Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

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

RD2003 said:
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.
Click to expand...
can you show me a couple of obvious documents from the arms industry showing their support for nato expansion in the 1990s and 2000s?
 
Pickman's model said:
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.
Click to expand...
Yes, all arms industries will obviously benefit from increased militarisation.
 
RD2003 said:
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.
Click to expand...

The Minsk agreements broke down because the Russian regime wasn't willing to play ball. The fact that they've gone on to mount a full-scale invasion of Ukraine shows just how little they actually give a stuff for a peaceable settlement. There's no reasonable excuse for this action, it was naked aggression. Which is also why I think you're at best making a huge mistake by downplaying the hideous rhetoric coming from Russian state media.

RD2003 said:
'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.
Click to expand...

I'm not talking about projections. I'm talking about how countries like Finland are talking about joining NATO following the invasion of Ukraine. Do you think there would be such talk of joining NATO if Russia hadn't invaded?

RD2003 said:
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.
Click to expand...

It's no good sending weapons if there's hardly anybody at the recieving end who are willing and able to use them properly. The very success of the Ukrainian defence is predicated on large numbers of ordinary Ukrainians being willing to pick up weapons and fight.
 
RD2003 said:
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.
Click to expand...

That's not really saying anything, you're not offering proof and either way the arms industry isn't one unitary whole. Within the EU pushing for more standardisation and unified forces would be a far more profitable way to spend lobbying money than this war for example, for the US manufacturers there are a load of conflicts which they could push a focus on without triggering a conflict which damages the energy and agricultural sectors with which most investors are probably intertwined to some degree. Sure, even pushing against NATO would turn a penny as individual countries increased defence spending as the likelihood of joining/benefiting from the alliance decreased. Even the Turkish arms sector, which does have direct ties to Ukraine and slightly more limited options could still have focused on somewhere like Azerbaijan where they also do business and where any potential war is going to have a far lower impact on global economies.
 
NoXion said:
The Minsk agreements broke down because the Russian regime wasn't willing to play ball. The fact that they've gone on to mount a full-scale invasion of Ukraine shows just how little they actually give a stuff for a peaceable settlement. There's no reasonable excuse for this action, it was naked aggression. Which is also why I think you're at best making a huge mistake by downplaying the hideous rhetoric coming from Russian state media.


I'm not talking about projections. I'm talking about how countries like Finland are talking about joining NATO following the invasion of Ukraine. Do you think there would be such talk of joining NATO if Russia hadn't invaded?


It's no good sending weapons if there's hardly anybody at the recieving end who are willing to use them properly. The very success of the Ukrainian defence is predicated on large numbers of ordinary Ukrainians being willing to pick up weapons and fight.
Click to expand...
The Minsk agreement was never seriously pursued by either side. Or at least not seriously enough. I don't know why you assume I don't think the Russian invasion wasn't naked aggression.

The Russian regime can deploy all the hideous rhetoric it wants. It will have little bearing on the unsatisfactory compromise that we can only hope is coming as soon as possible.

Probably Finland and others wouldn't be talking about it, no. But there won't be a happy outcome in the medium to long term.

Your last point is true. It's at the root of the war being prolonged at the cost of thousands of lives instead of serious efforts at bringing all sides to the table to thrash out the unsatisfactory compromise that will have to come anyway before thousandds more join the dead.
 
YouSir said:
That's not really saying anything, you're not offering proof and either way the arms industry isn't one unitary whole. Within the EU pushing for more standardisation and unified forces would be a far more profitable way to spend lobbying money than this war for example, for the US manufacturers there are a load of conflicts which they could push a focus on without triggering a conflict which damages the energy and agricultural sectors with which most investors are probably intertwined to some degree. Sure, even pushing against NATO would turn a penny as individual countries increased defence spending as the likelihood of joining/benefiting from the alliance decreased. Even the Turkish arms sector, which does have direct ties to Ukraine and slightly more limited options could still have focused on somewhere like Azerbaijan where they also do business and where any potential war is going to have a far lower impact on global economies.
Click to expand...
Never said it isn't a complex picture.
 
RD2003 said:
Makes two, or even several of us.
Click to expand...

