| View previous topic :: View next topic |
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
 |
|
Whenever you hear about a country asking for 'security guarantees' you know there is mischief afoot. If they are asking, it means their security is being threatened or has been recently violated. It is not something the average country needs to concern itself with. Or, if it does, they deal with it themselves.
| This is because there is no such thing as a 'security guarantee'. |
You can do anything you like when the going is good--and/or the going is bad for whosoever is threatening your security--but the one thing you can guarantee is the situation will change at some time in the future. That's the nature of the world. It changes over time.
The only thing you have guaranteed is that you have a potential security threat labouring under the impression they are at the sharp end of a 'security guarantee' with seemingly no-one around who is likely to guarantee it. That's the nature of countries. They change over time.
Your security threat might not have bothered in the ordinary way, there are a dozen other things than you on their plate. But since you have obliged them to be restively at the wrong end of a security guarantee all these years... soddit, they might as well do something about it.
| So please, world, can you forget about security guarantees. |
The only security guarantee you're ever going to get is strictly in your own hands. You can join hands with others in the same boat if you wish, that's often a very good idea, but don't be under any illusion that guarantees anything.
|
|
 |
|
 |
|
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
|
|
| The Supreme Leader wrote: | | All the Gulf countries will benefit from Iran controlling the Strait of Hormuz. |
Since the Gulf countries could sail their ships through the Strait freely and without any bother before the war, presumably the Supreme Leader is proposing that Iran will now start paying ships for using their Strait.
Unexpected but perfectly understandable. The (other) Gulf States will be able to use the money to repair the infrastructure damaged by Iranian missiles in a war they did not start, did not approve of and did not contribute to other than in a defensive capacity.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
|
|
Britain's leading military thinker, an ex-general and a current professor, was interviewed on Newsnight this week.
Newsnight: What in your estimation are the chances NATO will be involved in a war in the next few years?
Studio guest: It is very likely. Not least because two major wars are going on right now on NATO's doorstep.
I'm not quite sure what is meant by 'involved in', 'major', 'few years' or 'very likely' but the overall message was clear enough. We'd better get our shit in gear and pronto. However, thanks to the magic of AI, I've managed to get him down to brass tacks (see what I did there?)
Mick Harper: To fight a major war NATO will need a major opponent, is that correct?
Panjandrum: Yes.
Mick Harper: Who is 'out there'?
Panjandrum: Russia of course.
Mick Harper: Anyone else?
Panjandrum: No
Mick Harper: As I understand it, Russia's armed forces have spent several years advancing against Ukraine's armed forces and managing to do so, at best, by a few kilometres. And are now getting the worse of the fighting. Is that your understanding too?
Panjandrum: Yes.
Mick Harper: And that is the only war that could be remotely called 'major' that has been fought on NATO's doorstep in the whole of its existence?
Panjandrum: Yes.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Wile E. Coyote
In: Arizona
|
|
|
|
Looks to Wiley, that we are carfully ignoring the very real possibility that Russia will need to break up at some point.
The consesus is that last time around when the Soviet Union split up, we western folk did not help them out enough.
This time around we will need to prepare much better.
Rather than doing just a tad more. This time we really need to be more creative.
Wiley suggests hitting them really hard, with reperations and further sanctions until the whole thing crumbles.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
|
|
| Looks to Wiley, that we are carfully ignoring the very real possibility that Russia will need to break up at some point. |
I am ignoring it myself on the grounds Russia hasn't 'broken up' since Ivan the Terrible's day. Though it's constantly changing shape.
| The consesus is that last time around when the Soviet Union split up, we western folk did not help them out enough. |
OK
| This time around we will need to prepare much better. |
OK
| Rather than doing just a tad more. This time we really need to be more creative. |
OK
| Wiley suggests hitting them really hard, with reperations and further sanctions until the whole thing crumbles. |
Aren't there a few carts and horses in this suggestion?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
The Library Index 
FAQ 
Search
Register
Profile 
Log in to check your private messages 
Log in 
