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

[RD2003]

Why do you keep posting then?

And you say the Russian invasion was 'inevitable', so Putin had no other choice?

So you agree with him that he had to invade.

Of course Putin had a choice. Given the context, he was only going to make one choice.

The apoliticism (is that a word?) on here, including from veteran lefties, sometimes shocks me (and at the same time doesn't.)

Don't know why I post really. Maybe because the replies kind of confirm that I'm still alive, as I said. And it's summat to do...

 

[Humberto]

Of course Putin had a choice. Given the context, he was only going to make one choice.

The apoliticism (is that a word?) on here, including from veteran lefties, sometimes shocks me (and at the same time doesn't.)

Don't know why I post really. Maybe because the replies kind of confirm that I'm still alive, as I said. And it's summat to do...

Jesus said: I am the ressurection and the life. He that believeth in me though he die yet shall he live.

Believeth thou

 

[RD2003]

Jesus said: I am the ressurection and the life. He that believeth in me though he die yet shall he live.

Believeth thou

Yeah.

 

[two sheds]

Of course Putin had a choice. Given the context, he was only going to make one choice.

Then he had no choice If he had a choice then he could have chosen not to.

You believe that Putin had only one choice which was to invade. So you believe he was right to invade, because that was his only choice. Doesn't that make you a Putin bot?

The apoliticism (is that a word?) on here, including from veteran lefties, sometimes shocks me (and at the same time doesn't.)

Don't know why I post really. Maybe because the replies kind of confirm that I'm still alive, as I said. And it's summat to do...

But you've said that there's no point in posting.Your posts are admittedly pointless.

 

[Raheem]

Who made you the one who decides what's 'useful or interesting' to anybody else'?

For the xth time-it was a quote from an article in the mainstream media. I didn't write the article.

I'm making an observation, not a determination.

 

[RD2003]

Then he had no choice If he had a choice then he could have chosen not to.

You believe that Putin had only one choice which was to invade. So you believe he was right to invade, because that was his only choice. Doesn't that make you a Putin bot?


But you've said that there's no point in posting.Your posts are admittedly pointless.

Given the strain of thought in Russian history that Putin has taken it upon himself to adopt, with the backing of much of the population over the years, then of course the invasion was inevitable. Ukraine had 'chosen' a path unacceptable to what that strain of thought stood for. This stuff isn't difficult to fathom.

Why are you mixing this up with what I am supposed to 'believe'? What I may believe is totally irrelevant to any of this.

 

[two sheds]

No, what each of us believe is central to what we're discussing.

You believe that Putin had no choice but to invade. That he had no choice but to bomb and kill and torture civilians and kidnap children because that's what he'd "taken it upon himself to adopt" and "what that strain of thought stood for".

Just wanted to clarify that.

 

[RD2003]

No, what each of us believe is central to what we're discussing.

You believe that Putin had no choice but to invade. That he had no choice but to bomb and kill and torture civilians and kidnap children because that's what he'd "taken it upon himself to adopt" and "what that strain of thought stood for".

Just wanted to clarify that.

Again, you make the mistake of thinking all this has something to do with what you or I think ourselves to 'believe,' which leads you to arbitrarary assumptions about what I am supposed to believe. And then you have to add some stuff about torture, and kidnapping kids, to reinforce your sense of self-righteousness. As if kids haven't been killed or kidnapped in wars you've previously shown no interest in (in contrast to this one, which is kept in the media eye, because unlike other equally brutal wars, it is deemed relevant to the neo-liberal project ).

The fact that Putin decided to invade Ukraine has nothing whatsoever to do with what you or I believe.

The world goes on regardless of what you or I believe, and will never correspond to what you or I believe.

 

[two sheds]

That's philosophy for you

`Oh, that was easy,' says Man, and for an encore goes on to prove that black is white and gets himself killed on the next zebra crossing."

You've said that Putin had only one choice, which was to invade Ukraine. As head of the country and armed forces then he'd know what that involved - the killing and torture and rape of civilians, and the kidnapping of children. These were part of his ongoing decision, which you're defending as being his only choice.

I hate that children are killed in war, any war. You seem to make an exception for this one "to enforce your sense of self-righteousness" because it was Putin's only choice. Do you not see how that makes you a Putin-bot?

 

[RD2003]

That's philosophy for you



You've said that Putin had only one choice, which was to invade Ukraine. As head of the country and armed forces then he'd know what that involved - the killing and torture and rape of civilians, and the kidnapping of children. These were part of his ongoing decision, which you're defending as being his only choice.

I hate that children are killed in war, any war. You seem to make an exception for this one "to enforce your sense of self-righteousness" because it was Putin's only choice. Do you not see how that makes you a Putin-bot?

