Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

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

LDC said:
A negotiated diplomatic solution then? With an unwilling to negotiate any reasonable terms Russia? Just trying to pick out what you're suggesting more generally.
Click to expand...
As the more sensible commentators have noted, there will be a negotiated solution whether me, you or anybody else likes it.
 
cupid_stunt said:
Well Russia is still attempting to advance and certainly not showing any signs of withdrawing, so exactly WTF are the Ukrainians supposed to do?
Click to expand...
They will carry on doing what they are already doing. But the end result is likely to be a messy compromise that satisfies nobody.
 
RD2003 said:
They will carry on doing what they are already doing. But the end result is likely to be a messy compromise that satisfies nobody.
Click to expand...

So, basically you think they will have to give up a large part of their country, and await the next time when Russia is ready to take the next part, rinse & repeat until all of Ukraine is taken over?

Because, that's the reality of the situation.
 
cupid_stunt said:
So, basically you think they will have to give up a large part of their country, and await the next time when Russia is ready to take the next part, rinse & repeat until all of Ukraine is taken over?

Because, that's the reality of the situation.
Click to expand...
Don't know what they'll do. Neither do any of us.
 
RD2003 said:
What is so important about what we on here think we want?

I, for one, am only sorry the whole disaster has occurred in the first place.
Click to expand...

It's not important what either of us wish.

But am curious as to why you are reticent to give at least an opinion on this matter.

Obviously Ukraine is not the only country that has suffered from brutal invasions.

For example, take Palestine. Should the people just roll over and accept the land grabs, apartheid and erasure of its culture?
 
krtek a houby said:
It's not important what either of us wish.

But am curious as to why you are reticent to give at least an opinion on this matter.

Obviously Ukraine is not the only country that has suffered from brutal invasions.

For example, take Palestine. Should the people just roll over and accept the land grabs, apartheid and erasure of its culture?
Click to expand...
There are dozens of posts where I have expressed an opinion, spread over several threads. See those if you want an opinion, and take it or leave it.
 
strung out said:
Stopping giving Ukraine weapons will certainly have some effect, such as seeing them militarily defeated, their culture destroyed, their women raped, and the genocide of their people.

But at least 'the killing will stop' you utter prat.
Click to expand...
Bit old for being so excitable about a war far from home, aren't we?

For one thing, you are using the term genocide inaccurately and diminishing cases of actual genocide. There have been manyY atrocities for sure, but not genocide.

I am not suggesting that Ukraine shouldn't be given weapons, but am concerned that offensive weaponry will see the conflict escalate into something worse. Especially as the Russians will not allow themselves to be seen to be definitively defeated. That is the reality.

Anybody would think that a war has never been brought to a halt through diplomatic means before. Usually, as I keep saying, this involves all sides accepting an unsatisfactory compromise. This is what will happen here eventually, no matter how much you keep dreaming of a glorious victory (which will not be your victory anyway.)
 
strung out said:
Either you've not been following closely, or you don't understand the definition of genocide. Not sure which is worse.
Click to expand...
Why don't you enlighten us?

And as if the way to prevention genocide or mass atrocities is endless escalation of a war, forcing at least one side into ever more desperate measures and reckless actions. .
 
RD2003 said:
Why don't you enlighten us?

And as if the way to prevention genocide or mass atrocities is endless escalation of a war.
Click to expand...
The UN define it thus:

In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:
  1. Killing members of the group;
  2. Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
  3. Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
  4. Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
  5. Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.
Russia is guilty of at least three of those.
 
strung out said:
The UN define it thus:

In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:
  1. Killing members of the group;
  2. Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
  3. Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
  4. Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
  5. Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.
Russia is guilty of at least three of those.
Click to expand...
Seems there is a debate about genocide going on. This is just one of several pages or articles listed on Google before I stopped looking. The politics of calling the Russia-Ukraine war a genocide


How does a government declare something a genocide?

Kate Cronin-Furman: “This is something that the U.S. has done. The U.S. government has done a handful of times in the last 20 or 30 years, which is to officially label acts genocide. It's worth noting here that there is no official policy that undermines ... underlies this, and there's also no formal process. So it's a little bit opaque what exactly this means and why the U.S. does it. But we have seen it previously with regard to Bosnia, with regard to Rwanda, with regard to the attacks on Kurds in Iraq, Darfur, ISIS attacks on the Yazidi and most recently with the Biden administration, the Genocide against the Uyghurs and against the Rohingya."
 
NoXion said:
Russia have been pretty open about their ambitions to destroy Ukraine. Not just physically by blowing up buildings and people, but also by wiping out the very idea of a Ukrainian identity.

Click to expand...
No matter how much they talk about it, they won't be able to actually do it.

Once again, we have the very same people telling us how weak Russia is and how humiliated it has been in Ukraine. The next moment, they're more powerful than the Third Reich. It's a variation on the argument that goes along the lines of how Russia will never recover from this reckless gamble but will also march on into the Baltic states and Poland.
 
RD2003 said:
No matter how much they talk about it, they won't be able to actually do it.

