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

[strung out]

One side didn't want to negotiate seriously. They're also the ones who can stop all the slaughter and the carnage

 

[two sheds]

And now they face the risk of all risks, and thousands of innocents pay the price.

Whatever the risk, diplomacy should have been prolonged. Constantly stalling negotiation, drawn out indefinitely if necessary, would have been better than slaughter and carnage.

But while the negotiations were going on the slaughter and carnage continued. It wasn't and isn't an either/or.

 

[RD2003]

But while the negotiations were going on the slaughter and carnage continued. It wasn't and isn't an either/or.

Yes, but the failure of the negotiations changed a regional slaughter into a nationwide slaughter.

 

[two sheds]

How come? You're assuming that Russia wouldn't have taken it nationwide anyway. And note that it's Russia that has been slaughtering civilians. Ukraine is defending itself.

 

[RD2003]

How come? You're assuming that Russia wouldn't have taken it nationwide anyway. And note that it's Russia that has been slaughtering civilians. Ukraine is defending itself.

Outside pressure and incentive could have been applied for continuing negotations while Russia was only in Donbass. Trouble was Russia wanted a fight with its little brother and the west wanted its proxy war with Russia. The arms billionaires looked on with glee, rubbing their hands.

 

[IC3D]

Russia flogging no strings arms to a host of African countries, got the French kicked out of Mali in favour for Wagner to fight their Islamists. Former white colonisers are losing there

 

[Supine]

Yes, but the failure of the negotiations changed a regional slaughter into a nationwide slaughter.

You really are rewriting history here.

 

[RD2003]

You really are rewriting history here.

No I'm not. At all and any times wjhen the war was confined to Donbass, negotiations could have been kept going had there been a will. Too many on Russia's side and the on that of the west and its proxy Ukraine wanted conflict, however.

You merely think I'm rewriting the version of history you have plumped for.

 

[agricola]

Outside pressure and incentive could have been applied for continuing negotations while Russia was only in Donbass. Trouble was Russia wanted a fight with its little brother and the west wanted its proxy war with Russia. The arms billionaires looked on with glee, rubbing their hands.

There absolutely should have been more focus on negotiations, but anyone who thinks this conflict wasn't going to result in increased defence spending is delusional. That Johnson still hasn't increased ours (or dealt with some of the more obscene bits of waste like Annington or the Ajax procurement) is profoundly alarming.

 

[RD2003]

There absolutely should have been more focus on negotiations, but anyone who thinks this conflict wasn't going to result in increased defence spending is delusional. That Johnson still hasn't increased ours (or dealt with some of the more obscene bits of waste like Annington or the Ajax procurement) is profoundly alarming.

Don't really know why this is aimed at me. I clearly think increased defence spending is an inevitable result of this war.

 

[mojo pixy]

Outside pressure and incentive could have been applied for continuing negotations while Russia was only in Donbass. Trouble was Russia wanted a fight with its little brother and the west wanted its proxy war with Russia.

If the bolded bit had been true but the underlined bit not (just as a thought experiment, say) how would things have played out differently for Ukraine so far, do you think? Would their government have changed? Would their borders be as they were on Feb 23rd? Would fewer people have died, been displaced by now? I really want to know how you imagine this unfolding without any 'proxy war' issue.

 

[RD2003]

If the bolded bit had been true but the underlined bit not (just as a thought experiment, say) how would things have played out differently for Ukraine so far, do you think? Would their government have changed? Would their borders be as they were on Feb 23rd? Would fewer people have died, been displaced by now? I really want to know how you imagine this unfolding without any 'proxy war' issue.

I've never been able to imagine it unfolding other than as the disaster it's proving to be.

 

[mojo pixy]

I've never been able to imagine it unfolding other than as the disaster it's proving to be.

Oh, I can. I can imagine it being over in a month or less, had the Russian army been better and nobody supported Ukraine, perhaps out of fear of Russia.

 

[RD2003]

Comparisons to 1914 are spurious says an academic who supports Ukraine.





