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

[RD2003]

But you're using 'them' as an excuse so that you don't have to try and think through how a peace deal might work in practice. By saying that's for the clever types to work out.

I'm not expanding time and energy on trying to work out how a fucking peace deal might work, for the benefit of about 7 people on here. Unlike the U75 armchair generals, I pretend no expertise in that area or any other.

I simply believe that a peace deal would be better than continuing slaughter, and that every effort should be made to secure one.

 

[Humberto]

By not supporting Ukraine's defence against Russia?

 

[mojo pixy]

Anyway there is no peace deal. Zelensky couldn't get one, the UN can't get one, Israel can't get one, China can't get one (if China's even trying). What peace deal will Putin a) accept and b) honour? We're all ears.

Then again the best .gov.uk can manage seems to be to try and make us target number 2 after Kyiv for a Big One. Someone needs to shoot our bastards, let alone Russia's

 

[Duncan2]

From a safe distance.

 

[frogwoman]

With this Moldovan stuff I'm afraid I don't even feel like talking to Putin apologists any more. There are people risking their lives to fight Putin and people are sat in the UK actively choosing to believe Sovelyev and Simonyan ffs

 

[Magnus McGinty]

Just because the Russian army seems outdated, some of these clowns think they're dealing with fucking Congo or somewhere.

Given half the world are ready to respond further, where is he going with these nuclear threats?

 

[RD2003]

Anyway there is no peace deal. Zelensky couldn't get one, the UN can't get one, Israel can't get one, China can't get one (if China's even trying). What peace deal will Putin a) accept and b) honour? We're all ears.

If they failed they should try again. And again. It's better than escalating death and destruction.

 

[RD2003]

Given half the world are ready to respond further, where is he going with these nuclear threats?

I'll let you know when he gets me on the phone.

 

[Magnus McGinty]

I'll let you know when he gets me on the phone.

Or you could continue to speculate as you have been. Where would a nuclear strike leave him? Unless he plans on wiping out all the NATO countries in one; which they'll see coming.

 

[_Russ_]

Peace deal with Putin's Russia?, yeah I have in my hand a piece of paper...FFS

 

[RD2003]

Or you could continue to speculate as you have been. Where would a nuclear strike leave him? Unless he plans on wiping out all the NATO countries in one; which they'll see coming.

I have speculated no more than the war enthusiasts. All I can say is that any use of nuclear weapons, limited or otherwise, would leave us all up shit creek.

We're not talking about pop guns here. It isn't the Boer War.

 

[mojo pixy]

If they failed they should try again. And again. It's better than escalating death and destruction.

I agree .. but politics is more about power, you even know this, surely. I suspect there are leaders of nations not entirely sympathetic to our green and pleasant dystopia .. watching our prats bluster about weaponry and strut around righteously as if they aren't themselves criminals .. feeling sure that if anyone in "the west" gets a nuke they couldn't think of a nicer place to see it chucked.

Seriously, this talk of "realism", we really should look to our own leaders and their cronies. I mean you can only do what you can do. "Denazifying" is a thing now and apparently you can use it however you want, especially if you chuck in some conspiraloonery and just say the opposite of what's true. We could do it here. Russia (just to take one belligerent foreign superpower entirely at random) wouldn't have to do a lot to kick it off and our idiots-at-the-wheel are basically driving straight at their chief psycho and his enablers.

But yeah so peace plan right? Good fucking idea. What would you put in it? What are your red lines, as a random peace-plan-proposing Internet gobshite? What would you offer? Outline it, I mean it's all just Internet wordery anyway.

 

[Kaka Tim]

By similar methods that other peace agreements have been enforced at various points in history? Or maybe other methods. It's what the big brains would do well to be thrashing out right now instead of stirring up yet more death and destruction. I'm sure some sort of solution could be found if there was a will. It will take recognition of the reality that there can never be a total victory for any side and, as I keep saying, acceptance of the fact that it will be messy (not as messy as death and destruction however.) And even if temporary, it would buy time for longer-term solutions to be found. Who knows, maybe the Putin regime would be deposed internally in the meantime.

peace treaties are not enforced by lawyers and international law - they are enforced by the reality of power relations. And they happen when both sides gain more from stopping than from carrying on fighting. Withdrawing support for Ukraine for allow Russia to carry on with its conquest until it chose to stop - then it would dictate a "peace" on its own terms. You really think that this would be better for the Ukrainians? that this would lead to less bloodshed and destruction?
your argument is essentially one of supporting Russia's invasion.

