World War III

[RD2003]

When events are presented as a war to save civilisation (the rhetoric has veered close during 2022), I'm reminded of EP Thompson, who said, words to the effect of us not having civilisation when we threaten each other with nuclear destruction.

I listened to him expressing these sentiments as a 17 year-old in Trafalgar Square in 1980. I was enthusiastic then, but couldn't help having the feeling that I'd grow into an old cunt who sees that fuck all has changed.

And here we are: fuck all has changed. In fact, it's got worse as the world becomes more unstable. And we had a ridiculous intermediate period where there was a widespread belief that 'markets' had triumphed, and people and nations would from now on make rational choices, based on self-interest (it wasn't even what the architects and popularisers of the neo-liberal ideology said, but it was, largely, how it was presented to us.) I can recall apoliticals, in the 1990s, expressing the belief that nuclear weapons had more or less been abolished because 'the Cold War has ended.'

 

[Ming]

That's the value of strategic ambiguity.

With luck, Ukraine will be the death knell of telling adversaries that we won't fight - the west does it time and again, and then changes it's mind when confronted with the entirety foreseeable consequences of doing so.

Falklands in 1982, Kurdistan in 1991, Georgia 2008(?), Ukraine 2014, Afghanistan 2021, Ukraine 2022. It happens every time, and people die every time because western politicians, reflecting their societies, are so desperate to be seen to avoid conflict, that they actually provoke it.

Does anyone believe that Argentina would have invaded the Falklands if the garrison had been 2 infantry companies, half a dozen F-4's, and a loud Fuck off?

Does anyone believe that if a magic mix of NATO surface to air missile units had been spread, however thinly, across Ukraine, with a slack handful of NATO fighters based in Kiyv, that Russia would have invaded?

Endless thousands dead, maimed, raped, and deported, societies laid waste, cities turned to rubble, all because they wanted to avoid waving the stick, and all they've achieved is that eventually the stick will be used.

Th e great thing about deterrence is that no one dies. Everyone goes home to their families - but it does require the stick to be waved.

The ultimate authority over all others is the effective application of violence. Unfortunately that tends to rest in the hands of the state. Sorry to throw up some rhetoric from the Cold War but it happens to be true.

 

[RD2003]

That's the value of strategic ambiguity.

With luck, Ukraine will be the death knell of telling adversaries that we won't fight - the west does it time and again, and then changes it's mind when confronted with the entirety foreseeable consequences of doing so.

Falklands in 1982, Kurdistan in 1991, Georgia 2008(?), Ukraine 2014, Afghanistan 2021, Ukraine 2022. It happens every time, and people die every time because western politicians, reflecting their societies, are so desperate to be seen to avoid conflict, that they actually provoke it.

Does anyone believe that Argentina would have invaded the Falklands if the garrison had been 2 infantry companies, half a dozen F-4's, and a loud Fuck off?

Does anyone believe that if a magic mix of NATO surface to air missile units had been spread, however thinly, across Ukraine, with a slack handful of NATO fighters based in Kiyv, that Russia would have invaded?

Endless thousands dead, maimed, raped, and deported, societies laid waste, cities turned to rubble, all because they wanted to avoid waving the stick, and all they've achieved is that eventually the stick will be used.

Th e great thing about deterrence is that no one dies. Everyone goes home to their families - but it does require the stick to be waved.

Leaving aside the fact that there is no 'we', all of this is not only ahistorical/apolitical, but assumes that the world will always look like it does now. Inevitably, it won't. It also assumes that rationality always holds sway. As we are seeing even now, it doesn't: political (and other) careers are being strategised on the basis of the current fiasco, for one thing. And fortunes being made. And few people, whether enthusiastic for Ukraine or otherwise, have any in-depth understanding of the history of it all, and the way it's seen by multiple factions on both sides; and hence why it's taking place. That applies to me and you, and most on here.

The whole thing is based on a perceived NATO threat to Russia. NATOs invovement in Ukraine to the extent that you hypothetise, would quite likely have made things worse.

And weapons are manufactured to be used, ultimately, and so an excuse will, inevitably, always be found. Scientific/ technological advances will always be made. And with the profit motive being king, markets have to be found. Unusally, the current testing ground is not populated by black or brown people, but people who actually matter.

Ukraine has been laid waste to, ultimately, because the west alienated the most western-friendly Russian government in at least a century in the 1990s.

 

[Ming]

When events are presented as a war to save civilisation (the rhetoric has veered close during 2022), I'm reminded of EP Thompson, who said, words to the effect of us not having civilisation when we threaten each other with nuclear destruction.

