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

[The39thStep]

Apart from all those class struggles that were red hot during the war - differences (sometimes violent) between communist and liberal resistance groups, the class conflict of strikers facing off against Bevin, the relative success of the Commenwealth party, the publication of The Guilty Men.

There was plenty of socialist criticism, even opposition, to governments while still recognising that there was an advance in allying with liberal forces to fight fascism. Whatever one thinks of the popular (or united) front the idea was not that socialists simply throw all their politics out the window.

By and large, the ruling classes fought to preserve the existing order in their own countries. It was of course the working class who suffered the most and actually did the fighting and by 1944 most sought a new arrangement and a more equal society not the defence of the old order.

 

[redsquirrel]

Well exactly.

To reduce to the anti-fascism of workers in WWII to support for liberalism, rather than recognising it as an arena in the class war is a bloody daft mistake for any socialist to make.

 

[Kaka Tim]

Apart from all those class struggles that were red hot during the war - differences (sometimes violent) between communist and liberal resistance groups, the class conflict of strikers facing off against Bevin, the relative success of the Commenwealth party, the publication of The Guilty Men.

There was plenty of socialist criticism, even opposition, to governments while still recognising that there was an advantage in allying with liberal forces to fight fascism. Whatever one thinks of the popular (or united) front the idea was not that socialists simply throw all their politics out the window.

EDIT: And of course at the start of the war you had Communist Party's in outright opposition to governments

As far as I am aware "leftwingers" who support armed resistance to Putins invasion are still very much opposed to the inequities of western capitalism. Perhaps we should ask ukrainain anarchists and socilaists what they think? Particualy those ones who are fighting and dieing on the frontline.

 

[LDC]

So did I, but I don't remember a time so many lefties so enthusiastically threw themselves behind their own ruling class. Many of today's lot might as well go in for a bit of forelock tucking.

Whoa, the sophisticated analysis has arrived.

Pot. Kettle. Black?

I find it thoroughly depressing that many people, including you who seems to pride themselves on intellectual rigour and political analysis, seem unable to see any complexities and nuance in the situation; people forced into defending themselves from a brutal authoritarian and arguably fascist State and those that support them in doing so get reduced to having enthusiasm for their own ruling class. And this is in contradiction to the many Ukrainian leftists who have managed to hold onto a position that's critical of their State while also fighting against a worse one that's killing, torturing and forcibly deporting people to their territory.

 

[redsquirrel]

As far as I am aware "leftwingers" who support armed resistance to Putins invasion are still very much opposed to the inequities of western capitalism.

Yes many of them are.
So they aren't simply following behind either the Ukrainian, EU, American etc governments they are keeping the class war in mind, they are not just "enthusiastically throwing themselves behind their own ruling class". Just as many workers did not in WWII.

 

[RD2003]

Pot. Kettle. Black?

I find it thoroughly depressing that many people, including you who seems to pride themselves on intellectual rigour and political analysis, seem unable to see any complexities and nuance in the situation; people forced into defending themselves from a brutal authoritarian and arguably fascist State and those that support them in doing so get reduced to having enthusiasm for their own ruling class. And this is in contradiction to the many Ukrainian leftists who have managed to hold onto a position that's critical of their State while also fighting against a worse one that's killing, torturing and forcibly deporting people to their territory.

For a start, I don't think there are many Ukrainian leftists in any real sense. As in most other parts of the ex-SU and eastern block. This leads western lefties time and again into supporting an opposition that inevitably ends up becoming part of the neo-liberal order (or more aptly disorder.)

I would say that I have pointed out the complexity and nuance more than any of the uncritical Ukraine-cheerers, especially in how that the gang in Kiev allowed themselves to be pushed further and further towards the brink by western powers, specifically the US. And this despite the latter (and probably the former) fully understanding the nature of the regime in Moscow and how it was absolutely guaranteed to view such matters as continued NATO expansion, especially into Ukraine, which it views, rightly or wrongly, as a special case. As pointed out many times before, this isn't just the view of posters on the internet. It was warned against by a number of Russian 'liberals,' and leading former diplomats and politiicians in the west, none of whom are sympathetic to Russia. It being a war that could easily have been avoided, I struggle to find anything positive about it.

