- Welcome to Languish.org.
Recent posts
#51
Off the Record / Re: Russo-Ukrainian War 2014-2...
Last post by Tonitrus - November 19, 2025, 03:46:50 PMThat being said, I would actually be surprised if Putin decides to move against NATO/the Baltics. I think he will provoke and prod (ala the sabotage in Poland) as much as he can get away with short of open conflict.
I am far more worried about whomever takes over the Russian state when Putin dies.
I am far more worried about whomever takes over the Russian state when Putin dies.
#52
Off the Record / Re: Russo-Ukrainian War 2014-2...
Last post by Tonitrus - November 19, 2025, 03:35:26 PMQuote from: Tamas on November 19, 2025, 02:39:52 PMQuote from: Sheilbh on November 19, 2025, 02:21:50 PMYeah it would be a big shift here because national service has basically always been temporary (conscription, like standing armies, are obviously historically associated with continental tyranny and Popery) - so we last had it from 1939 and started gradually getting rid of it in the late 50s and it was gone by the early 60s.
But I think there's reason enough - both Russia's behaviour in Europe, challenges recruiting into the forces, social divisions etc - that make me think it might be something we need to do. Hopefully, again, temporarily.
What would be the point for the UK? Wouldn't we be nuking Russia if they land on the island? Similarly, if a mass conscripted army is needed on the continent, nukes will be flying by then.
It MAY be necessary for a country like Germany (defo for Baltic States for example) but I can't shake the feeling you guys are so gung ho about it because you are too old to be called up.
I think there are arguments for a robust BEF to support defense against limited incursions/conflict in the Baltics/Scandanavia, etc.
I guess that means I am not sure I agree with the "nukes will be flying", or at least not immediately and massively. I don't rule out (and even might expect...moreso if Russia thinks the US won't act) in a case like that Russia would use 1-3 "demonstrative" nuclear weapons in an attempt to cow the rest of EU into submission.
I kind of expect a potential Russia/NATO (EU?) war would run more along the lines of Twilight 2000...a fair bit of conventional with limited nuclear use. If Russia, say, deployed a smaller nuclear weapon as a blocker to the Suwalki gap while rolling into the Baltics, I doubt the UK/French response would be to nuke Moscow and St Petersburg.
Though if Putin inhales too much of Solovyov's Anglo-Saxon hate rhetoric and puts a nuke on London as their "demonstration"...then yeah, ya'll should.
#53
Off the Record / Re: [Canada] Canadian Politics...
Last post by Bauer - November 19, 2025, 03:20:06 PMQuote from: Jacob on November 19, 2025, 01:55:42 PMQuote from: Bauer on November 19, 2025, 01:49:19 PMFrom a geopolitical standpoint I think a Canada Sweden partnership would be huge. Small and medium sized countries can do so much more together without taking bad deals from the giants.
Not quite a movement of non-aligned countries, but a "hey we still believe in Western Democratic values and we'll do well to work together" type thing.
In an interview Carney described the new order being built as a series of smaller cooperation circles rather than a big free trade circle. The old big circle led to more prosperity for all, but the reality is it's being / has been replaced.
#54
Off the Record / Re: Russo-Ukrainian War 2014-2...
Last post by Baron von Schtinkenbutt - November 19, 2025, 02:59:47 PMQuote from: Tamas on November 19, 2025, 02:39:52 PMWhat would be the point for the UK? Wouldn't we be nuking Russia if they land on the island? Similarly, if a mass conscripted army is needed on the continent, nukes will be flying by then.
It MAY be necessary for a country like Germany (defo for Baltic States for example) but I can't shake the feeling you guys are so gung ho about it because you are too old to be called up.
"The British army should be a projectile to be fired by the British navy."
Though these days, the Royal Navy could use some help...
#55
Off the Record / Re: Russo-Ukrainian War 2014-2...
Last post by Tamas - November 19, 2025, 02:39:52 PMQuote from: Sheilbh on November 19, 2025, 02:21:50 PMYeah it would be a big shift here because national service has basically always been temporary (conscription, like standing armies, are obviously historically associated with continental tyranny and Popery
But I think there's reason enough - both Russia's behaviour in Europe, challenges recruiting into the forces, social divisions etc - that make me think it might be something we need to do. Hopefully, again, temporarily.
What would be the point for the UK? Wouldn't we be nuking Russia if they land on the island? Similarly, if a mass conscripted army is needed on the continent, nukes will be flying by then.
It MAY be necessary for a country like Germany (defo for Baltic States for example) but I can't shake the feeling you guys are so gung ho about it because you are too old to be called up.
#56
Off the Record / Re: Russo-Ukrainian War 2014-2...
