Brother Ursus

Skal Yanukovych liksom overbevise noen om noe som helst? Tror Putin at han skal kunne gjeninnsette ham? 😂

Tror trygt vi kan si at Ukraina forbereder slagmarken for F-16 ved å ta ut så mye luftvern som mulig. Spørs om det blir noe særlig SEAD-oppdrag igjen for dem

https://www.businessinsider.com/woke-capitalism-reversal-google-unilever-bud-light-esg-dei-2024-5 Woke no more Companies were starting to support political causes. Now they're too scared to speak up. Unilever spent years crafting its image as a corporate goody-two-shoes. The owner of Dove, Vaseline, Hellmann's, and a bunch of other brands axed quarterly reporting and earnings guidance in the name of focusing on sustainable long-term growth. Under Paul Polman, its CEO from 2009 to 2019, it said it would take into consideration all its stakeholders, not just shareholders, and set out to halve its environmental footprint — including greenhouse-gas emissions, waste, and water use — while doubling its sales over a decade. Five years and two chief executives later, Unilever is changing its tune. It's not doing a U-turn on environmental, social, and governance efforts, but it says it's being more realistic about what it can achieve and when. And, oh, those shareholders Unilever wasn't so beholden to? It's paying them a little more mind now, too. Unilever isn't alone in this. Plenty of companies are reining in their rhetoric and in some cases action on issues such as sustainability and diversity. They're being extra cautious about weighing in on the social and political debates of the day, especially in an election year. In some cases they're telling their workers to cool it, too; Google, for example, fired more than two dozen workers for protesting its contract with Israel's government. "Many executives have made the decision that it's sometimes safer to just be silent versus to take a stance, because they have a fiduciary responsibility to their shareholders and their bottom line and are very concerned about how this will be perceived," said Naomi Wheeless, a board director for Eventbrite who was formerly a global head of customer success at Square. Call it the great un-wokening. Over the past decade, many corporations have at least professed to take a more active role in social issues, under pressure from their customers and, more importantly, employees. Companies pushed back on North Carolina's "bathroom bill" in 2016, and when Donald Trump took the White House, many spoke out against his policies on immigration and the environment. Around that time, the Business Roundtable said it was time to rethink the purpose of a company, and BlackRock's Larry Fink expressed all sorts of thoughts about the importance of companies being responsible social stewards. In the wake of George Floyd's murder in 2020, corporate America put out endless statements about the horror of what had happened and pledged to undertake diversity, equity, and inclusion initiatives. An expectation arose that big businesses would take a stand on issues — if Congress wouldn't do something on guns, at least Dick's Sporting Goods would. "You can almost say that ESG ran unopposed for a few years," said Andrew Jones, a senior researcher at the Conference Board's ESG Center. "It's a bona fide countermovement against both ESG and DEI." Then came the backlash. Over the past couple of years there's been an uproar, especially among conservatives, about the rise of "woke capitalism." Bud Light came under scrutiny from the right when it partnered with the transgender influencer Dylan Mulvaney for a small-scale Instagram campaign last spring. Then Target took heat about its Pride merchandise, with some customers destroying displays in stores over a campaign it has run for years. These high-profile examples spooked companies, which are now afraid to poke the hyped-up right-wing bear. In the market, ESG funds haven't been doing so hot. According to Morningstar, investors pulled $13 billion out of sustainable funds in 2023 amid underperformance and political unease. "It's a bona fide countermovement against both ESG and DEI," said Philip Mirvis, an organizational psychologist and research fellow at Babson College's Social Innovation Lab. "Certainly for businesses, this is about making money. And in the conventional logic, all of these issues represent risks." After last year's Bud Light debacle, which was a real blow to its business, executives fear they'll be the next target of some anti-woke outcry. In a 2023 Conference Board survey of more than 100 large US companies, almost half of respondents said they'd gotten some ESG backlash, and nearly two-thirds said they expected the problem to persist or get worse over the next two years. Jones told me the surveys suggest companies are antsy about mentioning DEI too much, too. He said it's not necessarily the case that companies aren't doing any work on sustainability and diversity, but they're definitely changing how they talk about it. The chilling effect is palpable. Fink won't say "ESG" anymore because, he says, it's been "weaponized." Asset managers are quieting down on ESG as part of a "greenhushing" trend. Some companies that made a big deal about their DEI efforts in 2020 are downsizing those, too. Data provided to me by FactSet, a financial-data company, shows that mentions of ESG and DEI in S&P 500 companies' quarterly earnings calls with analysts have taken a nosedive over the past few years. For the fourth quarter of 2020, 131 companies mentioned ESG, and 34 mentioned DEI or diversity and inclusion. For the fourth quarter of 2023, those numbers dropped to 28 and four. Advertisement While the backlash has certainly driven the quieting, in some cases companies are talking less about their social commitments because they got out over their skis on their pledges. Companies such as AIG, Amazon, and ExxonMobil have scaled back some of their climate initiatives. "We saw a lot of companies make very bold commitments — we're going to be net-zero emissions by whatever date, 2040, 2050," Jones said. "And often those commitments came but there wasn't always the underlying work." Alison Taylor, an associate professor at New York University's Stern School of Business who wrote the book "Higher Ground: How Business Can Do the Right Thing in a Turbulent World," told me that, in her view, corporate America's about-face isn't as abrupt as it seems. C-suites have become more Republican over the past decade, and in loudly proclaiming to be do-gooders, companies have also drawn attention to their political donations, which often don't align with their rhetoric. Additionally, the issues dominating political and social discussions are much thornier than they were in the recent past — speaking out against white supremacists in Charlottesville is a bit of a gimme, weighing in on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is not. "Now what we've got is the end of Roe v. Wade, and we've got the Middle East, and we've got issues where they're much, much more divisive and difficult," Taylor said. Taylor, a longtime skeptic of CEO activism, isn't surprised the friendly-corporation-next-door schtick has gone awry, but it has clearly caught some employees unawares. Some corporations have encouraged the creation of employee resource groups, which organize people by social identities and beliefs and in some cases embolden them to push for change. Google workers have previously participated in walkouts and protests and kept their jobs. Many were bewildered to find that this time around, the company was no longer having it. Instead, it's firing those protesting and reminding everyone, "This is a business." "A company is not a democracy, and so all these leaders wanted to imply it was a democracy when it suited them," Taylor said. "Now it doesn't suit them." It's unclear whether this trend of companies trying to stick to straight business is a blip or a more permanent reversal. Bud Light and its parent company, Anheuser-Busch, have generally steered clear of anything that might be read as controversial since the Dylan Mulvaney debacle; their main message since then has been "We love America." Target told me it didn't have anything to share on its 2024 Pride plans yet, but it has publicly acknowledged it's likely to make some modifications. "A company is not a democracy, and so all these leaders wanted to imply it was a democracy when it suited them. Now it doesn't suit them." Many of the people I spoke to for this story described executives as more on edge because of the election this year; come 2025, that may ease. The anti-woke crowd is extra fired up about certain issues right now, but that may not last — attention spans are short, and hot-button issues are constantly changing. Advertisement Still, companies' backing down on sustainability and diversity efforts, even temporarily, could prove short-sighted. Sure, you saved yourself a headache now, but in the long run, setting up a business to weather the climate crisis is a good bet. So is hiring diverse workers and appealing to new demographics. Despite the controversy last year, at the heart of Bud Light's campaign was an understandable business decision: It wants to appeal to a younger, more diverse consumer base. Underlying this all is one central question: Just how "woke" are companies anyway? Commitments to social responsibility are never far-reaching, said Kenneth Pucker, a former Timberland chief operating officer and current professor of practice at the Fletcher School at Tufts University. "It's always on the margins because the main goal of executives — the real responsibility, the way the structure of the system is organized, the way incentives work, the way the rules govern — is money making." This may be a great un-wokening, but maybe corporate America was actually never that committed to the idea in the first place. Det er fremdeles mange som nekter for at det finnes pushback mot woke idenitetspolitikk, og hevder at folk som misliker identitetspolitikk og woke politikk er en liten minoritet av befolkningen. Men tilbake i den virkelige verdenen ser selskaper økende irritasjon også hos vanlige folk. Den overveldende majoriteten vil ikke alltid ytre seg politisk, og vil ikke gå av veien for å kjøpe ting som er woke... med mindre det er veldig 'in your face' eller kvaliteten på produktet minker som følge av DEI-ansattelser som ofte er tilfelle i underholdningsindustrien.

