Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

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

I assume the answer is yes. Given your lack of ability to answer a straight question, but going on with tireless spam-fest.
 
I assume the answer is yes. Given your lack of ability to answer a straight question, but going on with tireless spam-fest.
I can still hear him, even though I'm skulking in a shop doorway. And still no sign of a bus. Might flag down a black cab if one comes along.
 
In the UK, the former Commander Joint Forces Command of the British army, Gen Richard Barrons, has been interviewed by Sky News about the current situation in Ukraine. He had this to say on the prospect for humanitarian corridors out of Sievierodonetsk, where some 10,000 civilians are said to be trapped:

It’s very unlikely to work until – and unless – Russia sees advantage in doing that. And so were Russia to decide it has gone as far as it wants to, or can, in the Donbas, it might try and make a virtue of letting people out of cities like this, so that they no longer are a threat to them, and they no longer have to look after them.
He stressed that Russia’s President Vladimir Putin seems very secure in his position, observing:

This isn’t a war just between Putin and Ukraine. This is a war where a large number of the Russian population genuinely supports it. It’s a combination of the information that they receive, and also their view of Russian history and Russia’s place in the world. This is not just a war with a small clique in the Kremlin.
Barrons said that Russia’s action would have to prompt a strategic rethink from Nato, telling viewers:

In the short to medium term, Nato is revitalising itself because it’s seen what Russia is really like under Putin and what it’s capable of doing. So it’s going to reset the conventional defence and deterrence of Europe, with the new members as they line up.
He suggested that western countries needed to offer further military support to Ukraine, saying:

I think everyone has to be impressed by the spirit of national resistance we’ve seen from Ukraine. We should recognise they knew this day would come. They knew Russians would invade again after 2014. And we should also recognise that that we simply failed to give them the military means they needed to deter and defeat that invasion. And now we’re all playing catch up.
 
In the UK, the former Commander Joint Forces Command of the British army, Gen Richard Barrons, has been interviewed by Sky News about the current situation in Ukraine. He had this to say on the prospect for humanitarian corridors out of Sievierodonetsk, where some 10,000 civilians are said to be trapped:


He stressed that Russia’s President Vladimir Putin seems very secure in his position, observing:


Barrons said that Russia’s action would have to prompt a strategic rethink from Nato, telling viewers:


He suggested that western countries needed to offer further military support to Ukraine, saying:
but what do you think?
 
Anyway, I'll just move these links up the thread in case they were missed in the distractions of late last night (which I am equally responsible for.)






To be clear, Russia’s assault on Ukraine is illegal: the Kremlin attacked a country that presented no clear and present danger to Russian national security. Worse, Russia has indiscriminately struck civilian targets, and its soldiers have committed war crimes. Consequently, Ukraine has the right to defend its independence and should be given the means to do.

Yet, we should not delude ourselves about how far the rest of the world will go in supporting Ukraine. Washington has a bad habit of assuming that, with the right amount of pressure or inducement, other states will eventually line up behind the U.S. as it tries to solve a problem, manage a crisis, or punish an aggressor.

But international politics is a far more complicated affair. How the world looks depends in large measure on where a specific country sits and what its interests are and how much of those interests it can reasonably sacrifice. This is true even in instances, such as Russia’s attack on Ukraine, where a wrong is easily discernible. The U.S. would be better served if it were to live in a world of reality — however frustrating that may be — rather than a world of make-believe, in which countries reliably follow the lead of American policymakers. Otherwise, the U.S. will set itself up for disappointment, frustration and potentially failure.
 
