way they treat the free press, which certainly is like many fascist states before it. A quarter century in jail for criticising the government and a parent prosecuted for their small children's drawings, FFS.
 
For the record, I wasn't saying it was a fascist state - that's another argument- but I was referring to the way they treat the free press, which certainly is like many fascist states before it. A half century in jail for criticising the government FFS.
the free press. there is no free press, not above blogs and the like.
 
I've no idea what point you're trying to make here, but do you really think that a site like this would be allowed to exist if it was based in Russia?
I doubt that it would be allowed in Russia. But also not allowed in many counties regarded as partners of the US and UK. Shall we attack Saudi Arabia next?
 
I doubt that it would be allowed in Russia. But also not allowed in many counties regarded as partners of the US and UK. Shall we attack Saudi Arabia next?
I'm having to run to keep up with your goal post shifting. We're talking about how a UK-based site like this would fare under Putin's fascistic clampdown on the free press.

You unconditionally condemn that, yes?

 
Back
Top Bottom