Not really, you've made a claim which you haven't really explained or shown a particularly great understanding of and have no evidence for. It's just a vague opinion from what I can tell, which is fine, but there's nothing to really go forward with there if that's all you're offering.
 
YouSir said:
Not really, you're made a claim which you haven't really explained or shown a particularly great understanding of and have no evidence for. It's just a vague opinion from what I can tell, which is fine, but there's nothing to really go forward with there if that's all you're offering.
Click to expand...
his attitude is you'll get what you're given and you'll be grateful for it
 
RD2003 said:
The Minsk agreement was never seriously pursued by either side. Or at least not seriously enough. I don't know why you assume I don't think the Russian invasion wasn't naked aggression.
Click to expand...

So if Russia wasn't serious about Minsk and ended up invading anyway, then Ukraine had nothing to gain by putting themselves at a disadvantage, because the invasion is proof positive that Russia would have never acted in good faith. It's not compromise if only one side ends up doing it.

RD2003 said:
The Russian regime can deploy all the hideous rhetoric it wants. It will have little bearing on the unsatisfactory compromise that we can only hope is coming as soon as possible.
Click to expand...

Your wording suggests an outcome other than an "unsatisfactory compromise" (whatever the fuck that is at the end of the day; who's idea of compromise? Yours? Russia's? Ukraine's?), which means you can't honestly say that something worse can't happen. Seems to me like the Ukrainians have a clearer idea than you of what that "something" might be. Could perhaps explain the ferocity of their resistance to the Russian invasion, in stark contrast to the initial expectations of the invasion's organisers.
RD2003 said:
Probably Finland and others wouldn't be talking about it, no. But there won't be a happy outcome in the medium to long term.
Click to expand...

Who the fuck's talking about happy outcomes? I'm not a fan of NATO, and Russia's invasion has revitalised that military alliance. It was a completely bone-headed move that Russian leadership was in no way forced to take, indeed, only the highest echelons even knew it was a thing until it was already happening. When a nuclear-armed power starts pulling shit like that, it's only sensible for other countries to band together against that. Finland already has a long history of being prepared for Russian aggression, but the invasion of Ukraine strongly suggests that merely being prepared on one's own strengths is no longer a sufficient deterrent. So alliances will be made, and as it seems there's no real desire in Finland to reinvent the wheel, thus the talk of NATO membership.

RD2003 said:
Your last point is true. It's at the root of the war being prolonged at the cost of thousands of lives instead of serious efforts at bringing all sides to the table to thrash out the unsatisfactory compromise that will have to come anyway before thousandds more join the dead.
Click to expand...

I'm sorry, but I am utterly failing to see what Ukraine has to compromise for in the first place. They were fucking invaded. As far as I see, any talk of compromise is completely invalid so long as there are Russian boots on Ukrainian soil. It's like asking someone in their home to compromise with a home invader. Completely barking up the wrong tree.
 
NoXion said:
So if Russia wasn't serious about Minsk and ended up invading anyway, then Ukraine had nothing to gain by putting themselves at a disadvantage, because the invasion is proof positive that Russia would have never acted in good faith. It's not compromise if only one side ends up doing it.



Your wording suggests an outcome other than an "unsatisfactory compromise" (whatever the fuck that is at the end of the day; who's idea of compromise? Yours? Russia's? Ukraine's?), which means you can't honestly say that something worse can't happen. Seems to me like the Ukrainians have a clearer idea than you of what that "something" might be. Could perhaps explain the ferocity of their resistance to the Russian invasion, in stark contrast to the initial expectations of the invasion's organisers.


Who the fuck's talking about happy outcomes? I'm not a fan of NATO, and Russia's invasion has revitalised that military alliance. It was a completely bone-headed move that Russian leadership was in no way forced to take, indeed, only the highest echelons even knew it was a thing until it was already happening. When a nuclear-armed power starts pulling shit like that, it's only sensible for other countries to band together against that. Finland already has a long history of being prepared for Russian aggression, but the invasion of Ukraine strongly suggests that merely being prepared on one's own strengths is no longer a sufficient deterrent. So alliances will be made, and as it seems there's no real desire in Finland to reinvent the wheel, thus the talk of NATO membership.