Det er ingen av oss som liker russiske trollfabrikker, men hva er det egentlig som friskmelder én type betalingspropaganda, og ikke en annen? LHBT-propaganda har også kommet til oss fra utlandet. Kina og TikTok, amerikanske investeringsfond og svært mange mektige mennesker presser LHBT-propaganda på majoritetsbefolkningen og samfunnet. Konsekvensene så langt er mer politisk splittelse, mer splittelse i befolkningen, mer psykisk uhelse og politisk radikalisering blant unge - i begge retninger.

Lenke til den nominerte artikkelen: https://kyivindependent.com/one-night-in-bakhmut-inside-the-bleak-world-of-citys-civilians-as-russia-draws-closer/

Den luftbårne utgaven av GBU-39 Small Diameter Bomb, har vist seg svært effektiv. Men bakke-versjonen, GLSDB, sliter og må oppgraderes ytterligere.

Det er nå en håndfull med land som signaliserer vilje til å sende tropper, men ingen vil gjøre det alene. Så får vi håpe det dannes en koallisjon. Dersom Russland angriper disse landenes tropper i Ukraina, så er det faktisk grunnlag for artikkel fem diskusjon. Men det er overhodet ingen automatikk i at dette ville bli vedtatt. Med overveldende sansynelighet ville det ikke det. Særlig pga. Tyrkia og Ungarn, men også mange andre land som ikke ønsker krig med Russland.