Opinion | Negotiating to End the Ukraine War Isn’t Appeasement

'Meanwhile, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy insists, not surprisingly, that “victory will be ours” and urges Ukrainians to “defend every meter of our land.” And Biden, even as he makes mention of the need for diplomacy, has so far been unwilling to caution Kyiv against those aims, instead affirming “I will not pressure the Ukrainian government — in private or public — to make any territorial concessions.” “We’re not going to tell the Ukrainians how to negotiate, what to negotiate and when to negotiate,” Colin Kahl, the undersecretary of defense for policy, reiterated this week. “They’re going to set those terms for themselves.”
But Washington has not only a right to discuss war aims with Kyiv, but also an obligation. This conflict arguably represents the most dangerous geopolitical moment since the Cuban missile crisis. A hot war is raging between a nuclear-armed Russia and a NATO-armed Ukraine, with NATO territory abutting the conflict zone. This war could define the strategic and economic contours of the 21st century, possibly opening an era of militarized rivalry between the world’s liberal democracies and an autocratic bloc anchored by Russia and China.
These stakes necessitate direct U.S. engagement in determining when and how this war ends. Instead of offering arms with no strings attached — effectively leaving strategy up to the Ukrainians — Washington needs to launch a forthright discussion about war termination with allies, with Kyiv, and ultimately, with Moscow.'
.
'To prepare the ground for that pivot, the Biden administration should stop making claims that could tie its own hands at the negotiating table. Biden insists that the West must “make it clear that might does not make right.” Otherwise, “it will send a message to other would-be aggressors that they too can seize territory and subjugate other countries. It will put the survival of other peaceful democracies at risk. And it could mark the end of the rules-based international order.” '



'Really? Russia has illegally held Crimea and occupied a chunk of Donbas since 2014. But the rules-based international order has not come to an end; indeed, it has performed admirably in punishing Russia for its new round of aggression against Ukraine. Washington should avoid painting itself into a corner by predicting catastrophe if Russia remains in control of a slice of Ukraine when the fighting stops. Such forecasts make compromise more difficult — and risk magnifying the geopolitical impact of whatever territorial gains Russia may salvage.'



'The claim that Vladimir Putin will end his trouble-making only if he is decisively defeated in Ukraine is another fallacious argument that distorts debate and stands in the way of diplomacy.
Writing in The Atlantic, Anne Applebaum calls for the “humiliation” of Putin and insists that “the defeat, sidelining, or removal of Putin is the only outcome that offers any long-term stability in Ukraine and the rest of Europe.” Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin wants to weaken Russia “to the degree that it can’t do the kinds of things that it has done in invading Ukraine.”
But this is wishful thinking, not strategic sobriety. Putin is poised to remain in power for the foreseeable future. He will be a troublemaker no matter how this war ends; flexing his geopolitical muscle and burnishing his nationalist credentials are the primary sources of his domestic legitimacy. Furthermore, humiliating Putin is risky business; he could well be more reckless with his back up against the wall than if he can claim victory by taking another bite out of Ukraine. The West has learned to live with and contain Putin for the past two decades — and will likely continue to have to do so into the next.
Finally, Biden needs to start weaning mainstream debate away from the false equation of diplomacy with appeasement. When Henry Kissinger recently proposed in Davos that Ukraine may need to make territorial concessions to end the war, Zelenskyy retorted: “It seems that Mr. Kissinger’s calendar is not 2022, but 1938, and he thought he was talking to an audience not in Davos, but in Munich of that time.” Biden himself asserts that “It would be wrong and contrary to well-settled principles” to counsel Ukraine on potential concessions at the negotiating table.
But strategic prudence should not be mistaken for appeasement. It is in Ukraine’s own self-interest to avoid a conflict that festers for years and instead negotiate a ceasefire and follow-on process aimed at concluding a territorial settlement.

The United States, its NATO allies, Russia, and the rest of the world have an interest in securing this same outcome — precisely why it is now time for Biden to set the negotiating table.'
 
Opinion | Why non-Western countries tend to see Russia's war very differently

'But therein lies the disconnect with much of the Global South. In conversations with diplomats and analysts from across Africa, Asia, the Middle East and Latin America, it was evident to me that these countries largely sympathize with the plight of the Ukrainian people and view Russia as the aggressor. But Western demands that they make costly sacrifices by cutting off economic ties with Russia to uphold a “rules-based order” have begotten an allergic reaction. That order hasn’t been rules-based; instead, it has allowed the U.S. to violate international law with impunity. The West’s messaging on Ukraine has taken its tone-deafness to a whole new level, and it is unlikely to win over the support of countries that have often experienced the worse sides of the international order.'

