Ukraine and the Russian invasion, 2022-24

[maomao]

What happens more often is that no one says anything of the kind and the same three posters start going 'oh I suppose it's all NATOs fault is it?'. I would happily wager a tenner that mentions of NATO expansion by people accusing others of having blamed NATO have been significantly more frequent than actual mentions of NATO expansion.

 

[Rob Ray]

That's an easy win primarily because the number of responses by people annoyed that they're being accused of supporting NATO will always outnumber the initial post insinuating it.

The reality of this thread is that nobody likes or is defending NATO, and the argument is merely over how far it is actively to blame for Russian aggression. Which is a fairly simple "to an extent, but it wasn't ultimately their hand on the trigger" to my mind, but apparently it needs to have a tedious round the houses moment regardless every few weeks.

 

[LDC]

What happens more often is that no one says anything of the kind and the same three posters start going 'oh I suppose it's all NATOs fault is it?'. I would happily wager a tenner that mentions of NATO expansion by people accusing others of having blamed NATO have been significantly more frequent than actual mentions of NATO expansion.

I was talking more generally about what happens elsewhere as well rather than this board and the few posters here tbh.

 

[two sheds]

yeh that's where they are (although various wiki articles differ on the number of warheads) but not where they have been.

2 things:
1) history of the custody and deployment of nuclear weapons july 1945 through september 1977 (345 page pdf) declassified and redacted history, which is drawn on for
2) where were they (bulletin of the atomic scientists article, 10 page pdf)

the bas article names britain, west germany, greece, italy, turkey, holland and belgium while an appendix from 1) lists deployments by country / state:
View attachment 371423
View attachment 371424
View attachment 371425

ta and that also makes a bit more sense of this map that I saw

 

[The39thStep]

That's not at all what I said though is it? Was I that unclear, are you trying to be funny or make a point, or something else?

Although tbh, yes, if you keep going on about it at every opportunity and whenever any aspect of the war is being discussed then I'd question why.

The something else if you want me to pick one of your options . I was trying to summarise what I read you saying in response to belboid post.

 

[xenon]

Child murdering if honest think that's the usual horrendous collatoral damage you get in war. It the stories of child resettlement I'm finding more alarming

No I’m not talking about horrific collateral damage. Deliberately targeting POWs and civilians. See editors link above. forced resettlement of course amongst the other litany of horrors.

 

[xenon]

So ok to mention it but not often ?

Pretty much. As a response or answer to any of the latest incidents on the ground. Completely pointless makes the poster look like a bit of a tool.

 

[krink]

Sifted to remove propaganda?

No, no - you can still post in it.

 

[TopCat]

No, no - you can still post in it.

Post up an example of propaganda I have posted.

 

[TopCat]

Pretty much. As a response or answer to any of the latest incidents on the ground. Completely pointless makes the poster look like a bit of a tool.

Pretty subjective and who cares about appearances?

 

[TopCat]

This is getting a bit silly now isn't it?

The refusal to acknowledge the expansion of NATO impacting on the current situation?

 

[maomao]

If Putin kicks the bucket this 'one very bad man' version of history is going to collapse pretty quickly.

 

[existentialist]

If Putin kicks the bucket this 'one very bad man' version of history is going to collapse pretty quickly.

There seems to be quite a queue of Very Bad Men lined up behind him...

 

[Yossarian]

If Putin kicks the bucket this 'one very bad man' version of history is going to collapse pretty quickly.

I hope his lungs collapse pretty quickly so this hypothesis can be tested

 

[The39thStep]

If Putin kicks the bucket this 'one very bad man' version of history is going to collapse pretty quickly.

If that version of history goes half the posters on here are well fucked

 

[A380]

There is a country with nuclear weapons that has a border with Russia: China.

I imagine that's NATO's fault too...

 

[The39thStep]

What happens more often is that no one says anything of the kind and the same three posters start going 'oh I suppose it's all NATOs fault is it?'. I would happily wager a tenner that mentions of NATO expansion by people accusing others of having blamed NATO have been significantly more frequent than actual mentions of NATO expansion.

please see the post above

 

[StoneRoad]

The refusal to acknowledge the expansion of NATO impacting on the current situation?