Ok, call me a 'Putin Bot' if you like. It's meaningless when you consider how randomly it's applied.

Do you really think that somebody like Putin cares about anything you're wringing your hands about (this leaves aside the fact that hardly anybody else loses sleep over any of it, including those among us who pretend to cry about it all; let's not be naive.)

I didn't say Putin only had one choice. I said it was the only choice he was going to make given the context. And of course he knew what it would involve. Like anybody who takes his country to war, he thinks it a worthwhile sacrifice.

There's a difference between trying to understand why something happens and defending* it.


*As much as you can defend anything from a keyboard 2000 miles from the danger zone.

 

[two sheds]

Ok, call me a 'Putin Bot' if you like. It's meaningless when you consider how randomly it's applied.

Do you really think that somebody like Putin cares about anything you're wringing your hands about (this leaves aside the fact that hardly anybody else loses sleep over it, including those among us who pretend to cry about it; let's not be naive.)

I didn't say Putin only had one choice. I said it was the only choice he was going to make given the context. And of course he knew what it would involve. Like anybody who takes his country to war, he thinks it a worthwhile sacrifice.

There's a difference between trying to understand why something happens and defending* it.


*As much as you cam defend anything from a keyboard 2000 miles from the danger zone.

No of course he doesn't care about what we think or what Ukrainians think or how Ukrainians live or die. That's because he's acting like a fascist. You can pretend to cry about it, that's up to you.

You say he was only going to make one choice. I'm saying he had a real choice. He could have decided to invade or he could have decided not to invade. And yes he knew exactly what that would involve. We understand why it happened, but you're actually defending it. You're saying he couldn't have made any other choice.

And you suggest other people are defending from a keyboard 2000 miles away from the danger zone. Not you of course. If it's relevant then why are you replying when you've admitted that there's no point in replying?

 

[RD2003]

No of course he doesn't care about what we think or what Ukrainians think or how Ukrainians live or die. That's because he's acting like a fascist. You can pretend to cry about it, that's up to you.

You say he was only going to make one choice. I'm saying he had a real choice. He could have decided to invade or he could have decided not to invade. And yes he knew exactly what that would involve. We understand why it happened, but you're actually defending it. You're saying he couldn't have made any other choice.

And you suggest other people are defending from a keyboard 2000 miles away from the danger zone. Not you of course. If it's relevant then why are you replying when you've admitted that there's no point in replying?

Going round in circles, as all this has already been done just above.

 

[two sheds]

Going round in circles, as all this has already been done just above.

Yes, quite. You've avoided the point before and you're doing it again.

 

[RD2003]

Yes, quite. You've avoided the point before and you're doing it again.

I still fail to see what I'm supposed to be avoiding.

 

[RD2003]

Anyway, here's another prediction from the article. Sorry for the bold, which I know upsets some people for some reason. As I said, pasting doesn't seem to give me a choice in the matter.

4. Winter will precipitate a fresh refugee crisis and create an opportunity for whoever can best prepare​

Winter is uppermost in strategic thinking for both sides. Ukraine is already anxious about humanitarian issues because there is no gas heating available for apartment blocks in Donetsk province and other frontline areas. One humanitarian official predicted there would be a fresh wave of migration in the winter, with perhaps as many as 2 million people crossing the border into Poland.

Russians sees winter as an opportunity. Ukraine fears Russia will target its energy grid, making its heating dilemma more acute, and could simply turn off the vast Zaporizhzhia nuclear power station. Moscow also wants to prolong the west’s pain over energy costs and has every incentive to rack up the pressure.

Spring, though, could be the time for a renewed attack – each side will want to replenish and prepare for what is likely to be another fighting season.

 

[Storm Fox]

Anyway, here's another prediction from the article. Sorry for the bold, which I know upsets some people for some reason. As I said, pasting doesn't seem to give me a choice in the matter.

You just need to learn how to use the forum software

4. Winter will precipitate a fresh refugee crisis and create an opportunity for whoever can best prepare

Winter is uppermost in strategic thinking for both sides. Ukraine is already anxious about humanitarian issues because there is no gas heating available for apartment blocks in Donetsk province and other frontline areas. One humanitarian official predicted there would be a fresh wave of migration in the winter, with perhaps as many as 2 million people crossing the border into Poland.

Russians sees winter as an opportunity. Ukraine fears Russia will target its energy grid, making its heating dilemma more acute, and could simply turn off the vast Zaporizhzhia nuclear power station. Moscow also wants to prolong the west’s pain over energy costs and has every incentive to rack up the pressure.

Spring, though, could be the time for a renewed attack – each side will want to replenish and prepare for what is likely to be another fighting season.

 

[two sheds]

You're defending Putin by saying he had no choice but to invade. And when you get challenged you duck out of a discussion by saying there's no point in posting.