Historian says don’t compare Ukraine invasion with his book on first world war | Ukraine | The Guardian





There is no analogy between 1914 and the situation in Ukraine now”, Clark said. “The first world war began in an incredibly complex, around-the-houses way. Whereas in the case of the invasion of Ukraine, in 2014 and this year, it’s quite clearly a case of the breach of the peace by just one power.


“It’s a very different set-up. There’s no Balkan crisis, there’s no sequence of will-they won’t-they decisions. Europe is not divided into a binary pair of alliance systems. In Europe, at least, Russia is isolated this time.”


Clark also rejected comparisons between the current geopolitical situation and that on the eve of the second world war, one favoured by those who accuse Berlin of appeasing Moscow. “I don’t see it being like 1938 either, and Putin is not like Hitler,” he said.


“Hitler had a profoundly racist philosophy, where the Germans were a biomass that was going to expand across the European continent. A better analogy would be with the opportunist Russian predations of the 19th century – most of which we in the west don’t know much about, because they were at the expense of the Ottoman empire. The world in general is more and more like the 19th century: multipolar and unpredictable.”

 

[Cid]

Comparisons to 1914 are spurious says an academic who supports Ukraine.





Historian says don’t compare Ukraine invasion with his book on first world war | Ukraine | The Guardian





There is no analogy between 1914 and the situation in Ukraine now”, Clark said. “The first world war began in an incredibly complex, around-the-houses way. Whereas in the case of the invasion of Ukraine, in 2014 and this year, it’s quite clearly a case of the breach of the peace by just one power.


“It’s a very different set-up. There’s no Balkan crisis, there’s no sequence of will-they won’t-they decisions. Europe is not divided into a binary pair of alliance systems. In Europe, at least, Russia is isolated this time.”


Clark also rejected comparisons between the current geopolitical situation and that on the eve of the second world war, one favoured by those who accuse Berlin of appeasing Moscow. “I don’t see it being like 1938 either, and Putin is not like Hitler,” he said.


“Hitler had a profoundly racist philosophy, where the Germans were a biomass that was going to expand across the European continent. A better analogy would be with the opportunist Russian predations of the 19th century – most of which we in the west don’t know much about, because they were at the expense of the Ottoman empire. The world in general is more and more like the 19th century: multipolar and unpredictable.”

Ah, so... the opportunistic land-grab of a latter-day tsar, rather than the outcome of complex geopolitical machinations.

But negotiations?

 

[RD2003]

Ah, so... the opportunistic land-grab of a latter-day tsar, rather than the outcome of complex geopolitical machinations.

But negotiations?

That seems to be his view. My opinion, and not an original one, is that it's also rooted in the way the Russian elites see Russia's place in the world, and what they see Ukraine as meaning to Russia.

Negotiations will have to take place eventually, as in all wars. They should never have been abandoned in the first place.

 

[Kaka Tim]

so here we go again - the war was "avoidable" - Ukraine is at least partly responsible for being invaded cos they weren't willing to give in to Russia's demands (russia having already illeglaly annexed part of their territory and kicked off a secessionist struggle in eastern Ukraine) Even if they were being "unreasonable" and if that was cos of nefarious western powers egging them on - (highly contentious) - its completely besides the point - there is no justification for invading another country. Its like saying that those people who were stabbed to death by their ex-squaddie neighbour over a parking dispute were partly to blame cos he had a point about them constantly leaving their camper van right outside his house.
please - just fuck right off with this shit.

 

[8ball]

so here we go again - the war was "avoidable" - Ukraine is at least partly responsible for being invaded cos they weren't willing to give in to Russia's demands (russia having already illeglaly annexed part of their territory and kicked off a secessionist struggle in eastern Ukraine) Even if they were being "unreasonable" and if that was cos of nefarious western powers egging them on - (highly contentious) - its completely besides the point - there is no justification for invading another country. Its like saying that those people who were stabbed to death by their ex-squaddie neighbour over a parking dispute were partly to blame cos he had a point about them constantly leaving their camper van right outside his house.
please - just fuck right off with this shit.

I think this is a bit biased against ex-squaddie neighbours.

