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

[RD2003]

​

And again...

What Russia’s momentum in Ukraine means for the war in 2024

Russia is gaining momentum in its assault on Ukraine amid stalled Western aid, making the coming months critical to the direction of conflict. In a worst-case scenario, parts of Kyiv’s front line could be at risk of collapse.

www.iiss.org

​

​

​

Reality Bites​

The coming months are shaping up to be more critical to the direction of conflict than the 2024 stalemate scenario suggested.

Unless the West restores aid to Kyiv to previously provided levels, including sufficient artillery for Ukraine to achieve the superiority it enjoyed at the height of last year’s counter-offensive, Russia will retain the battlefield initiative. That could spell, in the worst-case scenario, a series of tactical defeats for Ukraine that could lead to a collapse of parts of its front line.

For now, US efforts under President Joe Biden to provide Ukraine with another meaningful military-aid package remain blocked by House Republicans. Europe, meanwhile, has not demonstrated the industrial capacity or political will to quickly address Ukraine’s urgent needs, although several military-assistance efforts are in the works. While the United Kingdom has pledged to supply ‘thousands’ of new, long-range attack UAVs, when they may arrive remains uncertain.

As the conflict evolves throughout 2024, a key element could well be a contest between Russian attritional tactics and efforts by Ukraine to gain an asymmetric advantage through advanced Western technology, providing this arrives in sufficient time and volume. If that happens, the war momentum could swing again, benefitting Kyiv. But for now, the land war looks bloody and favours Moscow.

 

[Ax^]

The retreat of western liberal complacency continues, as, predictably, scepticism takes hold....

Ukraine Can't Win the War

There is no realistic chance of total Ukrainian victory next year, or the year after that.

time.com

guy who be saying Ukraine cannot win and need a peace settlement in 2022 repeats that statement in 2024

this is earth shattering news people

 

[RD2003]

And to think that all this could have been avoided without the western liberal hubris that influenced most of those who, internally and externally. engineered the collapse of the Soviet Union.

Looking back to the early 1990s and the widespread idea that Russia could start anew along prescribed western lines, it seems that utter madness had taken hold, both within the USSR (among an unfortunately influential minority) and without. Any sober mind would have realised (and did but were drowned in the noise) that Russia was always going to continue to be to be Russia, and that there's nothing anybody can do about it. And here we are, living through the consequences of once-fashionable delusions. And with the only thing in sight being more conflict, driven. often with leftie-liberal bells and whistles, by the same outdated delusion that the world is heading for a better place, as if, with the socialist idea largely defeated, or else neutralised and driven into the neo-liberal compatible 'culture war' ghetto, anything other than the very system that guarantees war is possible.

 

[RD2003]

guy who be saying Ukraine cannot win and need a peace settlement in 2022 repeats that statement in 2024

this is earth shattering news people

What does it matter that he repeats himself when the reality remains?

 

[Ax^]

did both articles give you a semi RD

random bump of the evening

just because you have keep repeating the same line since 2022 and the start of the invasion
does not make it any more insightful

 

[RD2003]

did both articles give you a semi RD

random bump of the evening

They gave me more than a semi. Perhaps I need subduing with a dose of the 'follow the leaders you purport to dislike into their latest war hobbyhorse' bromide.

 

[Humberto]

And to think that all this could have been avoided without the western liberal hubris that influenced most of those who, internally and externally. engineered the collapse of the Soviet Union.

Looking back to the early 1990s and the widespread idea that Russia could start anew along prescribed western lines, it seems that utter madness had taken hold, both within the USSR (among an unfortunately influential minority) and without. Any sober mind would have realised (and did but were drowned in the noise) that Russia was always going to continue to be to be Russia, and that there's nothing anybody can do about it. And here we are, living through the consequences of once-fashionable delusions. And with the only thing in sight being more conflict, driven. often with leftie-liberal bells and whistles, by the same outdated delusion that the world is heading for a better place, as if, with the socialist idea largely defeated, or else neutralised and driven into the neo-liberal compatible 'culture war' ghetto, anything other than the very system that guarantees war is possible.