 

[RD2003]

You're defending Putin by saying he had no choice but to invade. And when you get challenged you duck out of a discussion by saying there's no point in posting.

Nonsense. It's quite clear that I've said that, given the context and the mantle Putin has assumed for himself, he doubtless thought he had no choice. ie it's what I think he thinks, and is merely an opinion based on what I think I know about Russia. Can we finally 'get' that?

Didn't say there's no point posting either. I said that nothing we post can possibly affect the outcome of much, least of all this war.

 

[Storm Fox]

RD2003
Here's how you do it.

Click on the brackets icon on the right of the Reply area.

And you will see the code for Headers and B in the square brackets

[HEADING=1][B]4. Winter will precipitate a fresh refugee crisis and create an opportunity for whoever can best prepare[/B][/HEADING]

Simply remove the square brackets and code and it's gone!

4. Winter will precipitate a fresh refugee crisis and create an opportunity for whoever can best prepare

Click the Square Bracket icon again and it goes back to normal editing mode. Also Preview to Preview and then click that again to go back to normal mode.
As you said

Sorry for the bold, which I know upsets some people for some reason. As I said, pasting doesn't seem to give me a choice in the matter.

There you are you now have a choice.

 

[ska invita]

If Alaskans decided they wanted Alaska to leave the United States and over a few years grew its ties with Russia, which Russia duly encouraged and accepted with military and economic backing do you think the USA would send in troops? The US government would have a choice whether to do so or not of course. So many choices for Imperial powers to consider!

 

[RD2003]

A group of lawmakers from Germany’s Social Democratic party (SPD) are calling for peace negotiations with Russia and for a ceasefire to be reached in Ukraine as soon as possible.

In a letter entitled “The guns must be silent!” seen by Der Spiegel, the group representing the pacifist left-wing of the SPD urged for a diplomatic offensive to end the war in Ukraine quickly.

They called for a new attempt at a “modus vivendi”, in which conflicting parties agree to coexist in peace, arguing that such a relationship “must be found with the Russian government based on the acknowledgment of realities that one does not like, which rules out a further escalation of the war”.

The group propose China act as a mediator between Russia and Ukraine, oppose rearmament plans and warned against the delivery of heavy military equipment to Ukraine, citing the danger of nuclear war.

The letter reads:

With every delivery of weapons, it is important to carefully weigh up and consider where the ‘red line’ lies, which could be perceived as entering the war and provoke corresponding reactions.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/l...0876e20fe14cde#block-6308b1968f0876e20fe14cde

 

[strung out]

Fucking twats.

 

[keybored]

RD2003
Here's how you do it.

Click on the brackets icon on the right of the Reply area.
View attachment 339519
And you will see the code for Headers and B in the square brackets

[HEADING=1][B]4. Winter will precipitate a fresh refugee crisis and create an opportunity for whoever can best prepare[/B][/HEADING]

Simply remove the square brackets and code and it's gone!


Click the Square Bracket icon again and it goes back to normal editing mode. Also Preview to Preview and then click that again to go back to normal mode.
As you said


There you are you now have a choice.

Just highlight the text and press the B button.

 

[two sheds]

Sometimes that doesn't work though. I've imported text and de-bolding it and reducing the size doesn't work, it stays big and bold.

 

[RD2003]

Another in a series of bizarre articles over the last six months by Simon Tisdall. First he tells us that Putin is desperate and out of options, and then goes on to speculate about Putin's many options. The state of the fucking media now.


‘The mass of men lead lives of quiet desperation.” So wrote American author Henry David Thoreau in 1854. It’s a fate that is rapidly overtaking Vladimir Putin as he struggles to escape the disastrous trap he set for himself in Ukraine.'


'Yet Putin may just be getting started. He has many means by which to undermine western unity and staying power. Europe is littered with easily exploited potential flashpoints and geopolitical faultlines bequeathed from Soviet times. Likewise, Russia has surprising numbers of allies and sympathisers scattered across a politically fractured European landscape.'

Putin is trapped and desperate. Will his friends in the west rescue him? | Simon Tisdall

Russia’s leader and his sympathisers could use old conflicts to distract attention from Ukraine and weaken European unity

www.theguardian.com

 

[RD2003]

I suppose Roger qualifies as a war sceptic. Good for him, whether or not you agree with him. A rare example, nowadays, of a celebrity unafraid to take an independent view (and his take on life in general is spot-on: see the PF 'Animals' album.)

'Waters wrote an open letter to the Ukrainian first lady, Olena Zelenska, early this month in which he blamed “extreme nationalists” in Ukraine for having “set your country on the path to this disastrous war”.


The 79-year-old also criticised the west for supplying Ukraine with weapons, blaming Washington, in particular. Waters has also condemned Nato, accusing it of provoking Russia.'

