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

[Pickman's model]

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.

can you show me a couple of obvious documents from the arms industry showing their support for nato expansion in the 1990s and 2000s?

 

[RD2003]

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.

Yes, all arms industries will obviously benefit from increased militarisation.

 

[RD2003]

can you show me a couple of obvious documents from the arms industry showing their support for nato expansion in the 1990s and 2000s?

Yes, they regularly send them to me by post. I'll dig them out when I get chance.

 

[NoXion]

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.

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.

'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.

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 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.

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.

 

[YouSir]

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.

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.

 

[Pickman's model]

Yes, they regularly send them to me by post. I'll dig them out when I get chance.

it's astounding how little evidence these fiendish conspirators have left lying around

 

[RD2003]

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.

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.

 

[Magnus McGinty]

Yes, all arms industries will obviously benefit from increased militarisation.

So by your logic, Putin desires NATO expansion eastwards to benefit his arms industry. The mind boggles.

 

[RD2003]

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.

Never said it isn't a complex picture.

 

[RD2003]

So by your logic, Putin desires NATO expansion eastwards to benefit his arms industry. The mind boggles.

What?

 

[YouSir]

Never said it isn't a complex picture.

Seems to me that you haven't said much of anything tbh.

 

[Pickman's model]

What?

i know, it must be a genuine surprise when someone reads your posts

 

[RD2003]

i know, it must be a genuine surprise when someone reads your posts

I know, they'd be far better reading yours. At least you're one of the career posters on here.

 

[RD2003]

Seems to me that you haven't said much of anything tbh.

Makes two, or even several of us.

 

[Magnus McGinty]

What?

I’ve joined your dots and that’s where we’ve ended up.

 

[Pickman's model]

I’ve joined your dots and that’s where we’ve ended up.

that's the kindest way of saying someone's dotty i've ever seen

 

[YouSir]

Makes two, or even several of us.

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.

 

[Pickman's model]

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.

his attitude is you'll get what you're given and you'll be grateful for it

 

[RD2003]

his attitude is you'll get what you're given and you'll be grateful for it

That's exactly how I was brought up. Never did me any harm etc etc

 

[NoXion]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

 

[Pickman's model]

That's exactly how I was brought up. Never did me any harm etc etc

it works rather better with food than opinions

 

[RD2003]

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.

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.

 

[NoXion]

No side was serious enough about Minsk. They should have been as it was probably the only way of avoiding this war.

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.

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 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.

You talk as if Ukrainians are some kind of unified whole.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Nebulous, unspecified "problems for the future" are a bit pathetic in the face of an ongoing invasion.

 

[RD2003]

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.

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.

 

[Magnus McGinty]

How will they ever get around the negotiating table with each other when 'the arms industry' is controlling events?

 

[RD2003]

How will they ever get around the negotiating table with each other when 'the arms industry' is controlling events?

Who has said it's controlling events, as opposed to being a very significant part of the mess?

 

[Magnus McGinty]

Who has said it's controlling events, as opposed to being a very significant part of the mess?

In what way is it significant? You need to set out your stall.

 

[RD2003]

In what way is it significant? You need to set out your stall.

Have the rebels and revolutionaries on here really lost sight of themselves so much that they have seriously started to deny the role of the arms industry in war?

 

[Rob Ray]

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.

 

[RD2003]

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.

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.