RD2003
Got a really fucking shitty attitude
I don't know, and neither do they even. But it doesn't mean that all sides would be better served by ending the slaughter as soon as possible, and before it escalates to beyond the borders of Ukraine.
War propaganda, 'Realists' and neocons, and the denigration of the war sceptics
- Thread starter RD2003
- Start date
Kaka Tim
Half Arsed and Slapdash till I Die
yet you are above the fray - held aloft by the wind of your moral superiority.
Last edited:
RD2003
Got a really fucking shitty attitude
Nobody is.
Pickman's model
Starry Wisdom
No, we are all de facto participants as sentiment toward the war is moulded by various institutions and the acceptability of various options open to the government is to an extent determined by the mood of the public. But hey even shallow miserabilist twats have a role here
RD2003
Got a really fucking shitty attitude
I like the way I can participate in a war while sitting here in my underpants, having a second coffee.
RD2003
Got a really fucking shitty attitude
Khrushchev's great-granddaughter says world closer to nuclear war than during Cuban Missile Crisis
Russia and the West are nearer to nuclear war than during the Cuban Missile Crisis, the great-granddaughter of Nikita Khrushchev has warned.Nina Khrushcheva, an academic whose great-grandfather was leader of the Soviet Union during the 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis, warned the war in Ukraine appears to be more dangerous as neither side seems willing to “back off”.
Khrushcheva said that both US president John F Kennedy and Khrushchev agreed to de-escalate as soon as nuclear war became a real threat.
Speaking on the Today programme, Khrushcheva, a professor of international affairs at the New School in New York, said of the 1962 crisis:
Khrushcheva also claimed that Russia’s war in Ukraine was “a proxy war” between the West and Russia in which Ukraine is “to some degree a pawn”.
While former MI6 chief Sir Alex Younger, seconded her concerns about the threat of nuclear war, he rejected her view of the conflict as a “proxy war”.
likesfish
You can't park here sir
What about the "strategic interests" of non Russians who'd just got rid of a military occupation force and had zero desire to be in Moscows sphere of influence?
The Warsaw pact wasn't a mirror of NATO.
Disagree and Moscow sent the tanks in 3 times even when it fell apart Moscow killed in the attempt to hold onto Lithuania. So Moscow has a problem with its neighbours joining NATO stop being a jerk
RD2003
Got a really fucking shitty attitude
You're mixing up the time periods. Tanks went into Lithuania when the SU still, just about, existed. I pointed out that NATO expansion managed to piss of its successor regime in Russia, which had been just about the most Western-friendly regime in Moscow for at least a century, if not ever. It was a major reason why the elites in Russia started looking around for a more hardline successor to Yeltsin.
Never denied that Russia's neighbours had strategic interests. In fact, I didn't mention them. The point was that there had been no direct threat to them up to that point and for some time after, not least because Russia was too weak to do anything to seriously threaten them.
Yes, Moscow does have a problem with its neighbours joining NATO. That's kind of the point, and, to them, it doesn't matter, as we are seeing, if anybody else disagrees.
Last edited:
likesfish
You can't park here sir
Moscow can get fucked Eastern Europe joined NATO as they hated being occupied by Russia. Former Colonizers don't get a vote or their "strategic interests" taken into account by former occupees.
Moscow influence ends at Russias border because nobody has any warm feelings for Russian Occupation
Moscow influence ends at Russias border because nobody has any warm feelings for Russian Occupation
RD2003
Got a really fucking shitty attitude
Once again, what you think Russia should do, has no bearing on what it will/does do.
Idris2002
canadian girlfriend
A colleague with Polish roots was appalled that I'd been drinking with an ex-officer in 2 Para (bloody nice bloke actually). "Why did you do that? I wouldn't go drinking with a Russian officer".Problem for Russia is its ability to influence its neighbours is rather limited theisn't actively loathed in most of its former colony Moscow not so much
RD2003
Got a really fucking shitty attitude
Could the Russian population crisis be a major factor in Putin's seemingly desperate and reckless action?
www.institutmontaigne.org
Why Ukraine Matters to Russia: The Demographic Factor
Analysis by Bruno Tertrais, Senior Fellow at Institut Montaigne.
ska invita
back on the other side
very interesting that ... i think a lot of these concerns overlap rather than anyone one being key...all pointing to a Kremlin struggling to maintain empireCould the Russian population crisis be a major factor in Putin's seemingly desperate and reckless action?
Why Ukraine Matters to Russia: The Demographic Factor
Analysis by Bruno Tertrais, Senior Fellow at Institut Montaigne.
am going to repost this in the "causes" thread for longevity
RD2003
Got a really fucking shitty attitude
Seems people are coming round to the obvious: it is an escalating proxy war between the US and Russia.
US officials have reportedly confirmed they are providing intelligence that has helped Ukrainian forces target and kill many of the Russian generals who have died in the Ukraine war.
The claim in the New York Times, quoting unnamed defence officials, appears to confirm suspicions the US is supplying actionable intelligence in real time to help the Ukrainian military select high-value targets.
Appearing to confirm the claims, the Pentagon spokesperson, John Kirby, acknowledged the US was providing “Ukraine with information and intelligence that they can use to defend themselves”, although Adrienne Watson, a national security council spokesperson, said intelligence was not provided “with the intent to kill Russian generals”.
