War propaganda, 'Realists' and neocons, and the denigration of the war sceptics

[RD2003]

For those who believe that this war is being fought mainly at the behest of the arms industry-the main beneficieries as in all wars.

'Realists believe that the U.S. should run as much of the world as possible, while being mindful that there are limits to American power and remember other countries (in particular, “great powers” like Russia and China) have their own interests. For realists, morality, democracy, the sovereignty of small countries, etc., are nice in theory — but it’s naïve to think they can ever play much role in great power politics.'

No, Russia Didn't Get Its Propaganda From John Mearsheimer

Sincere internal criticism of the U.S. — or any country — often sounds a lot like insincere foreign criticism.

theintercept.com

(I have never come across this publication before, but where the article appears has no real bearing on whether its content is right or wrong.)

 

[gosub]

China Calls U.S. 'Leading Instigator' of Russia, Ukraine Conflict

"NATO should have been disbanded after the collapse of the former Soviet Union," Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson Zhao Lijian said on Friday.

www.newsweek.com

 

[RD2003]

On ultimately damaging censorship, and the necessity of condemning all wars of aggression by the author of the relevantly titled 'War is a Force that Gives us Meaning.'

 

[xenon]

Did you really need to start another thread. What is your point, what are you trying to say. This is nebulous polemic.

 

[xenon]

Some guy said something on social media and his YouTube videos of disappeared. What. No. Life is too short. Possibly shorter.

 

[RD2003]

Some guy said something on social media and his YouTube videos of disappeared. What. No. Life is too short. Possibly shorter.

Yes, they of disappeared.

 

[RD2003]

Because I'm banned from the main war enthusiast thread, I'll put it here. Sense is thankfully prevailing.



The US military has cancelled plans to test an intercontinental ballistic missile, Reuters reports, in an effort to reduce tensions with Russia.

After Russia put its nuclear forces on high alert in February, the Pentagon announced that it would delay the test of the LGM-30G Minuteman III missile, saying both countries should “bear in mind the risk of miscalculation and take steps to reduce those risks”.

US officials confirmed to Reuters today that it had cancelled the test entirely. Ann Stefanek, an air force spokesperson, said the decision was made for the same reasons the test was delayed.

More from Reuters:

Altering the test schedule for America’s ICBM force can be controversial. US senator Jim Inhofe, the top Republican on the Senate armed services committee, expressed disappointment in March at the delay of a test he said was critical to ensure America’s nuclear deterrent remains effective.
Jeffrey Lewis, a missile researcher at the James Martin Center for Nonproliferation Studies (CNS), played down the impact of the cancelation. “There’s a value to doing the tests but I don’t think missing one test in the grand scheme of things is a really big deal,” he said, adding that the Minuteman III was extremely reliable.
The nuclear-capable Minuteman III is key part of the US military’s strategic arsenal and has a range of 6,000-plus miles (9,660-plus km) and can travel at a speed of approximately 15,000 miles per hour (24,000 kph).

 

[RD2003]

Autocracy v democracy, huh?

Subscribe to read

www.ft.com

(No subsription necessary atm.)

 

[_Russ_]

Western based analysis seems to be putting Russian society's support for the war at something between 60%-75%, so id assume likely its closer to the higher figure (if it was Russian reporting id put it closer to the lower figure of course)

The general impression western media tries to imply with its reporting of anti-war protests but zero (from what Ive seen on uk broadcast msm) coverage of the car convoys with 'Z' signs and the 'Z's on bus stops etc is of course at odds with the probable reality

 

[yield]

Autocracy v democracy, huh?

Subscribe to read

www.ft.com

(No subsription necessary atm.)

archive.ph

There is no discreet and low-key way of sending the Patriot antimissile system to another country, but Joe Biden is nothing if not a trier. The US president has left it to unnamed officials in his administration to confirm that Saudi Arabia has taken receipt of these monstrous, truck-mounted interceptors. You can quite understand the sheepishness. In 2019, he promised to make the journalist-killing kingdom a “pariah”. Just this month, he framed the modern world as a “battle between democracies and autocracies”.