Putin er desperat. Jeg tror kanskje han også er redd for å miste grepet om eliten og forsvaret og for kupp i både Belarus og Russland. Han må gjøre et eller annet. Men han kan ikke bruke atomvåpen uten å vende resten av verden inkludert Kina mot seg. Med mindre Xi Jinping også skulle bli desperat, noe som ser ut til å være en sterkt økende mulighet. Kall meg gjerne optimist, men jeg tror faktisk at Russland er i ferd med å tape på slagmarken - og bruk av atomvåpen vil signalisere at Russland i realiteten er militært ferdige. I det minste er Russland i ferd med å gå fullstendig offensivt i stå om de ikke har gjort det allerede. Å subvertere amerikansk og europeisk demokrati var kanskje det siste reelle håpet de hadde for meningsfylte avansement. Putin klarer foreløpig å rekruttere nok kjøtt, men kjøttet går rett i kverna. Materiellet klarer de ikke å erstatte. Særlig luftvern er nå utsatt. Og nå kommer snart F-16 omsider (får vi da tro). Hvilke alternativer har egentlig Russland til demonstrativt å bruke atmovåpen? Forsøke å fryse grensene ved utvidet diplomati? Enda mer kjemiske våpen? Enda fler provokasjoner mot NATO?

Generelt bør det advares mot å tro på "wunderwaffe", men F-16 er relativt til det Russland har, såpass bra i form av radar og elektronikk, og så fleksibelt i arsenal, at det antagleig kan få en del overraskende resultat som jeg ikke tror noen er forberedt på.

https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/putin-wants-ukraine-ceasefire-current-frontlines-sources-say-2024-05-24/ Exclusive: Putin wants Ukraine ceasefire on current frontlines Russian sources indicate Putin ready to halt conflict at front Putin to take more land to pressure Kyiv to talk: sources Does not want another national mobilisation: sources Putin has no designs on NATO territory: sources Russia concerned about nuclear escalation: sources MOSCOW/LONDON, May 24 (Reuters) - Russian President Vladimir Putin is ready to halt the war in Ukraine with a negotiated ceasefire that recognises the current battlefield lines, four Russian sources told Reuters, saying he is prepared to fight on if Kyiv and the West do not respond. How about... no. Dette handler kun om å kjøpe tid til å produsere flere våpen og rekruttere flere soldater.

https://www.twz.com/air/russias-small-diameter-bomb-like-weapon-seen-in-action-for-the-first-time Russia’s Small Diameter Bomb-Like Weapon Seen In Action For The First Time For the first time, we’ve seen evidence of complete UMPB D-30SN glide bombs as well as of them being launched by a Su-34 Fullback.

https://www.ft.com/content/08b7a3e1-8ca5-40d7-9cf4-6feed8d6cfd9 Hungary seeks to ‘redefine’ its Nato membership over Ukraine Viktor Orbán does not want his country to take part in operations outside the military alliance’s territory

I et lite sideblikk til Taiwan, så er den kinesiske krigshissingen nå sterkere enn noen gang. Valget av ny president på Taiwan har ikke fallt i god jord hos Kina. Samtidig er det kinesiske folk i harnisk mot myndighetene over hvor dårlig økonomien går, og mer sinna nå enn noen gang siden 1989 og massakren på Den Himmelse Fredsplass.

Ser ut til at både Russland og Belarus nå sliter med sterk misnøye blant egne militære også. Russland har kvittet seg med et dusin høytstående ledere de siste par ukene. I går avsatte Belarus forsvarssjefen. Uansett er dette meget godt nytt for Ukraina. Russisk faglig militær ledelse blir dårligere og dårligere.

Ahhh så deilig. Jeg har mistet tellingen på hvor mange S-400 Russland har mistet nå (forutsatt at det er det det er). Russland har 25 stykk ved krigens start. Jeg vet at de har mistet i alle fall 7, inkludert flere stykk på Krim. Men jeg tror det er fler nå.

Det er en avtale om gjensidig støtte i tilfelle krig, og i etterkant om gjenoppbygging. Det er ikke en forpliktende militærallianse ala. NATO. Det er nesten ingen i Norge som støtter Russland. Det er snakk om kanskje 2%. Og det er som jeg skrev tidligere folk av alle slag. Ytre venstre, ytre høyre, islamister og konspirasjonsteoretikere. Det er forsvinnende få om noen i FRP eller H som støtter Russland heller.

Jeg vil nødig forsvare Rødt, og det er mange NKP-folk der fremdeles, samt kvasi-islamister og andre raringer som støtter Russland, men som det er blitt påpekt overfor meg, så er partiet som helhet tross alt for å støtte Ukraina, også med våpen, som er ganske atypisk for et parti langt ute på venstresiden.

Hadde det vært noe de ga deg uten å få noe i gjengjeld hadde det ikke vært reklamasjonssak, men iom. at det er avtalt på forhånd og de gir det til deg til gjengjeld for penger (riktignok i form av abbnoment), så er det nok å anse som et kjøp

Det er i det minste en grenseprovokasjon som kan skape farlige situasjoner. Særlig dersom Russland utnytter den til f.eks å ta estiske skip til fange for å teste NATO.