The acknowledgment of US intelligence assistance in targeting Russian forces, which comes on top of another $20bn (£16bn) in promised weapons to Ukraine from Washington, is a further escalation in what is increasingly becoming a proxy war between the US, with its western allies, and Russian forces in Ukraine.
US officials have reportedly confirmed they are providing intelligence that has helped Ukrainian forces target and kill many of the Russian generals who have died in the Ukraine war.
The claim in the New York Times, quoting unnamed defence officials, appears to confirm suspicions the US is supplying actionable intelligence in real time to help the Ukrainian military select high-value targets.
Appearing to confirm the claims, the Pentagon spokesperson, John Kirby, acknowledged the US was providing “Ukraine with information and intelligence that they can use to defend themselves”, although Adrienne Watson, a national security council spokesperson, said intelligence was not provided “with the intent to kill Russian generals”.
The acknowledgment of US intelligence assistance in targeting Russian forces, which comes on top of another $20bn (£16bn) in promised weapons to Ukraine from Washington, is a further escalation in what is increasingly becoming a proxy war between the US, with its western allies, and Russian forces in Ukraine.
ska invita
back on the other side
That's been clear for a long time.
Is it a good or a bad thing do you think?
RD2003
Got a really fucking shitty attitude
In that it only prolongs something for which there is no solution, at the cost of thousands upon thousands of lives and a possible escalation towards the worst that could possibly happen, it's actually terrible.
Note for simpletons armchair generals and total pricks-yes, I do recognise that Russia started it by invading. The key is how to end it as soon as possible. Tens of billions of arms to Ukraine isn't gonna do this.
bluescreen
tofu eating wokerati
I thought the article by Taras Bilous that zahir posted here presented a thoughful counter to your position.
Kaka Tim
Half Arsed and Slapdash till I Die
Well making the Ukrainians weaker by cutting off military support wont save any lives. More the opposite. The "key" is not "ending it as soon as possible" - (what - by Ukraine surrendering? ) but securing whatever outcome ultimately leads to the least suffering and destruction and comes closest to ensuring a lasting peace. Your preferred plan - of allowing Putin's butchers to gobble up half the country - certainly wont do that.
LDC
On est tous des pangolins
OK, I think we likely don't agree, but I'm willing to have my mind changed. So humour my simplistic questions please RD2003.
You think the most important thing is to end the fighting, and then if so is anything OK to give up/agree to to do this? I mean complete surrender of Ukraine to Russia might do it, is that what should be encouraged by other States and left wing movements and groups now, as that what seems to be what you're suggesting?
And what if lots of people living in Ukraine don't want to do this? Should other countries sanction Ukraine or force them to do so in other ways, and ditto to left wing groups; they should also encourage people not to fight Russia?
Or is the idea that there's some diplomatic compromise where some territory is lost to the Russian State but Ukraine keeps some? But surely that is partly dependent on Ukraine having a strong position from which to negotiate from? If Russia knows it won't fight no matter what then what do they have to negotiate with? And then is any further aggression after that also to be met with surrender/accepting whatever is demanded by the aggressors to avoid death as well?
What about if Russian occupies and then 'de-nazifies' the country by mass killings, etc? Is that also something not to fight due to risk of escalation and further deaths? And what about further invasions, surrender immediately as well? And if people don't want to live under a Russian regime, then they should just leave I assume?
Does all this apply to every country/area facing invasion and/or occupation and/or attack btw? Or is this a special case for some reason?
ska invita
back on the other side
its a good article, and i agree with it on almost everythingI thought the article by Taras Bilous that zahir posted here presented a thoughful counter to your position.
but the one bit that isnt factually certain is "Ukraine Can Win"...Ukraine has already lost territory. A fact is Ukraine Has Lost significant territory. Whether it can be held by the Russian army or not is another question. But a lot of the argument made by Taras is based on the absolute notion that Ukraine Can Win. If winning means expelling Russia from all its new territory that seems unlikely to me (what do i know), which in turn makes some of the rest of the argument wobble too .
I think a realist take now is what happens if Russia holds and maintains its land bridge to Crimea.
LDC
On est tous des pangolins
I don't think hardly any of what he says is based on only being valid 'if Ukraine wins' tbh. That wasn't my reading of it at all, I read the 'can' as a statement of hope, not a prediction.
LDC
On est tous des pangolins
Is that a reply to me? Because I think it doesn't actually answer any of the questions I asked.
What does this 'flawed peace' look like to you? Just anything that is not this war, no matter what the compromises, and no matter what the social and political force has to be applied to Ukraine to get there? I'd have more time for this discussion if you were a bit more honest about what you think should actually happen practically.
Most of the 'tens of billions of dollars worth of weapons flooding into the country' have been brought by the Russians with their invasion, so leave off with the emotive nonsense.
RD2003
Got a really fucking shitty attitude
I am suggesting only that all sides should seek to stop the fighting as soon as possible, before thousands, possible tens of thousands more deaths, and a situation that spirals out of control and spills over borders. How this would work is out of our hands, and an outcome that all can agree on, even if, inevitably, less than perfect only, for us, a matter of idle speculation.
Obviously, any negotiations would have to try to ensure that Russia, if it stays in any part of Ukraine, agrees not to carry out mass killings, and devise ways of hlding them to this. It can be done, just as it's been done to aggressor nations/invaders throughout history.
As anywhere else where wars take place, the people living there are not all of one mind. Negotiations would be conducted over the heads of those on the ground who want to carry on fighting-as they always are. A fight to the finish and they will likely get nuked.
Similar threads
- Poll
