Bijou Drains

Forum Replies Created

Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 1,712 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • in reply to: Russian Tensions #237128
    Bijou Drains
    Participant

    BD – “if a conventional war broke out between NATO and Russia (which won’t happen for lots of reasons, but mainly because it would escalate to a nuclear conflict very quickly.”

    TM asked “Are you saying both sides will forever back down from it through fear of nuclear war?
    But what if Putin continues to be denied a way out and NATO keeps backing him into a corner”

    No, what I was trying to say is that, to an extent, the conventional “war gaming” that the military undertake, is essentially futile. If NATO and the Russians/Chinese got into a full scale conventional conflict, which ever side reached a point where they were being threatened with defeat, they would press the button.

    So all the end point assessments or the “war gaming” is always going to be limited. Any full scale “conventional war” would either end up with a fairly swift negotiated settlement or complete annihilation.

    Do you think that Hitler, Churchill, Stalin, Tojo, Saddam or Roosevelt would have accepted complete defeat without going for the final option?

    • This reply was modified 1 day, 4 hours ago by Bijou Drains.
    in reply to: Russian Tensions #237112
    Bijou Drains
    Participant

    True Narcissist “Erm no, I support the fight against Nazis.“

    Well don’t let us stop you. Get yourself away, son.

    I’m sure Putin would welcome you with open arms. Given your massive understanding of military logistics and strategy, I’d guess you’d be at least a Colonel by the end of the year.

    Or could it be you just talk a good fight and really you’d fill your pants if it all really kicked off.🤣🤣🤣

    in reply to: Russian Tensions #237102
    Bijou Drains
    Participant

    Returning to Scott Ritter’s analysis of the weakness of NATO, in comparison to the Russian armed forces. Ritter’s emphasis is primarily based on the numerical superiority of Russian military vehicles (mainly tanks) in comparison to NATO.

    I’ll return to that later, however if a conventional war broke out between NATO and Russia (which won’t happen for lots of reasons, but mainly because it would escalate to a nuclear conflict very quickly), like all modern wars (from 1939 onwards) air superiority would be the most important aspect, at least in the first phase.

    Comparing air fleets between NATO and Russia shows a very different situation to Ritter’s assessment.

    The collective military capabilities of the 30 countries that make up NATO outnumber Russia in terms of aircraft, at 20,723 to 4,173.

    Not only does this provide a massive quantitative superiority, examining it from a qualitative point of view is even more sobering for Russia. The USAF now has a deployed strength of 302 5th generation fighter aircraft the US marine corps have 114 of these aircraft and the US navy has 26 aircraft. In addition to this the UK has an additional 26 deployed 5th generation fighters. Russia has 6 SU 57s (full 5th generation fighters) 6 MIG 35s (an updated model that some commentators regard as either 4.5th generation and some as 5th generation).

    In terms of 4.5th generation fighters Russia has 120 SU 30s and 144 SU 34s. This compares to the 487 Typhoons (the 4.5 eurofighter) in service for NATO, 180 French built Rafales, 110 SAAB39 Gripens (76 Swedish ones due to join NATO) not including 15 full squadrons of US F18s in their Atlantic Fleet and 2 squadrons of British based F15 Strike Eagles.

    The situation with regard to 4th generation fighters is similarly one sided.

    Returning to the discussion on military vehicles and more importantly tanks. Russia does have a superior numerical strength in comparison with NATO. However, the vast majority of Russian tanks are 2nd Generation MBTs (T 72 standard version), whereas the bulk of NATO tanks are 3rd generation MBTs (Challenger 2s, Arietes, Leopard 2s, Abrahms, etc.). The qualitative gap is pretty large. The Iraqi army learned to their cost that a large number of outdated tanks is no match for more technologically advanced vehicles.

    Sadly for True Narcissist, his Call of Duty based wet dream of Russian military success against NATO are unlikely to be fulfilled.

    To Socialists, however, surveying this massive array of destructive machinery, we don’t see the success or failure of the machines and regimes that created them, we only see the kidney machines, schools, hospitals, care support, food, medical equipment, etc. etc. that a sane society could have created with the same resources.

    in reply to: Russian Tensions #236995
    Bijou Drains
    Participant

    True Narcissist- “I’m not a Stalinist”

    To be fair, TN, it’s hard to tell, you’re position is about as stable as a kangaroo shagging a spacehopper

    in reply to: Russian Tensions #236984
    Bijou Drains
    Participant

    True Narcissist, can I make a little suggestion, having read you contributions on this forum over many months. Can I suggest that politics, economic theory and history are not your strong suits.