What is glaring here is not Biden’s failure to live up to his ideals. It is the untenability of the ideals. Even when the US had a nuclear monopoly and a vast share of world economic output, it had to cut moral corners to fight communism in the nascent cold war. It only went so far in de-Nazifying postwar Germany, for instance. It sponsored the monarchist forces in the Greek civil war. It connived in autocratic rule in South Korea and Latin America. As a less dominant power than it was in the mid-20th century, it would be an odd time for the US to develop a new choosiness about its allies.

 

[mojo pixy]

wrong thread oopsy

 

[CNT36]

For those who believe that this war is being fought mainly at the behest of the arms industry-the main beneficieries as in all wars.

'Realists believe that the U.S. should run as much of the world as possible, while being mindful that there are limits to American power and remember other countries (in particular, “great powers” like Russia and China) have their own interests. For realists, morality, democracy, the sovereignty of small countries, etc., are nice in theory — but it’s naïve to think they can ever play much role in great power politics.'

No, Russia Didn't Get Its Propaganda From John Mearsheimer

Sincere internal criticism of the U.S. — or any country — often sounds a lot like insincere foreign criticism.

theintercept.com

(I have never come across this publication before, but where the article appears has no real bearing on whether its content is right or wrong.)

I've read the article it's a summary of arguments have been going on for decades and a basic outline of one facet of propaganda. Do you have something to add? Why is it thread worthy?

 

[Pickman's model]

Sense is thankfully prevailing.

not on this thread, the first sentence is out of touch with reality and it gets worse from there

 

[Rob Ray]

I'm banned from the main war enthusiast thread

Can't imagine why.

 

[NoXion]

For those who believe that this war is being fought mainly at the behest of the arms industry-the main beneficieries as in all wars.

Yes that's right, Raytheon and Lockheed-Martin sent a guy over to Russia who held a gun to Putin's head and forced him make the order to invade Ukraine. The beginning of this particular conflict is barely two months past, and you're acting as if nobody has any memory of who actually started it. You absolute fucking plum.

Whether you realise it or not, you are being an apologist for a Putin's regime. It was easily within his power to not prosecute this conflict. But instead, because of his choices, millions are displaced from their homes and hundreds of thousands are mired right in the misery of this foul war. The buck's gotta stop somewhere, and on the Russian side that's at Putin's desk. One of the downsides of having a murderous, gaslighting spook in charge of the entire country is that it becomes implausible for said leader to offload responsibility and blame someone else.

 

[RD2003]

wrong thread oopsy

I thought the popular narrative was that Putin's bitten off more than he can chew and it's all going wrong?

Yes that's right, Raytheon and Lockheed-Martin sent a guy over to Russia who held a gun to Putin's head and forced him make the order to invade Ukraine. The beginning of this particular conflict is barely two months past, and you're acting as if nobody has any memory of who actually started it. You absolute fucking plum.

Whether you realise it or not, you are being an apologist for a Putin's regime. It was easily within his power to not prosecute this conflict. But instead, because of his choices, millions are displaced from their homes and hundreds of thousands are mired right in the misery of this foul war. The buck's gotta stop somewhere, and on the Russian side that's at Putin's desk. One of the downsides of having a murderous, gaslighting spook in charge of the entire country is that it becomes implausible for said leader to offload responsibility and blame someone else.

Yes Putin started the conflict by opting for the invasion, but it isn't as if there were not years of buildup to it, nor as if it couldn't easily have been avoided. But in reality that means compromise, and neither side was prepared to compromise. Governments, and society at large no longer really recognise reality.

And are you seriously trying to argue that certain people don't become vastly wealthy on the back of NATO expansion and the resulting increase in arms sales?

Yes Putin could draw back in theory. In reality (again) he won't do this without having some kind of victory to sell. But if the west is going for broke here, there are only going to be more deaths, and possibly escalation into catastrophe. (It is, by the way, highly debatable as to how much power Putin wields entirely by himself.)

I don't care if stating any of this makes me an apologist for anybody, particularly it's only a mere handful of keyboard foamers, already certain in their own righteousness, who are listening anyway.

 

[RD2003]

not on this thread, the first sentence is out of touch with reality and it gets worse from there

What, is this another 'radical' absolving the arms industry of blame?

 

[Pickman's model]

What, is this another 'radical' absolving the arms industry of blame?

you claim in the op that this war is being fought mainly at the behest of the arms industry and characterise any disagreement with that as absolving the arms industry of blame. why is it basically all or nothing with you?

tell you what, produce some of your actual evidence to support your claim in the op and then, if we're lucky and you bring it to the table, we can chat about it. i am not holding my breath.