 

[RD2003]

Yes many of them are.
So they aren't simply following behind either the Ukrainian, EU, American etc governments they are keeping the class war in mind, they are not just "enthusiastically throwing themselves behind their own ruling class". Just as many workers did not in WWII.

Facile comparisons with WW2 are part of the problem. The two situations are in no way alike.

Any 'leftists' doing as you say are voices in the wilderness, and are destined to remain so. And there has been little sign of it from lefties on here. There has been not a hint of a critique of either the western strategy (such as one exists) let alone of a system that guarantees war on a regular basis.

 

[RD2003]

As far as I am aware "leftwingers" who support armed resistance to Putins invasion are still very much opposed to the inequities of western capitalism. Perhaps we should ask ukrainain anarchists and socilaists what they think? Particualy those ones who are fighting and dieing on the frontline.

I just accidentally clicked 'Like' instead of reply, intending to say that it's a tragedy that these Ukrainian anarchists and socialists, such as they exist, are going to get, even in victory, a society and economy almost exactly the opposite of what they stand for.

 

[RD2003]

A sub-section of the US right appears to be remaining sceptical.

What Does it Mean to “Defeat Russia” in Ukraine?

The clarity of U.S. aims today is no more definite than it was at the war’s outset.

nationalinterest.org

'In a war notable for Washington’s incremental, and so far strategically unsuccessful, escalation of the means—military as well as economic and financial—employed to attain Russia’s strategic defeat, the clarity of U.S. aims today is no more definite than it was at the war’s outset.

Both Washington’s political class and the public at large have become minor-league strategists. They prefer to focus on simple and often simplistic calculations to ascertain the direction of the conflict—how many tanks and artillery shells Washington is sending to Ukraine—even as they avoid more significant questions raised by Washington’s commitment to Putin’s ruin that a sober appreciation of costs and benefits would challenge if not reject outright.

Indeed, by declaring such an outsized and unambiguous purpose—for that is what a pledge to achieve Russia’s “strategic defeat” requires—the Biden administration risks a policy debacle not unlike Barack Obama’s famous declaration that Syria’s “Assad must go.” That policy has now entered its final act in Syria, where President Bashar Assad has just been unconditionally readmitted to the Arab League.'

 

[RD2003]

The above-linked article also contains the following passage.


'Historian Mark Perry...never tired of describing the Soviet Red Army as a formidable and, indeed, an implacable foe whose strength and power derived from the immensity of Russia’s unassailable command of the Eurasian landmass. He would often note that during World War II, Josef Stalin executed almost 200,000 of Russia’s own for desertion. In other words, Russia conducts war in a historical and geographic context different, indeed foreign, to our own.'


Few posters on here, in line with the pundits who tell western populations what to think, have demonstrated any understanding that the assumed Russian loss of life in the Ukraine war is nothing new in Russian history, nor how a majority of the Russian population will most likely mourn their dead, shrug and move on. Russia, in all its historical guises, is essentially about the survival (as those who rule present it) of Russia as an entity. And there appears to be no clear western anticipation of the fact that Russia will continue to exist, in all its unfathomable 'barbarity,' even in defeat, complete with nuclear weapons. And that's leaving out the worse-case scenario.

I would still gamble on Russia in retreat finding ways to make Ukraine an unviable prospect for decades to come. It's probably already begun. It's something set in motion when western strategists began to antagonise the most western-friendly Russian government in a century, if not ever, in the 1990s. yet it was still avoidable right up until to 2014 and beyond. The fact that it wasn't is due to lingering fantasies among western elites of a world modelled on a system (our own, in its various versions) which has never managed to take hold in most of the world, which will always go its own way.