I'm sorry, but I am utterly failing to see what Ukraine has to compromise for in the first place. They were fucking invaded. As far as I see, any talk of compromise is completely invalid so long as there are Russian boots on Ukrainian soil. It's like asking someone in their home to compromise with a home invader. Completely barking up the wrong tree.
Click to expand...
No side was serious enough about Minsk. They should have been as it was probably the only way of avoiding this war.

What's so hard to understand about 'unsatisfactory compromise'? The Russians won't stop unless they see themselves having gained something. This will piss off the Ukrainians and the west, who want to see an outright defeat of Russia even when that is most likely not possible without risking a disatrous escalation. So in the end nobody is entirely satisfied. It will hardly be the first war to end in an such a way. There are always people looking on from a safe distance with righteous indignation, but they don't matter.

You talk as if Ukrainians are some kind of unified whole. The reality is that the overwhelming majority had no say in the buildup to the war, have no say in how it's conducted and no say in how it will end. Nor will they have any real say in what happens to them afterwards.

What I mean about no happy outcome from the expansion of NATO is that it merely stores up problems for the future. I neither deny that it's happening nor claim that the invasion is not the cause.
 
RD2003 said:
No side was serious enough about Minsk. They should have been as it was probably the only way of avoiding this war.
Click to expand...

Even if were to I accept your mealy-mouthed "both sides" narrative, it became utterly irrelevant the very moment that Russian troops crossed the Ukrainian border. The Russian leadership had a choice, and they chose to make the situation so much worse.

RD2003 said:
What's so hard to understand about 'unsatisfactory compromise'? The Russians won't stop unless they see themselves having gained something. This will piss off the Ukrainians and the west, who want to see an outright defeat of Russia even when that is most likely not possible without risking a disatrous escalation. So in the end nobody is entirely satisfied. It will hardly be the first war to end in an such a way. There are always people looking on from a safe distance with righteous indignation, but they don't matter.
Click to expand...

You are ignoring the fact that by choosing to act like a horde of marauding orcs, the Russian government has closed off many, if not all, potential avenues for compromise in the eyes of many Ukrainians. Why the fuck should Ukrainians compromise with a regime that not only tries to gaslight and mindfuck them every step of the way, but does similar shit to their own people? Did you miss the news of negotiators being poisoned? How the fuck can you even have any sincere discussions with a party like that?

I do not at all blame any Ukrainians if they think "nah, fuck that for a lark" and decides to just shoot the Russian invaders, instead of trying to reason with them.
RD2003 said:
You talk as if Ukrainians are some kind of unified whole.
Click to expand...

No, I am not. Unity isn't needed. I am saying that a large enough amount of Ukrainians are willing to put themselves on the line, enough that Russia has already had to significantly scale back their ambitions for the region. It's possible that if the war goes badly enough for the Russians, that it will cause enough trouble among the ranks and at home, and Russia will have to withdraw completely in order to deal with their own problems.

RD2003 said:
The reality is that the overwhelming majority had no say in the buildup to the war, have no say in how it's conducted and no say in how it will end. Nor will they have any real say in what happens to them afterwards.
Click to expand...

They wouldn't have any say in the planned Russification of Ukraine either. Well actually, by joining the fight today they will be contributing their straw, and the camel's back could well break before that happens.

RD2003 said:
What I mean about no happy outcome from the expansion of NATO is that it merely stores up problems for the future. I neither deny that it's happening nor claim that the invasion is not the cause.
Click to expand...

Nebulous, unspecified "problems for the future" are a bit pathetic in the face of an ongoing invasion.
 
NoXion said:
Even if were to I accept your mealy-mouthed "both sides" narrative, it became utterly irrelevant the very moment that Russian troops crossed the Ukrainian border. The Russian leadership had a choice, and they chose to make the situation so much worse.



You are ignoring the fact that by choosing to act like a horde of marauding orcs, the Russian government has closed off many, if not all, potential avenues for compromise in the eyes of many Ukrainians. Why the fuck should Ukrainians compromise with a regime that not only tries to gaslight and mindfuck them every step of the way, but does similar shit to their own people? Did you miss the news of negotiators being poisoned? How the fuck can you even have any sincere discussions with a party like that?