 

[RD2003]

you claim in the op that this war is being fought mainly at the behest of the arms industry and characterise any disagreement with that as absolving the arms industry of blame. why is it basically all or nothing with you?

tell you what, produce some of your actual evidence to support your claim in the op and then, if we're lucky and you bring it to the table, we can chat about it. i am not holding my breath.

I'm not doing your research for you. Suffice it to say that so-called radicals would have once had no difficulty in recognising the arms industry's role in fuelling the very wars it needs to maintain itself and ensure fortunes are made. It's a major reason why there is always bloodshed on a mass scale going on somewhere or other.

 

[NoXion]

Yes Putin started the conflict by opting for the invasion, but it isn't as if there were not years of buildup to it, nor as if it couldn't easily have been avoided. But in reality that means compromise, and neither side was prepared to compromise. Governments, and society at large no longer really recognise reality.

What possible compromises could the Ukrainian government have done to avoid being invaded by Russia? Arguably they had already been invaded by Russia in the Crimea. Have you heard the god-awful rhetoric coming from state mouthpieces in the Russian media lately? Do tell us what kind of compromises can be made with a party that talks as if your entire country is little better than some province. And that's not even the worst of it.

And are you seriously trying to argue that certain people don't become vastly wealthy on the back of NATO expansion and the resulting increase in arms sales?

If I had meant that, then I would have said it. If anything, by starting this invasion and thus opening a greater flow of weapons and other military aid to Ukraine and other places in Europe, Putin is acting as the best NATO recruiter in decades and a great advertisement for weapons sales to boot.

Yes Putin could draw back in theory. In reality he won't do this without having some kind of victory to sell. Again, this is reality. But if the west is going for broke here, there are only going to be more deaths, and possibly escalation into catastrophe. (It is, by the way, highly debatable as to how much power Putin wields entirely by himself.)

The Ukrainians are going for broke because their home has been invaded by an army of brutalised conscripts who rape and murder civilians. If people there weren't so willing to defend themselves, then Russian forces would not be having such a hard time trying to conquer the country. They would have more liberty to rape and murder their way across the place. And you're saying Ukrainians should say "no" to accepting weapons in order to evict the invaders. Fucking hell.

 

[Pickman's model]

I'm not doing your research for you. Suffice it to say that so-called radicals would have once had no difficulty in recognising the arms industry's role in fuelling the very wars it needs to maintain itself and ensure fortunes are made. It's a major reason why there is always bloodshed on a mass scale going on somewhere or other.

i'm not asking you to do fucking research you poundshop galloway. i'm asking you to link to a fucking article or document that supports your claim.

 

[RD2003]

What possible compromises could the Ukrainian government have done to avoid being invaded by Russia? Arguably they had already been invaded by Russia in the Crimea. Have you heard the god-awful rhetoric coming from state mouthpieces in the Russian media lately? Do tell us what kind of compromises can be made with a party that talks as if your entire country is little better than some province. And that's not even the worst of it.


If I had meant that, then I would have said it. If anything, by starting this invasion and thus opening a greater flow of weapons and other military aid to Ukraine and other places in Europe, Putin is acting as the best NATO recruiter in decades and a great advertisement for weapons sales to boot.



The Ukrainians are going for broke because their home has been invaded by an army of brutalised conscripts who rape and murder civilians. If people there weren't so willing to defend themselves, then Russian forces would not be having such a hard time trying to conquer the country. They would have more liberty to rape and murder their way across the place. And you're saying Ukrainians should say "no" to accepting weapons in order to evict the invaders. Fucking hell.

They could have accepted neutrailty via the terms of the Minsk agreements. And whatever rhetoric is coming out of Russian state mouthpieces, it will have limited bearing on what actually happens even if Russia ends up with some kind of claim to victory.

'Putin is the best NATO recruiter etc etc' is merely conventional wisdom. Things never turn out like you expect, and outcomes are never pretty, projected NATO expansion included.

It isn't to ignore the suffering of Ukrainians to recognise that they are going for broke because their government/armed forces are being increasingly supplied with the means to prolong a conflict in which yet more of them will suffer. In other words, the west is insisting they go for broke. And this is seriously presented to us as helping Ukraine to win an outright victory, which is not possible.