I listened to him expressing these sentiments as a 17 year-old in Trafalgar Square in 1980. I was enthusiastic then, but couldn't help having the feeling that I'd grow into an old cunt who sees that fuck all has changed.

And here we are: fuck all has changed. In fact, it's got worse as the world becomes more unstable. And we had a ridiculous intermediate period where there was a widespread belief that 'markets' had triumphed, and people and nations would from now on make rational choices, based on self-interest (it wasn't even what the architects and popularisers of the neo-liberal ideology said, but it was, largely, how it was presented to us.) I can recall apoliticals, in the 1990s, expressing the belief that nuclear weapons had more or less been abolished because 'the Cold War has ended.'

We do have access to pretty much unlimited media though. Porn on demand? Life’s not terrible.

 

[Humberto]

Leaving aside the fact that there is no 'we', all of this is not only ahistorical/apolitical, but assumes that the world will always look like it does now. Inevitably, it won't. It also assumes that rationality always holds sway. As we are seeing even now, it doesn't: political (and other) careers are being strategised on the basis of the current fiasco, for one thing. And fortunes being made. And few people, whether enthusiastic for Ukraine or otherwise, have any in-depth understanding of the history of it all, and the way it's seen by multiple factions on both sides.; and hence why it's taking place. That applies to me and you, and most on here.

The whole thing is based on a perceived NATO threat to Russia. NATOs invovement in Ukraine to the extent that you hypothetise, would quite likely have made things worse.

And weapons are manufactured to be used, ultimately, and so an excuse will, inevitably, always be found. And with the profit motive being king, markets have to be found.

Ukraine has been laid waste to, ultimately, because the west alienated the most western-friendly Russian government in at least a century in the 1990s.

Ukraine has been laid waste to because Vladimir Putin thinks he is justified in invading Ukraine, murdering, raping kidnapping goes by the wayside, because of his self-idolisation. Or Megalomaniac Psychopathy in more secular terms.

 

[RD2003]

Ukraine has been laid waste to because Vladimir Putin thinks he is justified in invading Ukraine, murdering, raping kidnapping goes by the wayside, because of his self-idolisation. Or Megalomaniac Psychopathy in more secular terms.

These, leaving aside the cod-psychologising and the moral handwringing*, might be the immediate reasons. But Putin is acting in the framework of a prominent and often dominant political and philosophical tradition in Russia. And Putin's rise to power can be traced to the moments when the west pissed off the de-facto western poodle Boris Yeltsin, some of whose pro-western advisers told western leaders that they were playing with fire by antagonising Russia instead of trying to make it a strategic partner. Even Putin himself was open to approaches on that basis in his early days.


*Nobody is saying that rape, random murder and kidnapping etc don't matter, but they are hardly unusual in wars and civil wars.

 

[RD2003]

We do have access to pretty much unlimited media though. Porn on demand? Life’s not terrible.

The Kardashians (if they are still 'a thing'?) will doubtless still gain unwarrented attention amidst the radioactive rubble and the universal anguish.

 

[Humberto]

These, leaving aside the cod-psychologising and the moral handwringing*, might be the immediate reasons. But Putin is acting in the framework of a prominent and often dominant political and philosophical tradition in Russia. And Putin's rise to power can be traced to the moments when the west pissed off the de-facto western poodle Boris Yeltsin, some of whose pro-western advisers told western leaders that they were playing with fire by antagonising Russia instead of trying to make it a strategic partner. Even Putin himself was open to approaches on that basis in his early days.


*Nobody is saying that rape, random murder and kidnapping etc don't matter, but they are hardly unusual in wars and civil wars.

Moral handwringing? It was his choice.

 

[RD2003]

Moral handwringing? It was his choice.

The moral handwringing reference was to the fact that nothing we are seeing in Ukraine is particularly unusual in war.

I keep using the word inevitable-and I suppose it's inevitable that most people will react to new crises as if they contain horrors that have never happened before. A lot of people seem to need something to be outraged about, a sense of vindication, and a hope that if only we can get through the current mess it won't happen again (despite being-ultimately-sensible enough to know that it will.)

It diverts attention from the fact that we are always at the bottom of the shitter, with the ever-present threat of somebody (God?) depressing the handle and sending us to turd heaven/hell.

 

[Humberto]

The moral handwringing reference was to the fact that nothing we are seeing in Ukraine is particularly unusual in war.

