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

[RD2003]

Your post is internally inconsistent as you start by saying NATO pushed Ukraine then start talking about it didn't really matter what Ukraine did because what mattered was how the Russian elite viewed it. Maybe you should get your story straight.

On the contrary-I have explained quite clearly both that the Russian elites tend to view Russia in a certain way, and that the current crisis would not be happening now unless they felt, rightly or wrongly, that Russia was threatened.

 

[Pickman's model]

On the contrary-I have explained quite clearly both that the Russian elites tend to view Russia in a certain way, and that the current crisis would not be happening now unless they felt, rightly or wrongly, that Russia was threatened.

you were talking about how russian elites view ukraine. Not Russia. They are separate polities.

 

[RD2003]

you were talking about how russian elites view ukraine. Not Russia. They are separate polities.

Wrong again, I'm afraid: I have consistently emphasised that it is the Russian elites that, by and large, have a certain view of Russia's place in the world, and that this, inevitably colourss the view of large swathes of the Russian population.

Anyway, off to fucking Morrison's.

 

[Pickman's model]

Wrong again, I'm afraid: I have consistently emphasised that it is the Russian elites that, by and large, have a certain view of Russia's place in the world, and that this, inevitably colourss the view of large swathes of the Russian population.

Anyway, off to fucking Morrison's.

It is contrived because the western powers pushed Ukraine into an unnecessary situation. If it had agreed not to join NATO, and therefore not represent a threat to Russia (remember that what counts is whether the Russian elite considers it a threat, not whether it actually is a threat) then it is unlikely that the invasion would have happened. However, the west pushed for their proxy politicians to gain power in Ukraine-remember that the likes of McCain addressed the crowds in Maidan, and consider how it would have been received if a prominent Russian politician had addressed crowds in Mexico City, urging them to join a Russian-led military alliance.)

What followed after the events of 2008 (when it was first mooted that Georgia and Ukraine might join NATO), and then the 2014 Maidan coup, which was, in legal terms, anti-constitutional whatever the rights or wrongs of it, was inevitable.

Some people on here seem to have difficulty in distiguishing between what they see as good and right and what actually happens, which is almost always the opposite of what they'd prefer. You'd think, as grow adults, they would have learned by now.

Your first para here, where you're on about how russian elites view ukraine. Did you mean Russia here?

 

[mojo pixy]

What if they shelled it when you're down the shops getting a packet of biscuits?

I'd be really fucking pissed off. And I mean really.

...and then? What would you do next, where would you direct that real anger? At the people who blew up your home, or at people taking up arms to try and stop other homes from suffering the same fate?

How would you choose what to do? Because I'm pretty sure continuing snarky fatalism wouldn't help at all.

 

[krtek a houby]

Can't you have another enforced holiday? Or have you anything to say other than trying to wind up others so as to get them banned?

I agree that I'm a terrible cunt, and ought to strive to be as morally upstanding as the rest of you, but can't we stick to the subject instead of writing about each other? It's slightly tiresome.

The subject seems to be that everyone here is a wargasm addict, apart from you.

Apologies for winding you up, though. Must be terribly upsetting to have your bullshit challenged.

 

[RD2003]

...and then? What would you do next, where would you direct that real anger? At the people who blew up your home, or at people taking up arms to try and stop other homes from suffering the same fate?

How would you choose what to do? Because I'm pretty sure continuing snarky fatalism wouldn't help at all.

I'd probably start by finding a satsuma, taking it out and searching for a space in the rubble, and stamping on it for a bit.

And that'd just be for starters.

(I suppose the old men and women, and assorted 'sensitive' types who populate internet forums imagine themselves taking up arms. Good on them.)

 

[RD2003]

The subject seems to be that everyone here is a wargasm addict, apart from you.

Apologies for winding you up, though. Must be terribly upsetting to have your bullshit challenged.

You don't actually wind me up, you just try to.

You're like a bluebottle buzzing around my living room. Tempting to swat but easily ignored if you make the effort.

(Do you ever tire of using most of your time on here to write about the peceived shortcomings of everybody else?)

 

[RD2003]

Your first para here, where you're on about how russian elites view ukraine. Did you mean Russia here?

As we are seeing, the Russian elites' view of Russia is closely bound to their view of Ukraine.

 

[krtek a houby]

You don't actually wind me up, you just try to.

You're like a bluebottle buzzing around my living room. Tempting to swat but easily ignored if you make the effort.

(Do you ever tire of using most of your time on here to write about the peceived shortcomings of everybody else?)

Do you?

 

[krtek a houby]

He should take a trip to Specsavers

Sadly, there's no saving him

 

[Dystopiary]

They'd have been so much happier under Russia, like Chechnya and Belarus.

Exactly! The idea that "compromise" with the Russian powers that be leads to any real kind of "peace" is utter nonsense.

 

[Dystopiary]

Gotta say this. The word "hysteria" is rooted in misogyny. It's long been used to put down women, and also to insult men as "woman-like," with connotations of uncontrollability, weakness and lack of sense.

"Shrill" is used in a similarly misogynist way, with women's voices usually being higher than men's, their opinions long seen as incongruous with serious discussion, and again it implies lack of moderation.