The world isn't headed to a better place necessarily, but lets be honest there are few good guys in the political stickerbook. It was you who kept saying the west and Russia could have had military and economic harmony post USSR, but then how would cunts ready to pick the bones of Russian citizens like Putin come in to play? Unless you buy the reluctant defender of civility and justice shtick. Many seem to.

Tell me: what do you make of Putin? None of 'the West produced him shit', to go there I think is very short-sighted.

 

[Ax^]

They gave me more than a semi. Perhaps I need subduing with a dose of the 'follow the leaders you purport to dislike into their latest war hobbyhorse' bromide.

how about just admit that you support your favourite leader and have done since the start of the special operation

pull of the bandaid and remove all further remarks on the subject

 

[RD2003]

The world isn't headed to a better place necessarily, but lets be honest there are few good guys in the political stickerbook. It was you who kept saying the west and Russia could have had military and economic harmony post USSR, but then how would cunts ready to pick the bones of Russian citizens like Putin come in to play? Unless you buy the reluctant defender of civility and justice shtick. Many seem to.

Tell me: what do you make of Putin? None of 'the West produced him shit', to go there I think is very short-sighted.

A better west-Russia relationship could have come about when probably the most western-friendly Russian elite came to power under Yeltsin. That it culminated in Putin says everything about western policy towards Russia at the time. In the end the west managed to alienate even Yeltsin, towards whose corruption, and that of the forces he represented, they'd more than willingly turned a blind eye, ultimately resulting in his hand-picking of Putin as his successor. Putin is a more typical Russian leader than Yeltsin in his 'liberal' guise.

I have no strong opinion regarding Putin. He typifies something hardly unique in world history, and, in particular, Russia. We are going to see his like all over the world, probably, and thankfully mostly in countries that don't have a nuclear capability, now that neo-liberal capitalism has engineered a situation where the so-called 'culture wars' convieniently distract from the erosion of the remnants of the welfare state and so on.

 

[Humberto]

I mean Yeltsin was a weird one. Drunkard who would struggle up a flight of stairs. I don't think it is necessarily true that Putin was caused by the lack of warm heart cockles by er George Bush was it? When was that a thing? During a 50 years cold war?

He's a gangster isn't he?

 

[Rimbaud]

And to think that all this could have been avoided without the western liberal hubris that influenced most of those who, internally and externally. engineered the collapse of the Soviet Union.

Looking back to the early 1990s and the widespread idea that Russia could start anew along prescribed western lines, it seems that utter madness had taken hold, both within the USSR (among an unfortunately influential minority) and without. Any sober mind would have realised (and did but were drowned in the noise) that Russia was always going to continue to be to be Russia, and that there's nothing anybody can do about it. And here we are, living through the consequences of once-fashionable delusions. And with the only thing in sight being more conflict, driven. often with leftie-liberal bells and whistles, by the same outdated delusion that the world is heading for a better place, as if, with the socialist idea largely defeated, or else neutralised and driven into the neo-liberal compatible 'culture war' ghetto, anything other than the very system that guarantees war is possible.

I think "Russia will always be Russia" is trite...

The collapse of the Soviet Union was much more complex than "liberal hubris". Everything known about him suggests that Gorbachev at least was a true believer Communist - far more idealistic than Brezhnev - and the goal of Perestroika was to try and make socialism live up to its professed ideals. The USSR's stagnant economy becoming dependent on oil exports to support rising living standards during the Brezhnev era and then hit by falling oil prices in the mid 80s was also a major factor, as was imperial overstretch (becoming dependent on oil wealth to maintain support over their outer empire in Eastern Europe, as well as the costly arms race and war in Afghanistan).

Liberal hubris came into failing to recognise that Russia's market reforms amounted to little more than the most corrupt and criminal elements of the Communist Party asset stripping the country for private gain and putting oil wealth which was once used to subsidise stagnant industries into offshore bank accounts, yachts in the French Riviera, Premier League football teams and London real estate. It is also came into turning a blind eye to Russia's gangster state invading Georgia, annexing Crimea and assassinating critics around Europe out of a vague hope that if we are nice to Russia they will inevitably become something like Germany thanks to the democratising power of trade and the market.

It did not however cause the collapse of the USSR, either internally or externally.

 

[Rimbaud]

In the end the west managed to alienate even Yeltsin, towards whose corruption, and that of the forces he represented, they'd more than willingly turned a blind eye, ultimately resulting in his hand-picking of Putin as his successor.