 

[Humberto]

The above-linked article also contains the following passage.


'Historian Mark Perry...never tired of describing the Soviet Red Army as a formidable and, indeed, an implacable foe whose strength and power derived from the immensity of Russia’s unassailable command of the Eurasian landmass. He would often note that during World War II, Josef Stalin executed almost 200,000 of Russia’s own for desertion. In other words, Russia conducts war in a historical and geographic context different, indeed foreign, to our own.'


Few posters on here, in line with the pundits who tell western populations what to think, have demonstrated any understanding that the assumed Russian loss of life in the Ukraine war is nothing new in Russian history, nor how a majority of the Russian population will most likely mourn their dead, shrug and move on. Russia, in all its historical guises, is essentially about the survival (as those who rule present it) of Russia as an entity. And there appears to be no clear western anticipation of the fact that Russia will continue to exist, in all its unfathomable 'barbarity,' even in defeat, complete with nuclear weapons. And that's leaving out the worse-case scenario.

I would still gamble on Russia in retreat finding ways to make Ukraine an unviable prospect for decades to come. It's probably already begun. It's something set in motion when western strategists began to antagonise the most western-friendly Russian government in a century, if not ever, in the 1990s. yet it was still avoidable right up until to 2014 and beyond. The fact that it wasn't is due to lingering fantasies among western elites of a world modelled on a system (our own, in its various versions) which has never managed to take hold in most of the world, which will always go its own way.

So:

Lives don't count and don't matter to Russians in the same why as... who? They 'shrug it off'.

As well as 'shrugging it off and moving on', they are robotically loyal to the 'Russian entity' and its survival only.

Russia will 'scorch the earth' of Ukraine in any retreat/defeat, leaving chaos and God knows what. And finally:

The 'western strategists' caused the war by antagonising said 'friendly Russians'.

That right?

 

[RD2003]

So:

Lives don't count and don't matter to Russians in the same why as... who? They 'shrug it off'.

As well as 'shrugging it off and moving on', they are robotically loyal to the 'Russian entity' and its survival only.

Russia will 'scorch the earth' of Ukraine in any retreat/defeat, leaving chaos and God knows what. And finally:

The 'western strategists' caused the war by antagonising said 'friendly Russians'.

That right?

You what?

 

[Humberto]

You fucking pillock. Answer my question.

 

[RD2003]

This author (of whom I know fuck all), references Mearsheimer, of whom I do know something. The article reiterates what one or two on here were saying from the start. A completely avoidable war, and another (destined to be more or less forgotten) tragedy.

Why Russia Is Going To Win

According to John Mearsheimer, who predicted the war in the first place

indica.medium.com

'While Ukrainian resolves is indubitable (their country is under attack) so is Russian resolve, which westerners willfully do not understand. People outraged about China building up its military in China refuse to understand how Russia feels about enemy troops on its border. Mearsheimer breaks this threat perception down into two parts. First is how threatened Russia felt by NATO fiddling with Ukraine before the war and how much more threatened it feels now. Now the West is talking about killing Putin, regime change, and dismembering Russia. This only strengthens Russian resolve, making Ukraine an existential fight for them as well.'


'What is highly dubious is American resolve. First off they have no skin in the game, and second their military has been losing wars and abandoning allies for decades. That’s their business model. The great American innovation in empire has been figuring out that there’s more money in losing wars. You can loot your own treasury, fuck over your allies, and do it all far from home (using the most fossil fuels of any single entity, so fucking over the planet also). It’s the greatest ‘bezzle’ in history, and Ukraine is just the latest mark.'