I do not at all blame any Ukrainians if they think "nah, fuck that for a lark" and decides to just shoot the Russian invaders, instead of trying to reason with them.


No, I am not. Unity isn't needed. I am saying that a large enough amount of Ukrainians are willing to put themselves on the line, enough that Russia has already had to significantly scale back their ambitions for the region. It's possible that if the war goes badly enough for the Russians, that it will cause enough trouble among the ranks and at home, and Russia will have to withdraw completely in order to deal with their own problems.



They wouldn't have any say in the planned Russification of Ukraine either. Well actually, by joining the fight today they will be contributing their straw, and the camel's back could well break before that happens.



Nebulous, unspecified "problems for the future" are a bit pathetic in the face of an ongoing invasion.
Click to expand...
Yes they did. And now a way needs to be found to bring the slaughter to an end as soon as possible, which may involve having to revive the Minsk agreement.

It is events that will bring all sides to the negotiating table, not the opinions of you, me or even 'many Ukrainians.'

Who has mentioned Ukrainians reasoning with anybody? You seem to have forgotten that they're shooting at the invaders already and have been for some weeks.

Fourth paragraph is plausible but mere speculation.

As is the fifth paragraph. You, like everybody else, don't know whether this 'Russification' is being planned or not (one moment you bemoan Russian gaslighting and the next you're swallowing wholesale what is possibly just Russian gaslighting (now that gaslighting is claimed to be everywhere throughout the world's societies, I'm beginning to wish Patrick Hamiliton had never written that play.)

Don't see why speculating on the future is suddenly forbidden just because this particular invasion has happened. Invasions have happened in various parts of the world over the decades and nobody seemed to suggests it then. It's particularly odd when coming from those who are speculating on the outcome of this war all day every day.

I politely suggest that you try to be less emotional about all this. You are not one of those at war, and are under no imminent threat.
 
Last edited:
You've been asked a dozen times to explain what you actually mean when saying the arms industry is "a very significant part of the mess." Unless and until you do so your statements are too vague to engage with. This isn't denying the role of the arms industry, it's asking you to explain what you're basing your views off - because on current evidence it appears to be nothing.

The difference is between someone saying "I think RD2003 is a fucking idiot" without citing examples, and pointing at this thread and saying "this is why I think RD2003 is a fucking idiot." Sourcing, see? It allows people to see exactly why I might think you're a fucking idiot and properly respond. If the evidence is solid then hey, I've convinced someone of the thing I want them to agree with. If it isn't then they can critique me for it and maybe I'll retract my view.
 
Last edited:
Rob Ray said:
You've been asked a dozen times to explain what you actually mean when saying the arms industry is "a very significant part of the mess." Unless and until you do so your statements are too vague to engage with. This isn't denying the role of the arms industry, it's asking you to explain what you're basing your views off - because on current evidence it appears to be nothing.
Click to expand...
OK then: Weapons appear from nowhere, as if by magic. No arms industry has a hand in them. No arms industry benefits from miltary build-ups or the expansion of military alliances anywhere, nor ever has done. The arms industry is nowhere near the war currently going on at the fringe of Europe.

Nobody ever got immensely rich from the manufacture and sale of arms.

I used to think I worked in an arms factory myself back in the 80s, but I now realise it must have been something else.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Pickman's model
Ukraine after the war
2 3
Replies
62
Views
6K
phildwyer
phildwyer
hitmouse
  • Poll
The war and "the left" - what do "we" do?
42 43 44 45 46
Replies
1K
Views
56K
Jeremiah18.17
Jeremiah18.17
Bingoman
Are we now in a new cold war?
2
Replies
54
Views
4K
Humberto
Humberto
RD2003
What will the unforeseen consequences of the war be?
2
Replies
58
Views
5K
RD2003
RD2003
Doctor Carrot
The long term causes of war in Ukraine
Replies
28
Views
3K
phildwyer
phildwyer
Back
Top Bottom