'The damaging consequences of American interventionism play a significant role in the calculations of countries across the Global South. Most of them seek close relations with the U.S. But because of U.S. unilateralism, they desire options to find counterweights against U.S. power when needed. The emergence of a multipolar system provides countries of the Global South with a degree of protection against American adventurism, while they largely see Russia’s military intervention in Ukraine as a European affair that doesn’t change the larger global picture, in which balancing options against the U.S. rather than Russia are sought after.'
 
RD2003, what do you think? What's with this copy and paste, emboldening fest? If you want to add a link and your thoughts on it, great. But this ^ is just pointless really.
 
RD2003, what do you think? What's with this copy and paste, emboldening fest? If you want to add a link and your thoughts on it, great. But this ^ is just pointless really.
I linked to those articles as some people at least might find them interesting or want to debate the points. As I said last night.

I haven't commented, as they pretty much agree with what I've been arguing, over several threads, for months.
 
It's pointless and irritating though. And no-one's going to read all that copy and pasted text. 🤷‍♀️
I don't see how you can know who is or isn't reading what.

And it's no more pointless or irritating than the regurgitated hand-wringing and 'rah rah rah the war' stuff that certain posters have been indulging in since before the invasion itself.

You don't have to read anything you don't want to though.
 
I don't see how you can know who is or isn't reading what.

And it's no more pointless or irritating than the regurgitated hand-wringing and 'rah rah rah the war' stuff that certain posters have been indulging in since before the invasion itself.

You don't have to read anything you don't want to though.
i'd rather read teuchter's tosh, which at least he's come up with himself, than your dreadful litany of cut and past shit, you've not a thought of your own
 
Last edited:
There's little need to add anything of my own in these instances, when the bolded bits are saying basically what I've been saying for months. As it seems I have to keep pointing out.

And they say it better than me, a bit like they say things better than you or almost anybody else on here. Which makes for a better/easier read.

Some people may feel the need to comment on absolutely everything. It's how you take your posts into the hundreds of thousands, I suppose. Others are able to rein in their inner windbag.

Takes all sorts to make a world...
 
Some people may feel the need to comment on absolutely everything. It's how you take your posts into the hundreds of thousands, I suppose. Others are able to rein in their inner windbag.
i wish i could say that was the truth but the way you carry on posting other people's thoughts without showing either agreement or dissent with their views suggests that's not the case for you, you post up ream after ream of verbiage which adds fuck all to the thread
 
If you were in a country and one of your neighbouring countries invaded and threatened to wipe you and your culture off the map, as Russia has done.
Firstly would you be bothered?
Secondly, would you care where the help came from to try and push back the aggressor?
Thirdly, Your country has been invaded by another country. Are you going appreciate that the sentiment from some people in safe countries is that the countries giving help are being blamed for the death of your friends and family and not the country that is shelling you?

I assume you aren't going to answer this, or just give some vague answer about having answered it already.
 
i wish i could say that was the truth but the way you carry on posting other people's thoughts without showing either agreement or dissent with their views suggests that's not the case for you, you post up ream after ream of verbiage which adds fuck all to the thread
Maybe stop coming on the thread, or add something of your own? At least half of your near quarter of a million posts must surely be just moaning about other posters you could easily ignore.
 
If you were in a country and one of your neighbouring countries invaded and threatened to wipe you and your culture off the map, as Russia has done.
Firstly would you be bothered?
Secondly, would you care where the help came from to try and push back the aggressor?
Thirdly, Your country has been invaded by another country. Are you going appreciate that the sentiment from some people in safe countries is that the countries giving help are being blamed for the death of your friends and family and not the country that is shelling you?

I assume you aren't going to answer this, or just give some vague answer about having answered it already.

No idea. But none of that has anything to do with the posts under discussion, which I've already said I largely agree with. Of course, that's agreeing while sitting at a safe distance of several thousand miles. Others prefer to join the action, from a safe distance of several thousand miles.

As I said, it takes all sorts.
 
Back
Top Bottom