 

[RD2003]

so here we go again - the war was "avoidable" - Ukraine is at least partly responsible for being invaded cos they weren't willing to give in to Russia's demands (russia having already illeglaly annexed part of their territory and kicked off a secessionist struggle in eastern Ukraine) Even if they were being "unreasonable" and if that was cos of nefarious western powers egging them on - (highly contentious) - its completely besides the point - there is no justification for invading another country. Its like saying that those people who were stabbed to death by their ex-squaddie neighbour over a parking dispute were partly to blame cos he had a point about them constantly leaving their camper van right outside his house.
please - just fuck right off with this shit.

Of course a full-scale invasion was avoidable if there had been a willingness on all sides to avoid it.

 

[strung out]

Of course a full-scale invasion was avoidable if there had been a willingness on all sides to avoid it.

Problem was Ukraine just didn't try hard enough to not be invaded

 

[RD2003]

Problem was Ukraine just didn't try hard enough to not be invaded

If they'd accepted neutrailty, they wouldn't have been invaded.

Whether this is a good or bad thing is irrelevant. it's just reality.

 

[Supine]

Of course a full-scale invasion was avoidable if there had been a willingness on all sides to avoid it.

What a stupid thing to say. Putin could have avoided it by not doing it. Ukraine didn’t get a fucking say in the matter. Idiot.

 

[Kaka Tim]

If they'd accepted neutrailty, they wouldn't have been invaded.

Whether this is a good or bad thing is irrelevant. it's just reality.

Its not "reality" - its bullshit. Putin wanted Ukraine to be Russian - or a Russian puppet at the very least. Or have you missed the many many times he has expressed this desire in great detail?
And even if it was true its on a par with arguing that "if Poland had given up Danzig to nazi germany, they wouldnt have been invaded"

 

[RD2003]

Its not "reality" - its bullshit. Putin wanted Ukraine to be Russian - or a Russian puppet at the very least. Or have you missed the many many times he has expressed this desire in great detail?
And even if it was true its on a par with arguing that "if Poland had given up Danzig to nazi germany, they wouldnt have been invaded"

You clearly have difficulty distinguishing between what you consider to be a principle and the reality of a situation.

The stuff about Ukraine being essentially Russian, despite this being a Russian nationalist view for centuries, only started to be uttered publicly, and as a justification for action, after Ukraine made it clear that it was placing itself in the anti-Russian camp. This is important when the regime, and much of wider Russian opinion, considers this an existential matter. Again, whether it actually is or isn't doesn't matter when those taking the decisions do think it.

 

[RD2003]

What a stupid thing to say. Putin could have avoided it by not doing it. Ukraine didn’t get a fucking say in the matter. Idiot.

Yes they did. Zelinsky favoured continued negotation, but was pressured out of it by nationalist hardliners.

 

[tim]

If they'd accepted neutrailty, they wouldn't have been invaded.

Whether this is a good or bad thing is irrelevant. it's just reality.

The problem is that Britain doesn't have the statesmen we once had. Bringing peace to Eastern Europe by arranging minor land transfers and the demilitarisation of obscure foreign lands of which we know little was the sort of diplomatic trick we used to be able to pull off with ease

 

[RD2003]

The problem is that Britain doesn't have the statesmen we once had. Bringing peace to Eastern Europe by arranging minor land transfers and the demilitarisation of obscure foreign lands of which we know little was the sort of diplomatic trick we used to be able to pull off with ease
View attachment 329823

Yes, Britain did. But the two situations are in no way comparable.

Historian says don’t compare Ukraine invasion with his book on first world war | Ukraine | The Guardian





There is no analogy between 1914 and the situation in Ukraine now”, Clark said. “The first world war began in an incredibly complex, around-the-houses way. Whereas in the case of the invasion of Ukraine, in 2014 and this year, it’s quite clearly a case of the breach of the peace by just one power.


“It’s a very different set-up. There’s no Balkan crisis, there’s no sequence of will-they won’t-they decisions. Europe is not divided into a binary pair of alliance systems. In Europe, at least, Russia is isolated this time.”