Roger Waters cancels gigs in Poland amid row over Ukraine war comments

Pink Floyd co-founder's stance on Russia's war against Ukraine has sparked ‘indignation’ in Kraków

www.theguardian.com

 

[RD2003]

The former British ambassador to Russia understood many of the issues endlessly debated on here 25 years ago.

https://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/magazine/bringingrussiain

 

[RD2003]

Some interesting passages in the Prospect article:

'Most countries would prefer to be on the giving rather than the receiving end of Thucydides’s law. In eastern Europe many have tried their luck when they thought history was going their way. Poland’s repeated attempts to dominate Ukraine started in the 16th century and finally petered out in the early 1950s. Austria, Prussia and Russia divided up Poland three times in the 18th century. Thereafter Russian troops imposed “peace” upon Warsaw on at least five occasions. That is to say nothing of the innumerable wars in the Balkans, provoked by ethnic strife and the meddling of outside powers. And even the Russians have seen their national existence threatened by Poles, Swedes, Frenchmen and Germans over the last 500 years. These events are not mere matters of history. Every one of the peoples of eastern Europe remembers its sufferings as if they had happened yesterday. Each sees itself as the victim of its neighbours and forgets what it did itself.'

'Nato’s enlargement policy bears all the hallmarks of muddled thinking and compromise within and between governments. In 1990 the west wanted above all to persuade the Russians to accept Nato membership for a reunited Germany. Western statesmen did not plan to expand Nato further to the east, and they so assured the Soviet leaders more than once. The choice, they said, was different: between a united Germany safely within Nato; or a united Germany outside of Nato with no curb on its future ambitions. Gorbachev had little choice. Germany unconstrained was unacceptable; so was Nato enlargement. He acquiesced to the least of the possible evils: a united Germany in an unexpanded Nato.

Unfortunately, as the Russian foreign minister Yevgeni Primakov ruefully admits, the Soviet government failed to get any assurances in writing. Western politicians did not give their verbal assurances in bad faith. They did not imagine-at the time they did not need to imagine-that they might soon want to enlarge Nato to include the Soviet Union’s former allies, and even some of it component parts. They, too, were disorientated by the torrent of events. Now they argue that all that was in another country: and besides, the maid is dead. The Russians feel badly used. We should forgive them. If they had done the same to us, we would denounce them bitterly.'

 

[RD2003]

Stuff like this might provide a clue as to why Putin was propelled to power by the Russian elites. If not him, somebody similar.

'By 1992 western governments were already beginning to look at the pros and cons-at that time mostly the cons. In Washington and Bonn there were fierce divisions between the “Russia firsters” and the powerful groups who wanted enlargement. It was with a sigh of re-lief that Nato ministers greeted a US proposal in October 1993 for a “partnership for peace,” a programme for military co-operation between Nato and the countries of the former Warsaw Pact for which Russia too was eligible. The partnership was billed as a possible first step towards full membership of the alliance. The Russians, too, heaved a sigh of relief. Foreign Minister Andrei Kozyrev called it a “responsible approach,” by partners who had refused to countenance “a new split within Europe.”

Kozyrev was rapidly disappointed. The east Europeans feared that the partnership for peace was merely a cover for another attempt by the great powers to deal at their expense. In July 1994 President Clinton reassured the Polish government that the partnership was only a beginning. Enlargement was “no longer a question of whether, but when and how,” whether the Russians liked it or not. That commitment of presidential prestige meant that enlargement was now a foregone conclusion. In December 1994 a resentful Kozyrev refused to sign a draft Russian-Nato partnership agreement. Until he was replaced by Primakov in January 1996 there was little serious attempt to manage the disagreement between Russia and the alliance.'

 

[RD2003]

As does this prescient passage (Don't know what a Dolchstosslegende is, mind. But it sounds fucking nasty.)

'Ordinary Russians do not, of course, think about it very often. But when they do, they find it impossible to understand why Nato needs to expand now the cold war is over. They may not think that the approach to their borders of the world’s most powerful military alliance constitutes an actual military threat. But they certainly regard it as a humiliating exploitation of their country’s current weakness. Russian liberals exaggerate when they argue that Nato enlargement will spell an early end to political and economic reform. The roots of change in Russia probably go too deep for that. But to argue that nothing the west does today can affect the outcome of the struggle between liberalism and reaction in Russia makes sense only if you think that foreign policy never has any effect on foreigners. Many Russians half believe that western governments plotted the downfall of the Soviet Union, and that they now aim to keep Russia in a state of permanent weakness while exploiting its natural resources. A Dolchstosslegende is in the making, ready to be exploited by a new demagogue if reform falters. It would be a pity if western policy made things easier for him.'