How did they alienate Yeltsin?

 

[RD2003]

I mean Yeltsin was a weird one. Drunkard who would struggle up a flight of stairs. I don't think it is necessarily true that Putin was caused by the lack of warm heart cockles by er George Bush was it? When was that a thing? During a 50 years cold war?

He's a gangster isn't he?

Historically, haven't many or most countries been ruled by what could be considered gangsters? Liberal democracy is a recent appearance on the world stage, and not necessarily destined to triumph everywhere. In fact it's absolutely guaranteed that it won't. Russia may or may not be one of those places where it will never triumph, and the rest of the world will still have to deal with it.

I was in Russia during Yeltsin's ascendency. That he was widely known to be a drunken buffoon didn't damage him at all. He was seen by many as 'one of us,' in the same way as we see with some populists in the west now. The intellectuals, meanwhile, imagined they'd be able to mould him... He was directed towards being open to the west, but the eastwards expansion of NATO pissed off both he and many of those behind him, as did the such events as the bombing of Russia's historical ally Serbia. Whether this was right or wrong is irrelevant to how it was seen among those among Russia's ruling elite, who also saw the need to bring under control the mafia wars and arrest the (western-prescribed) economic meltdown and falling life expectancy that characterised Yeltsin's rule. Why they chose Putin we'll never know, although he did immediately give the Yeltsin 'family' (tolerated, if not feted, by western poliitical leaders and business) immunity from prosecution for corruption.

 

[Humberto]

Historically, haven't many or most countries been ruled by what could be considered gangsters? Liberal democracy is a recent appearance on the world stage, and not necessarily destined to triumph everywhere. In fact it's absolutely guaranteed that it won't. Russia may or may not be one of those places where it will never triumph, and the rest of the world will still have to deal with it.

I was in Russia during Yeltsin's ascendency. That he was widely known to be a drunken buffoon didn't damage him at all. He was seen by many as 'one of us,' in the same way as we see with some populists in the west now. The intellectuals, meanwhile, imagined they'd be able to mould him... He was directed towards being open to the west, but the eastwards expansion of NATO pissed off both he and many of those behind him, as did the such events as the bombing of Russia's historical ally Serbia. Whether this was right or wrong is irrelevant to how it was seen among those among Russia's ruling elite, who also saw the need to bring under control the mafia wars and arrest the (western-prescribed) economic meltdown and falling life expectancy that characterised Yeltsin's rule. Why they chose Putin we'll never know, although he did immediately give the Yeltsin 'family' (tolerated, if not feted, by western poliitical leaders and business) immunity from prosecution for corruption.

Well they just gave up these guys. It's like gerard Houllier and dying from a heart attack at anfields. There was no stomach to build or rebuild , they were totally demoralised. That they didn't offer them a way out?

 

[RD2003]

I think "Russia will always be Russia" is trite...

The collapse of the Soviet Union was much more complex than "liberal hubris". Everything known about him suggests that Gorbachev at least was a true believer Communist - far more idealistic than Brezhnev - and the goal of Perestroika was to try and make socialism live up to its professed ideals. The USSR's stagnant economy becoming dependent on oil exports to support rising living standards during the Brezhnev era and then hit by falling oil prices in the mid 80s was also a major factor, as was imperial overstretch (becoming dependent on oil wealth to maintain support over their outer empire in Eastern Europe, as well as the costly arms race and war in Afghanistan).

Liberal hubris came into failing to recognise that Russia's market reforms amounted to little more than the most corrupt and criminal elements of the Communist Party asset stripping the country for private gain and putting oil wealth which was once used to subsidise stagnant industries into offshore bank accounts, yachts in the French Riviera, Premier League football teams and London real estate. It is also came into turning a blind eye to Russia's gangster state invading Georgia, annexing Crimea and assassinating critics around Europe out of a vague hope that if we are nice to Russia they will inevitably become something like Germany thanks to the democratising power of trade and the market.

It did not however cause the collapse of the USSR, either internally or externally.