    Can I also that suggest perhaps Morris Dancing or maybe train spotting might be hobbies that you could reach a level of understanding that would allow you to build some small degree of self esteem.

    I genuinely think that they might be pastimes that you may even surpass your current level of proficiency in politics, economic theory and history and reach the, to you, dizzying heights of being just less than mediocre.

    in reply to: Russian Tensions #236981
    Bijou Drains
    Participant

    NATOstan isn’t being demilitarised, only a tinfoil hat wearing conspiracy loon would believe such a thing. Lol.

    True Narcissist quotes “German Defense Minister Christine Lambrecht said at the last meeting of the German Cabinet in August 2022, that “there is little scope for sending weapons from the German army’s stockpile to Ukraine. I must admit that we have reached the limits of what we can offer. Our army must be able to guarantee the defense of the states and the German Confederation”

    So True Narcissist thinks that Germany “wanting to protect” its own stockpile of weapons somehow implies “demilitarisation”. If Germany was getting rid of their stockpile, that would have shown demilitarisation! Wishing to maintain the stockpile shows the exact opposite.

    You haven’t got the sense to realise that the sources you quote support the assertion you’re trying to disprove.

    • This reply was modified 3 days, 3 hours ago by Bijou Drains.
    in reply to: Russian Tensions #236980
    Bijou Drains
    Participant

    So you try to support your piss weak argument with Michael Hudson and quote his interview which starts by saying that “Minneapolis was a Trotskyist city”. Perhaps this might have given you a clue to his level of credibility.

    FFS, do you not understand the irony of a Stalinist supporter using a Trotskyist to support his arguments and the quoting said Trotskyist saying that “Minneapolis was a Trotskyist city”

    Barry Eldin’s account of the Teamsters strike that Hudson refers to states “When the Comintern expelled supporters of Leon Trotsky, these four and 23 other Minneapolis party members found themselves expelled. They played a key role in the founding of a new party organization, the Communist League of America (Opposition), making Minneapolis an important base for American Trotskyism.”

    So you’re now recycling James P Cannon’s proto SWP as a form of legitimacy? I doubt you have even a clue who Cannon was, yet you attempt to lionise the very anti stalinists’s (Trotsky et al) whose execution you celebrate.

    Did anyone tell the city of Minneapolis that they were a Trostskyist city? Doesn’t look like they realised that 27 disillusioned ex Bolsheviks, masquerading as Marxists took control of their city.

    I’ll go back to my original question, please explain how a change to multipolar capitalism will end the exploitation workers in terms of surplus value? P.s. do you even understand what surplus value is and the implications of it?

    in reply to: Russian Tensions #236881
    Bijou Drains
    Participant

    Re Scott Ritter AJ said “Since his period of imprisonment (most likely instigated by his political position) he has become much more contrarian.”

    Whilst I have no doubt that Ritter was to an extent set up, the fact of the matter is that he did set out to contact and groom children into sexual activity, despite the claims that he “thought it was an over 18 year old acting out a fantasy”.

    Is it credible that a person who had a previous conviction for inciting children to engage in sexual activity and who had been an open and well known critic of the establishment, would go on line and take such clearly risky behaviour for any reason other than grooming a child?

    in reply to: Russian Tensions #236859
    Bijou Drains
    Participant

    True Narcissist said “The multipolar world being birthed now is qualitatively different to the one lorded over by the US empire and its EU vassals.”

    How is a multipolar world qualitatively different to a unipolar world in terms of the working class. The fact is that we have had multipolar worlds in history and in fact the unipolar US based single superpower is actually unusual historically, we had a multipolar world up until the disintegration of the USSR.

    During the life of Lenin, who’s theory of Imperialism you pretend to support and understand, but you clearly have never read or absorbed (I am still chuckling about your reference to the Polish late medieval Empire a being an example of Imperialism), the world was very definitely multipolar.

    The German, the Austro Hungarian and the Ottoman Empires were vying for control of the world’s resources with the British, French and American Empires. A multipolar world then was not an advantage to the Workers at all, how will it be advantageous to us now?. (Just in case you have forgotten, Socialists are supposed to be supporting the interests of our own class, the Working Class).