I keep using the word inevitable-and I suppose it's inevitable that most people will react to new crises as if they contain horrors that have never happened before. A lot of people seem to need something to be outraged about, a sense of vindication, and a hope that if only we can get through the current mess it won't happen again (despite being-ultimately-sensible enough to know that it will.)

It diverts attention from the fact that we are always at the bottom of the shitter, with the ever-present threat of somebody (God?) depressing the handle and sending us to turd heaven/hell.

If you think rape, kidnap, murder are some thing filed away under 'inevitable' then you have nothing worth saying.

 

[RD2003]

If you think rape, kidnap, murder are some thing filed away under 'inevitable' then you have nothing worth saying.

Fair enough. I'll wait for your pm when it's all come to a stop. We might both be dead by then (unless, of course, the foamers are right and these things only happen as long as Putin survives.)

 

[Humberto]

Fair enough. I'll wait for your pm when it's all come to a stop. We might both be dead by then (unless, of course, the foamers are right and these things only happen as long as Putin survives.)

Not 'fair enough' you wank. Your second sentence says you are ok with it.

 

[Ming]

The Kardashians (if they are still 'a thing'?) will doubtless still gain unwarrented attention amidst the radioactive rubble and the universal anguish.

See. Post apocalyptic wasteland ain't all bad. It's really how you look at it.

 

[RD2003]

See. Post apocalyptic wasteland ain't all bad. It's really how you look at it.

Everything is about not having this 'loser' mindset. There are opportunities everywhere if only you look for them.

I'm sick of people playing the victim all the time.

 

[RD2003]

Not 'fair enough' you wank. Your second sentence says you are ok with it.

Yeah, I fucking love it so much that I wish it could happen to me. I love a good kidnapping.

 

[Humberto]

Yeah, I fucking love it so much that I wish it could happen to me. I love a good kidnapping.

impressive

 

[Ming]

Everything is about not having this 'loser' mindset. There are opportunities everywhere if only you look for them.

I'm sick of people playing the victim all the time.

Well it was mainly an ironic joke.

Thing is I'm not a Christian or person of faith.

I consider the origins of the Abrahamic religions as the beginning of science.

 

[RD2003]

Well it was mainly an ironic joke.

I know. So was mine.

 

[bcuster]

That's the value of strategic ambiguity.

With luck, Ukraine will be the death knell of telling adversaries that we won't fight - the west does it time and again, and then changes it's mind when confronted with the entirety foreseeable consequences of doing so.

Falklands in 1982, Kurdistan in 1991, Georgia 2008(?), Ukraine 2014, Afghanistan 2021, Ukraine 2022. It happens every time, and people die every time because western politicians, reflecting their societies, are so desperate to be seen to avoid conflict, that they actually provoke it.

Does anyone believe that Argentina would have invaded the Falklands if the garrison had been 2 infantry companies, half a dozen F-4's, and a loud Fuck off?

Does anyone believe that if a magic mix of NATO surface to air missile units had been spread, however thinly, across Ukraine, with a slack handful of NATO fighters based in Kiyv, that Russia would have invaded?

Endless thousands dead, maimed, raped, and deported, societies laid waste, cities turned to rubble, all because they wanted to avoid waving the stick, and all they've achieved is that eventually the stick will be used.

Th e great thing about deterrence is that no one dies. Everyone goes home to their families - but it does require the stick to be waved.

Well said

 

[RD2003]

Whatever else you can say about him, he is likely right here:

' "Whether one likes it or not, Crimea is absolutely seen as a core part of Russia by Russia. Crimea is also of critical national security importance to Russia, as it is their southern navy base. From their standpoint losing Crimea is like USA losing Hawaii & Pearl Harbor," he added further.'


I think the key phrase is 'whether one likes it or not,' No amount of outrage, abstractly moral or about good old Elon himself, can make any difference.

Elon Musk on probability of Russia using nukes in Ukraine war

The tech billionaire was talking about importance of Crimea to Russia

www.livemint.com

 

[WhyLikeThis]

Whatever else you can say about him, he is likely right here:

' "Whether one likes it or not, Crimea is absolutely seen as a core part of Russia by Russia. Crimea is also of critical national security importance to Russia, as it is their southern navy base. From their standpoint losing Crimea is like USA losing Hawaii & Pearl Harbor," he added further.'


I think the key phrase is 'whether one likes it or not,' No amount of outrage, abstractly moral or about good old Elon himself, can make any difference.

Elon Musk on probability of Russia using nukes in Ukraine war

The tech billionaire was talking about importance of Crimea to Russia

www.livemint.com

Absolute bollocks. Musk has been played by Putin, manipulated and exploited. Your dreary nonsense is getting weird and boring.