It wasn't just criminal/corrupt elements of the Soviet Communist Party that joined in the post-Soviet free-for-all. Others previously seen (vaguely, as the term was cynically construed) as dissidents also joined in, as did other 'non-political' people. But there were also members of the party elite that didn't join in the free-for-all, and the conections between 'anti-communists' and 'The Party' would probably have surprised most western observers.

Liberal hubris came about some time before the market reforms, and paved the way for the disaster that followed (which culminated in Putin.)

 

[Raheem]

I have no strong opinion regarding Putin.

Fairly innocuous, isn't he?

 

[RD2003]

Fairly innocuous, isn't he?

He's what you call, under the circumstances we've explored above, inevitable. Nice or not nice doesn't really come into it.

 

[Rimbaud]

It wasn't just criminal/corrupt elements of the Soviet Communist Party that joined in the post-Soviet free-for-all. Others previously seen (vaguely, as the term was cynically construed) as dissidents also joined in, as did other 'non-political' people. But there were also members of the party elite that didn't join in the free-for-all, and the conections between 'anti-communists' and 'The Party' would probably have surprised most western observers.

Liberal hubris came about some time before the market reforms, and paved the way for the disaster that followed (which culminated in Putin.)

My point is that it was more to do with self interest than ideology (not that it was only Party members), although I concede neoliberal ideology provided a useful cloak.

 

[Raheem]

He's what you call, under the circumstances we've exploreed above, inevitable. Nice or not nice doesn't really come into it.

Like quite a few before him. No need for moralising about them, what?

 

[RD2003]

Like quite a few before him. No need for moralising about them, what?

It depends on whether you think moralising gets you anywhere, I suppose.

 

[RD2003]

Interesting article by Owen Jones. Britain’s defence policy is more like one big declaration of war | Owen Jones


'First, we have to abandon creeping fatalism over a coming war. Over half of Britons think another world war is likely within the next five to 10 years, while 59% think nuclear weapons would be used if it breaks out. Mass resignation to nuclear annihilation strikes me as a problem. Such fatalism has been fuelled by top military officials declaring we must prepare for all-out war with Russia in the next two decades, while the defence secretary, Grant Shapps, calls for us to prepare for further wars involving China, Russia, Iran and North Korea within five years. Gen Sir Patrick Sanders, the head of our army, even calls for society to be placed on a war footing. Well, spare a moment for the unlucky survivors of a nuclear apocalypse who will be rather ruefully wishing more had been done to avoid their plight. More thought should be put into de-escalation, rather than repeating the pre-first world war error.'


Funnily enough, it strikes me as a problem as well...

 

[RD2003]

A Ukrainian major-general joins the ranks of the war sceptics, according the the Guardian.



Ukraine will at some point have to enter into talks with Russia to bring an end to their more than two-year-old war, a senior Ukrainian intelligence official said in an interview published on Thursday.

Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelenskiy has repeatedly ruled out talks with the Kremlin, and a decree he issued after Russia formally annexed four Ukrainian regions in 2022 deems negotiations “impossible”, Reuters reports.

But major-general Vadym Skibitsky, deputy chief of Ukraine’s HUR military intelligence directorate, told the Economist magazine that talks would eventually be needed, as would be the case with any war.

“General Skibitsky says he does not see a way for Ukraine to win the war on the battlefield alone. Even if it were able to push Russian forces back to the borders - an increasingly distant prospect – it wouldn’t end the war,” the magazine wrote.

“Such wars can only end with treaties, he says. Right now, both sides are jockeying for the ‘the most favourable position’ ahead of potential talks. But meaningful negotiations can begin only in the second half of 2025 at the earliest, he guesses.”

Zelenskiy and other officials have said Russia is not invited to a “peace summit” planned for Switzerland in June as there is no assurance that Moscow will bargain in good faith.

 

[keybored]

 

[RD2003]

Seems that the US and Germany are a bit sceptical about Ukraine joining NATO any time soon.


'A plan for Ukraine to be given an invitation to join Nato by the summer of 2028 will be rejected when the alliance meets for its annual summit in Washington this summer, one of the key promoters of the idea admitted on Thursday.

Kurt Volker, a former US Ambassador to Nato, warned the US and Germany will veto the plan, sending a signal to Vladimir Putin to keep going, adding: “it means the war is likely to last at least another year.”