'Since resolve is roughly equal on the Russian and Ukrainian side and actually drained by the Americans, all that’s left is population and artillery. Here, as mentioned, Ukraine is fucked. Russia wins by sheer attrition, but it’s a terrible victory which merely moves their NATO problem a few years forward and few oblasts over. If you go by Western propaganda Putin started this war for fun, but if you follow the record, he actually did everything he could to avoid it. As Mearsheimer said in response to a question (and as anyone can look up)”

No, I don’t think he had any other options. I do believe that Putin was deeply committed to finding a negotiated settlement to the problem. As I said to you in my formal comments, he was deeply committed to the Minsk agreement because what he wanted to do was shut down the conflict in the Donbass so he would not have to invade. With regard to NATO expansion, EU expansion, and the efforts to make Ukraine a western bulwark on Russia’s borders, he went to great lengths to explain to the West why that was unacceptable. On December 17, 2022, he sent a letter to Biden and to NATO saying that they have to do X, Y, and Z so we can find a solution to this problem, but we refused to go along. I think that Putin was left in a position where he felt he had no choice. To answer your question, there was no other way to deal with the problem. So, I think he, with great reluctance, invaded Ukraine.

To people who say this violates the ‘rules-based order’, what is that exactly? Under the ‘rules-based order’ America ‘pre-emptively’ attacked Iraq, and Iraq is nowhere near America. Ukraine is right next to Russia and hostile troops were amassing there. The example America and NATO have set is to attack wherever you feel like based on completely made up threats. Russia more than anyone is following the rules based order because they actually were threatened by NATO and complained about it for decades.

Of course, ‘rules-based order’ just means rule by the latest incarnation of White Empire, doing whatever the fuck they want. The only rule being violated is any other country having a concept of national security, which makes America feel very insecure. And so they will keep poking at Russia, and China, and anyone who defies them, obliterating their own allies and potentially the whole planet on their way down.'

 

[gosub]

This author (of whom I know fuck all), references Mearsheimer, of whom I do know something. The article reiterates what one or two on here were saying from the start. A completely avoidable war, and another (destined to be more or less forgotten) tragedy.

Why Russia Is Going To Win

According to John Mearsheimer, who predicted the war in the first place

indica.medium.com

'While Ukrainian resolves is indubitable (their country is under attack) so is Russian resolve, which westerners willfully do not understand. People outraged about China building up its military in China refuse to understand how Russia feels about enemy troops on its border. Mearsheimer breaks this threat perception down into two parts. First is how threatened Russia felt by NATO fiddling with Ukraine before the war and how much more threatened it feels now. Now the West is talking about killing Putin, regime change, and dismembering Russia. This only strengthens Russian resolve, making Ukraine an existential fight for them as well.'


'What is highly dubious is American resolve. First off they have no skin in the game, and second their military has been losing wars and abandoning allies for decades. That’s their business model. The great American innovation in empire has been figuring out that there’s more money in losing wars. You can loot your own treasury, fuck over your allies, and do it all far from home (using the most fossil fuels of any single entity, so fucking over the planet also). It’s the greatest ‘bezzle’ in history, and Ukraine is just the latest mark.'


'Since resolve is roughly equal on the Russian and Ukrainian side and actually drained by the Americans, all that’s left is population and artillery. Here, as mentioned, Ukraine is fucked. Russia wins by sheer attrition, but it’s a terrible victory which merely moves their NATO problem a few years forward and few oblasts over. If you go by Western propaganda Putin started this war for fun, but if you follow the record, he actually did everything he could to avoid it. As Mearsheimer said in response to a question (and as anyone can look up)”


To people who say this violates the ‘rules-based order’, what is that exactly? Under the ‘rules-based order’ America ‘pre-emptively’ attacked Iraq, and Iraq is nowhere near America. Ukraine is right next to Russia and hostile troops were amassing there. The example America and NATO have set is to attack wherever you feel like based on completely made up threats. Russia more than anyone is following the rules based order because they actually were threatened by NATO and complained about it for decades.