 

[RD2003]

Absolute bollocks. Musk has been played by Putin, manipulated and exploited. Your dreary nonsense is getting weird and boring.

Maybe he has. But what he says about Crimea is exactly how the current gang in the Kremlin, acting on the basis of a dominant trend in Russian history, sees it.

Perhaps it's those who prefer to ignore the facts, and the history, who are weird and borng?

 

[RD2003]

Roubini trying to sell his latest book. But what if he's right? And as if it isn't inevitable (not that he's apparently saying it isn't) that some countries won't become 'revisionist'...



Speaking to Yahoo Finance's editor-in-chief on Monday, Roubini highlighted geopolitical threats and what he calls a new cold war that has emerged between the U.S. and China as well as between the West and "revisionist" powers including Russia, China, Iran, North Korea, and Pakistan.

“They're essentially challenging the economic, social, and geopolitical order that the U.S., and Europe, and the West created after World War II,” Roubini said, explaining this crisis could ensnare the U.S."

"I believe the next 5-10 years is going to be the time where there’s going to be a confrontation between the U.S. and China on the issue of Taiwan and that could be a trigger of this cold war becoming a hot war,” he said. “That’s how we get to World War III.”

Economist Nouriel Roubini: 'In some sense, World War III has already started'

President Vladimir Putin pointedly refused to rule out using ‘tactical’ nuclear weapons in the war with Ukraine earlier this month. But a nuclear escalation of that conflict may just be the beginning, says a noted economist.

uk.finance.yahoo.com

 

[NoXion]

Maybe he has. But what he says about Crimea is exactly how the current gang in the Kremlin, acting on the basis of a dominant trend in Russian history, sees it.

Perhaps it's those who prefer to ignore the facts, and the history, who are weird and borng?

The Kremlin's perception of history is not the same thing as the facts of history. Funny how both you and Musk confuse the two.

 

[RD2003]

The Kremlin's perception of history is not the same thing as the facts of history. Funny how both you and Musk confuse the two.

I never said it was-I said the Kremlin was reacting on the basis of a political tradition always prominent, if not dominant, in Russia.

Perhaps the problem with me and Elon is that we speak to each other too often. Most days I can't turn round without seeing 'Musky' flashing across the screen as my phone rings again. 'Fuck's sake,' I usually think.

 

[NoXion]

I never said it was-I said the Kremlin was reacting on the basis of a political tradition always prominent, if not dominant, in Russia.

Perhaps the problem with me and Elon is that we speak to each other too often. Most days I can't turn round without seeing 'Musky' flashing across the screen as my phone rings again. 'Fuck's sake,' I usually think.

If you find yourself agreeing with a billionaire that the Kremlin's imperialist ambitions should be humoured, ambitions which have already caused a whole bunch of misery for years now, then maybe you should take that as a sign that it's time to reconsider your entire approach to geopolitics.

 

[maomao]

I'm personally finding the historical forces narrative a lot more compelling than the lone nutter one if only because I'm far from sure removing Putin would stop the war.

 

[RD2003]

If you find yourself agreeing with a billionaire that the Kremlin's imperialist ambitions should be humoured, ambitions which have already caused a whole bunch of misery for years now, then maybe you should take that as a sign that it's time to reconsider your entire approach to geopolitics.

Have I been agreeing with anything?

 

[NoXion]

Have I been agreeing with anything?

You've been very careful with your language:

Whatever else you can say about him, he is likely right here:

You always give yourself room for plausible deniability.

If you really wanted to emphasise the history, then you'd be quoting history, not billionaires who will say anything to get favours from authoritarian regimes.

I'm personally finding the historical forces narrative a lot more compelling than the lone nutter one if only because I'm far from sure removing Putin would stop the war.

Not the same thing as giving credence to the Kremlin's reading of history, is it?

 

[RD2003]

You've been very careful with your language:



You always give yourself room for plausible deniability.

If you really wanted to emphasise the history, then you'd be quoting history, not billionaires who will say anything to get favours from authoritarian regimes.



Not the same thing as giving credence to the Kremlin's reading of history, is it?

As I said , quoting Musk, who, whatever his game is, is accurately describing Kremlin thinking (which, as we are seeing, matters a lot), doesn't mean that I agree with it myself, so don't be so daft. 'Plausible deniability?' Jesus, I'm not being interviewed by Andrew Neill or somebody on live TV.

Why quote passaages from history books when it's all there in a simple quote and a link to a short article? You can look for the books yourself if you wish.