The proposals for Ukraine to be given a guaranteed Nato membership date were published earlier this week by a working group on which Volker sat that was chaired by the head of the Ukraine Presidential office Andriy Yermak and the former Nato secretary general Andris Rasmussen.

The report, backed by Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelenskiy, had been regarded as Ukraine’s best hope of setting a specific date by which it would enjoy the protection of Nato, overcoming the disappointment of the Vilnius Nato summit last year in which Ukraine was offered no route map to membership.'

 

[ska invita]

A peace accord doesnt require ukraine to join NATO - security can still be guaranteed by other states without Ukraine in NATO

 

[andysays]

Seems that the US and Germany are a bit sceptical about Ukraine joining NATO any time soon.


'A plan for Ukraine to be given an invitation to join Nato by the summer of 2028 will be rejected when the alliance meets for its annual summit in Washington this summer, one of the key promoters of the idea admitted on Thursday.

Kurt Volker, a former US Ambassador to Nato, warned the US and Germany will veto the plan, sending a signal to Vladimir Putin to keep going, adding: “it means the war is likely to last at least another year.”

The proposals for Ukraine to be given a guaranteed Nato membership date were published earlier this week by a working group on which Volker sat that was chaired by the head of the Ukraine Presidential office Andriy Yermak and the former Nato secretary general Andris Rasmussen.

The report, backed by Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelenskiy, had been regarded as Ukraine’s best hope of setting a specific date by which it would enjoy the protection of Nato, overcoming the disappointment of the Vilnius Nato summit last year in which Ukraine was offered no route map to membership.'

It's a bit of a Catch 22 this, they can't join NATO (or be given a joining date) while they're at war.

But apparently they want to carry on being at war in the hope that NATO will completely change its long established policy and let them join, even though they're currently at war.

 

[The39thStep]

France isn't exactly banging the desk for Ukraine joining the EU quickly either

Ukraine bid to join EU will take decades says Macron

The French leader suggests other ways the EU can help Ukraine, other than fast tracking its membership.

www.bbc.com

 

[wemakeyousoundb]

so from those last few posts all of putin reason for the SMO are bollocks?

 

[RD2003]

Keep Ukraine out of NATO, says the former US intelligence officer for Europe.


'Ukraine and its supporters are pushing the White House for a stronger pledge to bring the country into Nato at the 75th anniversary July summit in Washington. Their push is understandable – but this is a dangerous idea that would commit the US to a long-term defense of Ukraine, while creating a major vulnerability for Nato, which would end up weaker, not stronger, than today. Nato membership is also not the best option for Ukraine.

Joe Biden has already gone to lengths to show Ukraine support by signing a bilateral security agreement in Italy last week, not to mention prying $175bn in US assistance from Congress. He should use the upcoming summit to put Ukraine’s Nato membership onto the back burner.'


'Nato has already pledged hundreds of billions to Ukraine, an extraordinarily generous sum. Ukraine’s leaders should stop asking for Nato membership and the Biden administration should stop considering it. The focus of the summit should instead be on ending the war and getting Ukraine started down the road to recovery. This is the only way that Ukraine can flourish and thereby truly win this war.'

Admitting Ukraine to Nato would be a mistake for both Ukraine and Nato | Christopher S Chivvis

Ukraine is expected to make a renewed push for membership in the military alliance. The US must oppose the proposal

www.theguardian.com

 

[RD2003]

They're going a bit hysterical now.



NATO could “overwhelm” Russia and is no longer the power it was during the Soviet Union, Lithuania’s foreign minister has said.

Speaking at the Globsec forum in Prague, Gabrielius Landsbergis said Russia can’t match NATO in military terms.

“When we add up the number of troops, missiles, tanks, and money, Russia is nowhere near the power that it was during the Soviet Union when it could match NATO,” he told The Kyiv Independent.

“In real military scenarios, it’s incomparable. NATO could overwhelm Russia. But the Russians are not counting on that. They are counting on – how they explain it to themselves – democratic weakness, inability to make decisions, differences in opinions.”

Landsbergis also admitted that nations were caught off guard because “we chose to be caught off guard”.

“Everybody who understands geopolitics, who knows Russia, knew that this would happen.

“There wasn’t a single surprised person in the Baltics. We were shocked by the ferocity of it, but not surprised.”