Clark also rejected comparisons between the current geopolitical situation and that on the eve of the second world war, one favoured by those who accuse Berlin of appeasing Moscow. “I don’t see it being like 1938 either, and Putin is not like Hitler,” he said.


“Hitler had a profoundly racist philosophy, where the Germans were a biomass that was going to expand across the European continent. A better analogy would be with the opportunist Russian predations of the 19th century – most of which we in the west don’t know much about, because they were at the expense of the Ottoman empire. The world in general is more and more like the 19th century: multipolar and unpredictable.”

 

[tim]

Yes, Britain did. But the two situations are in no way comparable.

Historian says don’t compare Ukraine invasion with his book on first world war | Ukraine | The Guardian





There is no analogy between 1914 and the situation in Ukraine now”, Clark said. “The first world war began in an incredibly complex, around-the-houses way. Whereas in the case of the invasion of Ukraine, in 2014 and this year, it’s quite clearly a case of the breach of the peace by just one power.


“It’s a very different set-up. There’s no Balkan crisis, there’s no sequence of will-they won’t-they decisions. Europe is not divided into a binary pair of alliance systems. In Europe, at least, Russia is isolated this time.”


Clark also rejected comparisons between the current geopolitical situation and that on the eve of the second world war, one favoured by those who accuse Berlin of appeasing Moscow. “I don’t see it being like 1938 either, and Putin is not like Hitler,” he said.


“Hitler had a profoundly racist philosophy, where the Germans were a biomass that was going to expand across the European continent. A better analogy would be with the opportunist Russian predations of the 19th century – most of which we in the west don’t know much about, because they were at the expense of the Ottoman empire. The world in general is more and more like the 19th century: multipolar and unpredictable.”

Yes there are obviously no points of comparison between a situation where a large European country invades a smaller neighbour in the supposed interests of a minority in the smaller country that speaks the same language as the people in the big country; and a situation where a where a large European country invades a smaller neighbour in the supposed interests of a minority in the smaller country that speaks the same language as the people in the big country. In addition Putin almost certainly has at least two and quite probably more testicles.

 

[RD2003]

Yes there are obviously no points of comparison between a situation where a large European country invades a smaller neighbour in the supposed interests of a minority in the smaller country that speaks the same language as the people in the big country; and a situation where a where a large European country invades a smaller neighbour in the supposed interests of a minority in the smaller country that speaks the same language as the people in the big country. In addition Putin almost certainly has at least two and quite probably more testicles.

Have it your way then. The Prof quoted above explains quite clearly why the comparison is spurious.

But he might lack your expertise.

 

[RD2003]

Perhaps the first stirrings of calls for a ceasefire? Good to see a British establishment figure utter the dreaded word negotiation.

Ukrainian forces retreat from Lysychansk as Russia claims strategic city

www.theguardian.com

'Speaking to Sky News earlier, former British army chief Lord Dannatt said “meaningful negotiations” could arise out of Russia potentially taking full control of Ukraine’s Luhansk and Donetsk provinces.

His comments came before the Russian defence ministry reportedly claimed to have taken full control of Lysychansk, the last major Ukrainian stronghold in the region.

Following early defeats in its invasion, Russian troops have been focused on driving Ukrainian forces out of the regions in recent weeks.

“They’re relying on their huge superiority in artillery,” said Lord Dannatt. “Then once they’ve almost reduced everything to rubble, then sending their troops in to take possession of it.'



''We’re going to see that slow grind continue. They’ve very nearly achieved taking Luhansk province and then they will turn their sights to trying to get the control of Donetsk.

“I think what we’ve seen over the last few weeks shows that over the next few days and weeks they will probably achieve that.”

He added that if Russia takes both provinces, it will have achieved some of what it “wanted to achieve” in its war on Ukraine but its troops will be “exhausted”.

“The Ukrainians will also be exhausted. The Russians won’t have won’t have won, the Ukrainians won’t have lost,” he added.'

“At that point I believe the war will effectively go into a deep freeze and that’s where meaningful negotiations are going to have to start.”