Finland & Sweden only began to seriously consider applying to join NATO after Feb 2022.

In fact public opinion in Sweden was very strongly in favour of remaining neutral until that date.
Public Opinion flipped pretty quickly to wanting to join NATO after then.


O&S[meme] - NATO salesman 2022 par StoneRoad2013, on ipernity

 

[Raheem]

The refusal to acknowledge the expansion of NATO impacting on the current situation?

This is like being asked if you support the French Resistance and responding by muttering something about the Treaty of Versailles.

 

[Artaxerxes]

please see the post above

Please see the post five posts above

 

[The39thStep]

For more information please re-read.

 

[redsquirrel]

The reality of this thread is that nobody likes or is defending NATO, and the argument is merely over how far it is actively to blame for Russian aggression.

I accept that is true of a many/most posters, but there definitely are posters on here that are 'defending NATO' and/or have pro-Atlanticist politics.
And there are a significant number of posters that have opposed/derided a class analysis of the conflict

 

[bluescreen]

I accept that is true of a many/most posters, but there definitely are posters on here that are 'defending NATO' and/or have pro-Atlanticist politics.
And there are a significant number of posters that have opposed/derided a class analysis of the conflict

Remind me of the class analysis of the Russian invasion of Ukraine.

 

[redsquirrel]

A class analysis, there is no one analysis. But thanks for proving my point.

 

[Spandex]

When people talk about NATO expansion as a cause of the Russian invasion of Ukraine it tends to fall into a which side are you on argument - Yes it did! No it didn't! Well maybe a bit...

There's rarely much discussion of of how Nato expanded, who pushed for it and when. It's a big topic. There's all kinds of angles to come at it from.

As soon as the Soviet Union collapsed the new countries of the former Warsaw Pact were clamouring to join NATO. It was an insurance against future invasion by Russia - there's lots of history there, going back well before the 1917 revolution - and it was an entry point to joining the western capitalist system - NATO is effectively the military of Western capitalism.

At first the Bush administration wasn't keen - the (iirc) Lithuanian President was told it would never happen, although by the end of the Bush presidency in 1992 the thought was occurring in parts of the administration that maybe NATO expansion might be a good idea for the US. Clinton was keen on the idea from the start. While there were ideas such as disbanding NATO or working towards Russia joining floating about, Clinton wanted to keep NATO as an insurance while working to bring Russia into the western capitalist system - all that money washing about from privatising the Russian state, western governments wanted to get their hands on it.

So it was both the US and the new Eastern European states that wanted NATO expansion.

But there is a lot more to Russian-western relations that has led to this war than the Russian state feeling threatened by NATO. Russian nationalism, wanting to keep Russian money Russian (well, for the Russian elite), has meant Russia has had an increasingly antagonistic relationship with the west, who've been eager to "make Russia a Democracy", which is code for bringing Russia into the western capitalist system so that international companies can get their hands on all that booty those Russian oligarchs want to keep for themselves (as long as the Russian government lets them; get too big for their boots and they find themselves falling out of windows or having a polonium tea party).

It's Zelensky's eagerness to turn Ukraine towards the EU, towards western capitalism, away from what Russian nationalists see as Ukraine's rightful place as part of Russia, that has led to the war more than NATO expansion, although joining NATO is a symbol of, a part of joining that system

 

[LDC]

And there are a significant number of posters that have opposed/derided a class analysis of the conflict

That's just the same with loads of things on here though, no real surprise Ukraine is included.

 

[krink]

Post up an example of propaganda I have posted.

It's a joke ffs.
You know what, you used to be a laugh and I enjoyed reading your posts over the years. You just sound bitter these days and it's a shame. So I'll not bother you anymore. Cheers

 

[bluescreen]

A class analysis, there is no one analysis. But thanks for proving my point.

Thanks. That went over my head.
How many class analyses are there, how do you define class and who are you to define it and what criteria does one employ to prefer one analysis over another or are they all equally valid?

 

[sleaterkinney]

.

 

[redsquirrel]

That's just the same with loads of things on here though, no real surprise Ukraine is included.

Yeah again I would not disagree, but there has been some posters that would call themselves socialists that have, if not outright rejecting a class analysis, have at least misplaced it.