 

[RD2003]

i'm not asking you to do fucking research you poundshop galloway. i'm asking you to link to a fucking article or document that supports your claim.

Go link to one yourself, and while you're at it, tell me why you absolve the arms industry of any blame.

 

[Rob Ray]

What, is this another 'radical' absolving the arms industry of blame?

It's not an issue of "absolving the arms industry of blame" you blithering simpleton, no-one here has a torch to hold for military contractors, Joe Biden, Nato or any other arsehole. No-one here, including your so-called "war enthusiasts" is calling for further escalation by any one of them. What this is about is looking at the facts as they appear.

And the fact is that the only man with a direct ability to stop the violence is Putin. The only body of workers with the ability to stop the pillaging, rape and mass murder is that of the Russian Army and public. Ukrainian workers, clearly, cannot avoid having their homes pillaged and their bodies damaged by putting their guns down. Russia has been very clear in multiple wars that doing so means death for men of fighting age, mass deportations for large chunks of the population and enforced Russification under a particularly unpleasant dictator.

The international body politic meanwhile can't talk its way to peace - Putin wants the land, end of story. So what remains is making life difficult in the hope it heads off this imperial madness. And the question is not "who are the good guys" because there aren't any, at least of the scope which changes anything. I would urge anyone to support Operation Solidarity, who are doing great things on the ground, but reluctantly accepting the need for bad guys to give other bad guys guns to provide as discouraging a force as possible against a guy who's prepared to actively burn everything down is not some mad rush to throw out criticisms of Western imperialism, it's a grim assessment of reality in a hellish situation.

It is a perspective you're free to disagree with, but if you want to have a serious conversation you need to engage with what's actually being said.

 

[Pickman's model]

Go link to one yourself, and while you're at it, tell me why you absolve the arms industry of any blame.

i don't think you know what behest means. because in post 1 you're talking about how the arms industry got up this war but since then you've talked of them fuelling the war - i don't disagree that now it's on there are benefits for arms companies but i disagree with your assertion the war's being fought mainly at the arms industry's behest. i still await your supporting link because - after all - i'm asking you to support the basis for this thread. and if you won't do that you shouldn't be starting threads.

 

[RD2003]

i don't think you know what behest means. because in post 1 you're talking about how the arms industry got up this war but since then you've talked of them fuelling the war - i don't disagree that now it's on there are benefits for arms companies but i disagree with your assertion the war's being fought mainly at the arms industry's behest. i still await your supporting link because - after all - i'm asking you to support the basis for this thread. and if you won't do that you shouldn't be starting threads.

NATO expansion is obviously in large part about the opportunities that unfold for the arms industry. Whether behest is the right word or not, it's absurd to believe that the arms industry did not want this war and didn't play a major role in fuelling it.

Maybe I will find an appropriate link when I find the time. Don't hold your breath.

 

[YouSir]

NATO expansion is obviously in large part about the opportunities that unfold for the arms industry. Whether behest is the right word or not, it's absurd to believe that the arms industry did not want this war and didn't play a major role in fuelling it.

Maybe I will find an appropriate link when I find the time. Don't hold your breath.

What role did they play?

 

[RD2003]

What role did they play?

The industry is obviously a major lobbyist for the expansion of NATO. After all, both depend on each other. Massive salaries for one element, vast fortunes to be made for the other.

Soldiers meanwhile, die for a paltry salary. Civilians are collateral.

 

[Pickman's model]

NATO expansion is obviously in large part about the opportunities that unfold for the arms industry. Whether behest is the right word or not, it's absurd to believe that the arms industry did not want this war and didn't play a major role in fuelling it.

Maybe I will find an appropriate link when I find the time. Don't hold your breath.

if nato expansion is so obviously in large part about the opportunities that unfold for the arms industry it's peculiar that the two latest candidate countries already have prominent arms industries of their own. nonetheless i don't accept your thesis that the arms industry (by which i understand you to mean essentially the american arms industry) has been as influential in nato expansion as you suggest.

but you're floundering, you clearly don't know the difference between behest and fuelled, the one relating to the initiation of an action, the other to its continuation.

 

[Magnus McGinty]

I’m starting to think that ‘the arms industry’ only exists in America.