    In the time of Marx the world was multipolar, The British Empire, The French Empire, The German Empire, The Italian Empire, The Belgian Empire, The Dutch Empire and the Portuguese Empire were involved in the scramble for Africa and the colonisation of The East Indies, did Marx highlight the way that this Multipolar World was a great benefit to the workers of the world, I think not.

    You state that this new multipolar world will be, and I quote directly from you “qualitatively different” from the unipolar world of US and EU hegemony. How will this be qualitatively different for workers in this new world? You, according to your description of yourself, are a Marxist. So how can you explain, from a Marxist frame of reference, that this new multipolar world will be qualitatively different?

    How will this multipolar world bring about the end of the exploitation of the working class, i.e. the end of the use of capital to produce surplus value? If the system, you describe does not end the expropriation of the product of the workers
    labour, how can this be helpful to the Workers?

    How can the hegemony or even the parity of the Russian capitalist class (you have admitted that Russia is a capitalist society) help the working class in any way? Russia is one of the most unequal countries in the world. The poorest half of the population owns 17% of national income, while the richest 500 people own 40% of financial assets in the country.

    My Trades Union has had affiliation with Russian Trades Unions and our affiliates have stated that there have been many occasions of wildcat strikes in Russia because the trades union legislation is even more repressive that UK anti trades union legislation. The Russian Government has stated that “labour relations in Russia are amicable and settled, and there are practically no disputes or strikes”. You claim to be a Marxist, can you seriously state that somehow the Russia has developed a way of running a capitalist state (which you have acknowledged exists) where there is no conflict between the interests of Labour and the interests of Capital?

    Furthermore, considering your promotion of a multipolar world, The Chinese Communist Party has stated very clearly that China is not a Socialist society, it has stated that development of a Socialist Society will take “in the region of 100 years”. I have previously quoted that statement and you have acknowledged that this is the situation. This statement states explicitly that “large sections of the economy will be based on the capitalist model”. How can the capitalist model, which Marxists (which you claim to be) know and understand to based on the exploitation of surplus value, be in the interests of the Working Class??????

    How is being exploited by a Russian or a Chinese capitalist be “Qualitatively different” from being exploited by a British, American or European Capitalist?

    You don’t even have the rudimentary understanding of economic, social or Marxist theory and history to realise that using the term “vassal” is clearly economically inappropriate for a discussion about a capitalist economy!!

    in reply to: Russian Tensions #236786
    Bijou Drains
    Participant

    BD “Says the genius that credulously accepts the proveably false nonsense that Grover Furr spews out.”

    True Narcissist – “Rubbish. But I’m not going to bite. The little goldfish has forgotten where it is again. It’s swum over to the Ukraine/Russia page. Swim along little goldfish, mind the filter-intake.”

    Scared to be exposed to the implications of the ridiculous views you hold, more like. Your cowardice in terms of signing up for the war you support is matched by discussing the fragility of the material you hold so dear.

    in reply to: Russian Tensions #236772
    Bijou Drains
    Participant

    “Serious question…Is there anything written in MSM you don’t credulously accept as fact?”

    Says the genius that credulously accepts the proveably false nonsense that Grover Furr spews out.

    in reply to: Cost of living crisis #236750
    Bijou Drains
    Participant

    Chemsford- “Twas the Great Baaaard who sai…no it wasn’t, it was Oscar Wilde. And what he said was: …a poor man who is ungrateful, unthrifty, discontented and rebellious, is probably a real personality, and has much in him…As for the virtuous poor…one cannot possibly admire them. They have made private terms with the enemy, and sold their birthright for very bad pottage.
    Sixty six pounds to be precise.”

    Terrific post mate, great quote. Never heard that one before but I will memorise it and use it!!

    in reply to: Russian Tensions #236732
    Bijou Drains
    Participant

    TN – “I’d rather stick an ice pick in my eye”

    For the very first time I agree with True Narcissist, I’d also rather he stuck an eye pick in his eye! 😂😂😂

    in reply to: Russian Tensions #236659
    Bijou Drains
    Participant

    Yup, True Scotsman is about as convincing as Bobby Charlton’s comb over.

    in reply to: Russian Tensions #236656
    Bijou Drains
    Participant

    Hmmm TN, as I thought puerile, childish insults, you really do need to try harder.

    But at least we know you won’t be “relying” on Grover Furr’s spurious and laughable “research” to support your pseudo Stalinist viewpoints.

Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 1,712 total)