 

[RD2003]

Exactly! The idea that "compromise" with the Russian powers that be leads to any real kind of "peace" is utter nonsense.

All through this thread I've argued that any negotiated peace will inevitably be less than satisfactory for all concerned. And it could well prove temporary. The trick would be to strive to deter a flare-up of violence again.

Do you really think a fight to the absolute finish with a nuclear-armed power is realistic?


Russian president Vladimir Putin is likely to annex the occupied parts of southern and eastern Ukraine into Russia “in the coming months”, according to Katherine Lawlor and Mason Clark, analysts at the Institute for the Study of War, warning that the move could then be used to threaten Ukraine and its allies with nuclear attack.

After annexation,

He [Putin] will likely then state, directly or obliquely, that Russian doctrine permitting the use of nuclear weapons to defend Russian territory applies to those newly annexed territories.
Such actions would threaten Ukraine and its partners with nuclear attack if Ukrainian counteroffensives to liberate Russian-occupied territory continue. Putin may believe that the threat or use of nuclear weapons would restore Russian deterrence after his disastrous invasion shattered Russia’s conventional deterrent capabilities.
Putin’s timeline for annexation is likely contingent on the extent to which he understands the degraded state of the Russian military in Ukraine.
The Russian military has not yet achieved Putin’s stated territorial objectives of securing all of Donetsk and Luhansk oblasts and is unlikely to do so.
If Putin understands his military weakness, he will likely rush annexation and introduce the nuclear deterrent quickly in an attempt to retain control of the Ukrainian territory that Russia currently occupies.
If Putin believes that Russian forces are capable of additional advances, he will likely delay the annexation in hopes of covering more territory with it.
In that case, his poor leadership and Ukrainian counteroffensives could drive the Russian military toward a state of collapse.
Putin could also attempt to maintain Russian attacks while mobilizing additional forces. He might delay announcing annexation for far longer in this case, waiting until reinforcements could arrive to gain more territory to annex.
Click to expand...

Ukraine and its allies therefore “likely have a narrow window of opportunity to support a Ukrainian counteroffensive into occupied Ukrainian territory before the Kremlin annexes that territory,”Lawlor and Clark write.


https://www.theguardian.com/world/l...083b856379a4f8#block-627efc6f8f083b856379a4f8

 

[RD2003]

Gotta say this. The word "hysteria" is rooted in misogyny. It's long been used to put down women, and also to insult men as "woman-like," with connotations of uncontrollability, weakness and lack of sense.

"Shrill" is used in a similarly misogynist way, with women's voices usually being higher than men's, their opinions long seen as incongruous with serious discussion, and again it implies lack of moderation.

Yes, that's what I had in mind. I was thinking, 'Have a go at the Urban war evangelists and take a swipe at women in general while I'm at it.'

 

[Supine]

All through this thread I've argued that any negotiated peace will inevitably be less than satisfactory for all concerned. And it could well prove temporary. The trick would be to strive to deter a flare-up of violence again.

Do you really think a fight to the absolute finish with a nuclear-armed power is realistic?


Russian president Vladimir Putin is likely to annex the occupied parts of southern and eastern Ukraine into Russia “in the coming months”, according to Katherine Lawlor and Mason Clark, analysts at the Institute for the Study of War, warning that the move could then be used to threaten Ukraine and its allies with nuclear attack.

After annexation,


Ukraine and its allies therefore “likely have a narrow window of opportunity to support a Ukrainian counteroffensive into occupied Ukrainian territory before the Kremlin annexes that territory,”Lawlor and Clark write.


https://www.theguardian.com/world/l...083b856379a4f8#block-627efc6f8f083b856379a4f8

Maybe you will be happy with russia stealing parts of ukraine but there is no reason to think ukraine would agree with you. Where would that opinion of yours lead in the long run, russia constantly trying to expand its borders…

 

[mojo pixy]

Yes, that's what I had in mind. I was thinking, 'Have a go at the Urban war evangelists and take a swipe at women in general while I'm at it.'

The point is that it's subconscious. Things we do, language we use, without even noticing.

 

[RD2003]

Maybe you will be happy with russia stealing parts of ukraine but there is no reason to think ukraine would agree with you. Where would that opinion of yours lead in the long run, russia constantly trying to expand its borders…

We're back to Russia expanding its borders again, when half the thread seems to have been centred on the question of how a country we're being told is, whatever the outcome, going to have a severely depleted military and decimated economy for years, if not decades to come, could possibly go about invading wherever it pleases.

I'm not 'happy', by the way, about either this war or the world in general.

 

[RD2003]

The point is that it's subconscious. Things we do, language we use, without even noticing.

I'm sorry. I'm really gonna have to get this damned subconscious under control.

 

[Supine]

We're back to Russia expanding its borders again, when half the thread seems to have been centred on the question of how a country we're being told is, whatever the outcome, going to have a severely depleted military and decimated economy for years, if not decades to come, could possibly go about invading wherever it pleases.

I'm not 'happy', by the way, about either this war or the world in general.