Once again, we have the very same people telling us how weak Russia is and how humiliated it has been in Ukraine. The next moment, they're more powerful than the Third Reich. It's a variation on the argument that goes along the lines of how Russia will never recover from this reckless gamble but will also march on into the Baltic states and Poland.
Click to expand...

You don't need a great deal of resources to attempt genocide, which is bad enough even if it's not entirely successful. Rwanda is a much smaller and poorer country than Russia, but nobody disputes the genocide that occurred there.
 
yield said:
Gorbachev set red lines about Nato expansion into Eastern Europe. The USA set the stage for it being an existential crisis.
Click to expand...

Err, Gorbachev & NATO agreed terms in respect of East Germany reuniting with West Germany, nothing was agreed beyond that, because no one was expecting the whole Soviet Union would start falling apart soon after.

'I wish people wouldn't refer to 'NATO expansion' in light of the current Russian expansion plans, because unlike Russia, NATO never invaded the former Soviet republics in eastern Europe, as independent sovereign states they decided to join NATO as their best protection against Russian aggression. And, this year has proved they made the right choice.

USA are only willing to fight for Ukraine until the last dead Ukrainian. They'll bunker down in Poland and the Baltic states.
Click to expand...

That's sadly because France & Germany vetoed Ukraine's NATO membership in 2008, so they haven't got the same level of protection that Poland and the Baltic states enjoy.

That people like RD2003 and TopCat, who are against imperialist war, get called appeasers or Putin apologists stinks. War is Hell.
Click to expand...

Those two are complete clowns, they don't agree with the west supporting the Ukrainians in defending themselves against this Russian imperialist invasion, which basically implies they would be happy for Russia to do whatever they want, hence they come across as appeasers.

They bring nothing to the table beyond 'war is bad, therefore it needs to stop', proper student level of politics, they haven't not a single idea between them about how to end it, beyond it seems stopping support from the west, so Russia can bring it to an end quickly, and on their terms.

War is Hell.
Click to expand...

Yes it is, and in an ideal world Russia would never have started one, or at least would now give up on it and fuck off.

Sadly we don't live in some 'ideal student politics utopia', the Ukrainians are left with two choices - let Russia win, or fight back.'




I'm not allowed to post on the main war thread, so I'll answer this post from Cupid on there here.

First, the Soviet Union did fall apart (or more accurately dismantled itself), which changed everything. Not least of it was that it eventually, and inevitably, brought Russian nationalism to the fore. Whatever was agreed with Gorbachev and co., NATO and the western powers knew very well that there would be a reaction from Russia if they continued pushing NATO eastwards. Now they've got it, and it's a mess. Ordinary Ukrainians and Russians suffer, while the dubious bunch of chancers in the Ukraine government and their allies in western governments go for glory and keep an eye on their place in history.

In doing that pushing, NATO and the west chose an unnecessary and eventually disastrous path when it didn't have to. So what that anti-Russian governments in the former eastern bloc applied to join NATO? In light of the fact that NATO knew very well that there would be a reaction from Russia, they could have been refused and new security arrangements that satisfied all concerned carved out. In particular, they could have done this when what was probably the most western-friendly government in Russian history was in power in the 1990s. (Although I'm not sure Russia even opposes every former Warsaw Pact nation joining NATO.)

The fact that France and Germany refused Ukraine's application in 2008 only shows how much they were aware of the likely Russian response.

I for one do agree with Ukraine's right to defend itself. I also wish that Russia hadn't invaded. But I simply point out that the war to the bitter end that the UK and the US in particular are cheering Ukraine on to is extremely unlikely to achieve the outcome they desire, and carries the risk of disastrous escalation, and the spreading of the war to other countries. We have a Foreign Secretary who is not even fit to serve on a parish council pushing an half-baked ideologically-driven agenda, for instance. People like her are the real clowns, as well as armchair generals and war cheerleaders from a safe distance like Cupid Stunt (who actually talks of fellow posters on an obscure message board as appeasers, as if we actually have influence over things.) Armchair war is probably the ultimate in naivety and delusion. It's even worse than student politics. Cupid's final remarks, where he argues against stuff that only comes out of his own head, only confirms this.


*Edited late as put an additional sentence in wrong paragraph in an earlier edit.
 
Last edited:
RD2003 said:
There are dozens of posts where I have expressed an opinion, spread over several threads. See those if you want an opinion, and take it or leave it.
Click to expand...

Again, it's really a simple question.


Let's rephrase. If a country is invaded, should it accept the invasion or defend itself?
 
krtek a houby said:
Why not? It's only opinion, as you keep telling us.

Please explain why Ukraine or any other country should not defend themselves against an invasion.
Click to expand...
I refer you to my previous post. Now go and do something more fulfilling. Or have a wank maybe.
 
unfortunately, Vlad is on a rampage much like Milosevic, Hitler, etc if he's not stopped in Ukraine he will have to be stopped in the Baltics or Poland :(
 
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
57K
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
2
Replies
32
Views
3K
The39thStep
The39thStep
Back
Top Bottom