Last post by Sheilbh - November 19, 2025, 02:21:50 PMYeah it would be a big shift here because national service has basically always been temporary (conscription, like standing armies, are obviously historically associated with continental tyranny and Popery ) - so we last had it from 1939 and started gradually getting rid of it in the late 50s and it was gone by the early 60s.
But I think there's reason enough - both Russia's behaviour in Europe, challenges recruiting into the forces, social divisions etc - that make me think it might be something we need to do. Hopefully, again, temporarily.
) - so we last had it from 1939 and started gradually getting rid of it in the late 50s and it was gone by the early 60s.But I think there's reason enough - both Russia's behaviour in Europe, challenges recruiting into the forces, social divisions etc - that make me think it might be something we need to do. Hopefully, again, temporarily.
#57
Off the Record / Re: Russo-Ukrainian War 2014-2...
Last post by Grey Fox - November 19, 2025, 02:18:28 PMI think you should feel legitimised. The world has changed. Dictatorship and tyranny awaits them if they don't start defending it.
#58
Off the Record / Re: [Canada] Canadian Politics...
Last post by Grey Fox - November 19, 2025, 02:13:04 PMSweden amazes me and really emasculates Canada. It's a country with the population of Ontario that does so much more than we do. Tanks, Planes, Submarines, actual technology companies.
#59
Off the Record / Re: [Canada] Canadian Politics...
Last post by Jacob - November 19, 2025, 01:55:42 PMQuote from: Bauer on November 19, 2025, 01:49:19 PMFrom a geopolitical standpoint I think a Canada Sweden partnership would be huge. Small and medium sized countries can do so much more together without taking bad deals from the giants.
Not quite a movement of non-aligned countries, but a "hey we still believe in Western Democratic values and we'll do well to work together" type thing.
#60
Off the Record / Re: The China Thread
Last post by Sheilbh - November 19, 2025, 01:54:29 PMI think my big, still unresolved question is around "overproduction".
Personally I do not think such a thing is possible when we're talking about the technologies that will support energy transition whether that's EVs, batteries, solar or whatever else. I think scale of production in China is, in fact, exactly the scale necessary for the challenge on climate and getting to net zero. I've said before but part of the reason I like the framing of New Deal is that I think the rhetorical framing for climate should be, like the New Deal or the war, around huge mobilisation of state resources and productive capacity in order to reach net zero - this is also why I'm dubious around language of disaster and emergency which I think are rhetorically demobilising.
On other stuff that's not climate related. The thing I slightly wonder is whether it is "overproduction" or actually production at the scale of the new and emerging global middle class v production that is for North America, Europe and three or four APAC countries? I'm genuinely unsure.
Agree on a lot of the rest. I'd add I was recently at a conference of tech-ish lawyers in similar sectors to me. There was an audible gasp of horror (at the amount of complicated work coming) when one presenter ran through the 6-7 very significant European regulations working through the sysem on the digital economy (not least because a lot of them overlap, but don't really interact which makes interpretation/conflicts very challenging). There was also someone from the Commission saying they were taking the Draghi Report very seriously and then announced the next policy step (and I hope the first) which was basically changing references in European digital laws to "small" businesses (basically <50 employees or €10 million revenue or balance sheet) to "medium" business (<250 employees or €50 million). It's not nothing, but it's not much and certainly not on the scale of Draghi's report.
Personally I do not think such a thing is possible when we're talking about the technologies that will support energy transition whether that's EVs, batteries, solar or whatever else. I think scale of production in China is, in fact, exactly the scale necessary for the challenge on climate and getting to net zero. I've said before but part of the reason I like the framing of New Deal is that I think the rhetorical framing for climate should be, like the New Deal or the war, around huge mobilisation of state resources and productive capacity in order to reach net zero - this is also why I'm dubious around language of disaster and emergency which I think are rhetorically demobilising.
On other stuff that's not climate related. The thing I slightly wonder is whether it is "overproduction" or actually production at the scale of the new and emerging global middle class v production that is for North America, Europe and three or four APAC countries? I'm genuinely unsure.
Agree on a lot of the rest. I'd add I was recently at a conference of tech-ish lawyers in similar sectors to me. There was an audible gasp of horror (at the amount of complicated work coming) when one presenter ran through the 6-7 very significant European regulations working through the sysem on the digital economy (not least because a lot of them overlap, but don't really interact which makes interpretation/conflicts very challenging). There was also someone from the Commission saying they were taking the Draghi Report very seriously and then announced the next policy step (and I hope the first) which was basically changing references in European digital laws to "small" businesses (basically <50 employees or €10 million revenue or balance sheet) to "medium" business (<250 employees or €50 million). It's not nothing, but it's not much and certainly not on the scale of Draghi's report.