Because russia is literally trying to expand its borders. You see that right?

Short term military depletion is by the by. Longer term they will have more weapons and further desire to expand.

 

[Dystopiary]

 

[krtek a houby]

Gotta say this. The word "hysteria" is rooted in misogyny. It's long been used to put down women, and also to insult men as "woman-like," with connotations of uncontrollability, weakness and lack of sense.

"Shrill" is used in a similarly misogynist way, with women's voices usually being higher than men's, their opinions long seen as incongruous with serious discussion, and again it implies lack of moderation.

Also, likening humans to insects to be crushed has some dubious precedents.

 

[Dystopiary]

Also, likening humans to insects to be crushed has some dubious precedents.

It's nice to see you. I hope you're ok.

 

[RD2003]

View attachment 322663

Puzzling. Would you, for instance, post up a quote from an 'actual English person?'

I think the answer is no. Seeing as there are no 'actual English people, ' just the English in all our idiotic mess. Which would also be the case if we were at war with an invader.

And the liberals (including the liberal tories) and liberal lefties who are most enthusiastic about this war have, when it comes down to it, no time for the English people anyway, we must not forget.

 

[RD2003]

Because russia is literally trying to expand its borders. You see that right?

Short term military depletion is by the by. Longer term they will have more weapons and further desire to expand.

But what about the dominant narrative which tells us that this war, even if it ends with Russia able to claim some sort of victory, will leave Russia severely damaged and depleted, which, of course, means Russia will be in no position to threaten anybody?

You are correct, however, in that Russia is unlikely to let this go in the long term. But if the damage from this war is going to be as severe as is widely claimed, that is an issue for the next generation, or even the one after that. (This is assuming that civilisation survives the current conflict-far from guaranteed.)

 

[Dystopiary]

Puzzling. Would you, for instance, post up a quote from an 'actual English person?'

I think the answer is no. Seeing as there are no 'actual English people, ' just the English in all our idiotic mess. Which would also be the case if we were at war with an invader.

And the liberals (including the liberal tories) and liberal lefties who are most enthusiastic about this war have, when it comes down to it, no time for the English people anyway, we must not forget.

I can't see English voices being drowned out by anyone anytime soon.

 

[NoXion]

But what about the dominant narrative which tells us that this war, even if it ends with Russia able to claim some sort of victory, will leave Russia severely damaged and depleted, which, of course, means Russia will be in no position to threaten anybody?

You are correct, however, in that Russia is unlikely to let this go in the long term. But if the damage from this war is going to be as severe as is widely claimed, that is an issue for the next generation, or even the one after that. (This is assuming that civilisation survives the current conflict-far from guaranteed.)

Appeasers/cowards like you (haven't fully decided in your case) love to play up the threat of nuclear war. Problem is, Putin's cronies among the Russian elite aren't wild-eyed ideological zealots who are perfectly willing to cast their enormous and ill-gotten wealth, a lot of it outside Russia, into the fire of a nuclear conflagration.

Putin has of course made mouth-noises about having nukes, but it's bluster. So, scratch that alarmist nonsense.

How exactly is the damage going to be so severe for Russia that future aggression would take a generation to manifest? Russia ain't the one being invaded. Your claim makes no sense.

 

[Pickman's model]

But what about the dominant narrative which tells us that this war, even if it ends with Russia able to claim some sort of victory, will leave Russia severely damaged and depleted, which, of course, means Russia will be in no position to threaten anybody?

You are correct, however, in that Russia is unlikely to let this go in the long term. But if the damage from this war is going to be as severe as is widely claimed, that is an issue for the next generation, or even the one after that. (This is assuming that civilisation survives the current conflict-far from guaranteed.)

given that by any calculation russia has lost a great array of military equipment, and a vast number of army officers, it's going to take some time for them under the most favourable circumstances to be able to field a force which will be able to defeat the forces ukraine will be able to muster, let alone those of nato. but given that it's been predicted that civilisation could collapse by 2040 (Researcher Stands by Prediction of 2040 Civilization Collapse) even if there isn't a nuclear conflagration the next generation - and indeed the one after that - may have greater concerns than fighting over lines on an out of date map.

 

[NoXion]

given that by any calculation russia has lost a great array of military equipment, and a vast number of army officers, it's going to take some time for them under the most favourable circumstances to be able to field a force which will be able to defeat the forces ukraine will be able to muster, let alone those of nato. but given that it's been predicted that civilisation could collapse by 2040 (Researcher Stands by Prediction of 2040 Civilization Collapse) even if there isn't a nuclear conflagration the next generation - and indeed the one after that - may have greater concerns than fighting over lines on an out of date map.

"The specific problems that the MIT scientists feared decades ago are a bit different than those facing us today."

I look forward to 2040 when the new Doomsday prophecy rolls around. I wonder what will be supposedly killing us all then?

 

[Pickman's model]

"The specific problems that the MIT scientists feared decades ago are a bit different than those facing us today."

I look forward to 2040 when the new Doomsday prophecy rolls around. I wonder what will be supposedly killing us all then?

hopefully boredom, it'd be nice not to live in interesting times for a bit