Of course, ‘rules-based order’ just means rule by the latest incarnation of White Empire, doing whatever the fuck they want. The only rule being violated is any other country having a concept of national security, which makes America feel very insecure. And so they will keep poking at Russia, and China, and anyone who defies them, obliterating their own allies and potentially the whole planet on their way down.'

By Russia did everything it could it to avoid war

Russian ambassador insists Kremlin has "no such plans" for invading Ukraine despite troop build-up

President Biden said Friday he is "convinced" Russian President Vladimir Putin has decided to invade Ukraine.

www.google.com

Clearly with the benefit of hindsight Ukrainains acquiring substantial numbers of washing machines that close to Moscow was provocative

 

[Humberto]

Fark

The UAE is on team Russia in war against Ukraine

COLUMN. The United Arab Emirates helps secure key transactions for the Russian offensive against Ukraine, while Dubai has become a haven for oligarchs targeted by Western sanctions.

www.lemonde.fr

 

[RD2003]

By Russia did everything it could it to avoid war

Russian ambassador insists Kremlin has "no such plans" for invading Ukraine despite troop build-up

President Biden said Friday he is "convinced" Russian President Vladimir Putin has decided to invade Ukraine.

www.google.com

Clearly with the benefit of hindsight Ukrainains acquiring substantial numbers of washing machines that close to Moscow was provocative

Not sure what you're getting at, but I'm guessing you're implying that obfuscation and downright lying isn't (or shouldn't be) a normal part of political practice?

 

[RD2003]

Also from the above-linked article. Isn't it the reality?

'Western arms policy is actually precisely designed to maximize profit while bleeding Ukraine dry. As the 40% war criminal Richard Haass said in Foreign Affairs,

Western policy is caught between the goals of preventing catastrophic failure (in which an under-armed Ukraine is swallowed by Russia) and catastrophic success (in which an over-armed Ukraine leads a cornered Putin to escalate).'

 

[gosub]

Also from the above-linked article. Isn't it the reality?

'Western arms policy is actually precisely designed to maximize profit while bleeding Ukraine dry. As the 40% war criminal Richard Haass said in Foreign Affairs,

'ABSOLUTELY NOT': Republicans blast Graham's effort to pass resolution urging Ukraine's admission into NATO

Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., is facing blowback from his Republican colleagues after he proposed a resolution urging Ukraine to be admitted into NATO amid its war with Russia.

www.foxnews.com

23 NATO states still not meeting their spend

 

[Brainaddict]

I see RD2003 is still ignoring Ukrainians in all this, no matter what anyone says. Imagine if Russia invaded the UK and while most people tried to fight back and clear them out of the territory, a band of 'war sceptics' sat at the side and sniped about UK's membership of NATO. 'War sceptics'. What a ridiculous notion in this context.

 

[Pickman's model]

I see RD2003 is still ignoring Ukrainians in all this, no matter what anyone says. Imagine if Russia invaded the UK and while most people tried to fight back and clear them out of the territory, a band of 'war sceptics' sat at the side and sniped about UK's membership of NATO. 'War sceptics'. What a ridiculous notion in this context.

How do you propose the russians would invade the UK? I've rarely heard a more ludicrous hypothetical

 

[RD2003]

I see RD2003 is still ignoring Ukrainians in all this, no matter what anyone says. Imagine if Russia invaded the UK and while most people tried to fight back and clear them out of the territory, a band of 'war sceptics' sat at the side and sniped about UK's membership of NATO. 'War sceptics'. What a ridiculous notion in this context.

'Most people' do what those holding the levers of power and wealth want, in Ukraine and everywhere else.

Scepticism about the war may not be unproblematic, but it's nowhere near as ridiculous as armchair generalism.

 

[Brainaddict]

Ah I see, Ukrainian citizens are all pawns of NATO. Makes sense. I too feel the need to fight and die for an organisation that I am not a member of and to which I have no emotional attachment.

 

[RD2003]

Ah I see, Ukrainian citizens are all pawns of NATO. Makes sense. I too feel the need to fight and die for an organisation that I am not a member of and to which I have no emotional attachment.

Another one shaking his fist at phantoms.

 

[krtek a houby]

How do you propose the russians would invade the UK? I've rarely heard a more ludicrous hypothetical

"In Europe and America, there's a growing feeling of hysteria"

 

[Pickman's model]

"In Europe and America, there's a growing feeling of hysteria"

Panic on the streets of london

 

[RD2003]

Much of the world remains sceptical about this war...


A summit between European, Latin American and Caribbean leaders on Tuesday highlighted their differences over how to tackle Russia’s war in Ukraine.

As leaders from the EU and the Community of Latin American and Caribbean States (CELAC) met for a second day, diplomats were struggling to agree the language of a final communique, according to AFP.

A handful of Latin American countries – diplomats cited Nicaragua, Cuba and Venezuela as the most adamant – were opposed to agreeing a text holding Moscow responsible for the conflict.

Other leaders from the region were ready to sign up in support of Ukraine’s sovereignty, but put more emphasis on the need for a negotiated peace, rather than a victory for Kyiv, in their public declaration.

Luxembourg’s prime minister Xavier Bettel said:

It would be a shame that we are not able to say that there is Russian aggression in Ukraine.
It’s a fact, and I’m not here to rewrite history.

Irish leader Leo Varadkar said talks had gone late into the night on Monday and that the debate was a valid one, even if the conclusion should be clear.

He told reporters:

A lot of countries will point out that there are other conflicts in the world, and I hear that.
And they will say that other conflicts in the world perhaps haven’t got the same amount of attention as Ukraine.

In the opening session on Monday, CELAC president Prime Ralph Gonsalves of Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, cited the crisis in Haiti, the Palestinian struggle for statehood and various wars in Africa as deserving of European attention.

And he warned that “sanctions and blockades” triggered by the war in Ukraine would only serve “to penalise the most vulnerable populations.”

 

[Brainaddict]

One difference between you and me RD2003 is that you think the governments of Nicaragua, Cuba and Venezuela being in support of a position is a recommendation for that position, while I think they hold lots of misguided views along with sometimes doing some helpful economic redistribution. Their anti-americanism is understandable but not particular relevant to the Ukraine situation, which, in case you have missed this important point, is primarily a conflict between Russia and Ukraine.

 

[RD2003]

One difference between you and me RD2003 is that you think the governments of Nicaragua, Cuba and Venezuela being in support of a position is a recommendation for that position, while I think they hold lots of misguided views along with sometimes doing some helpful economic redistribution. Their anti-americanism is understandable but not particular relevant to the Ukraine situation, which, in case you have missed this important point, is primarily a conflict between Russia and Ukraine.

I don't believe I expressed an opinion on those governments, or anything else but the fact that much of the world remains sceptical about this war. I would now add that I agree that this is understandable and inevitable for a variety of reasons, some of which are hinted at in the short piece quoted. And it isn't only those three governments that remain sceptical, as is also made clear.

While it is indeed primarily a conflict between Russia and Ukraine, Russia and Ukraine is not the whole world.

 

[ska invita]

One difference between you and me RD2003 is that you think the governments of Nicaragua, Cuba and Venezuela being in support of a position is a recommendation for that position, while I think they hold lots of misguided views along with sometimes doing some helpful economic redistribution. Their anti-americanism is understandable but not particular relevant to the Ukraine situation, which, in case you have missed this important point, is primarily a conflict between Russia and Ukraine.

clearly its the old alliances from the soviet era that have continued to this day, just as are the continuity special (neoliberal) relationships on the other side of the old iron curtain. The more important bit from that link though seems to me to be "emphasis on the need for a negotiated peace, rather than a victory for Kyiv" - though above all the thoughts of CELAC are basically irrelevant - US led NATO will do what US led NATO wants to do