 

[RD2003]

peace treaties are not enforced by lawyers and international law - they are enforced by the reality of power relations. And they happen when both sides gain more from stopping than from carrying on fighting. Withdrawing support for Ukraine for allow Russia to carry on with its conquest until it chose to stop - then it would dictate a "peace" on its own terms. You really think that this would be better for the Ukrainians? that this would lead to less bloodshed and destruction?
your argument is essentially one of supporting Russia's invasion.

You might want it to be, but it isn't. It's based on the reality of what is unfolding as the situation continues to escalate, and the fact that an outright victory for either side is highly unlikely.

Don't really understand your first point. What else can happen other than a situation being reached where both sides will gain more by stopping? They would gain more by stopping right now. Thrashing out an agreement that suits both sides would not be easy, but compared to thousands more dying in agony, it would be a party. It would, though, as I keep saying, completelysatisfy nobody and provide few guarantees that peace will be maintained forever. But it would buy time for further negotation, and constant pressure would have to be applied to this end. (This may be the cue for wild predictions about the Russians then pushing on into NATO member countries. These usually come from those who also point out the weaknesses in the Russian military exosed by this war alone, and how the Russian armed forces and economy will take years, if not decades, to recover. In other words, in their desire for continuing escalation, they want it both ways.)

 

[Kaka Tim]

You might want it to be, but it isn't. It's based on the reality of what is unfolding as the situation continues to escalate, and the fact that an outright victory for either side is highly unlikely.

Don't really understand your first point. What else can happen other than a situation being reached where both sides will gain more by stopping? They would gain more by stopping right now. Thrashing out an agreement that suits both sides would not be easy, but compared to thousands more dying in agony, it would be a party. It would, though, as I keep saying, completelysatisfy nobody and provide few guarantees that peace will be maintained forever. But it would buy time for further negotation, and constant pressure would have to be applied to this end. (This may be the cue for wild predictions about the Russians then pushing on into NATO member countries. These usually come from those who also point out the weaknesses in the Russian military exosed by this war alone, and how the Russian armed forces and economy will take years, if not decades, to recover. In other words, in their desire for continuing escalation, they want it both ways.)

Its not me who is ignoring the reality of what's unfolding on the ground.
Right now there is no common ground for a negotiated peace. Ukraine's position is that Russia should withdraw to its pre war border. Russia want Ukraine to give up huge chunks of territory and be "demilitarised". So both sides will keep fighting until either one side cant carry on or it becomes a pointless stalemate. Your argument is to force Ukraine to give in to Russian demands by cutting off their support because it will "save lives". But it almost certainly wont, the Ukrainians will carry on fighting until their are militarily defeated and then there will an inevitable - and bloody - insurgency against Russian occupation. It will condemn millions of people to whatever deprivations and brutality that Putin wills on them - and we have seen more of enough evidence of what that looks like. It also allow Putin to claim victory and bolster his obsessive ambition of resorting the Russian empire. History shows that aggressive, brutal expansionist dictators like Putin will carry on until they are stopped.
You really need to get your head out of your arse.

 

[RD2003]

Its not me who is ignoring the reality of what's unfolding on the ground.
Right now there is no common ground for a negotiated peace. Ukraine's position is that Russia should withdraw to its pre war border. Russia want Ukraine to give up huge chunks of territory and be "demilitarised". So both sides will keep fighting until either one side cant carry on or it becomes a pointless stalemate. Your argument is to force Ukraine to give in to Russian demands by cutting off their support because it will "save lives". But it almost certainly wont, the Ukrainians will carry on fighting until their are militarily defeated and then there will an inevitable - and bloody - insurgency against Russian occupation. It will condemn millions of people to whatever deprivations and brutality that Putin wills on them - and we have seen more of enough evidence of what that looks like. It also allow Putin to claim victory and bolster his obsessive ambition of resorting the Russian empire. History shows that aggressive, brutal expansionist dictators like Putin will carry on until they are stopped.
You really need to get your head out of your arse.

Nobody claims there is common ground for peace at this moment, especially as Russia will not back down and the west remains intent on trying to use Ukraine as a battering ram. Which of course means death upon death, the contiuing wrecking of Ukrainian infrastructure, and the biggest risk of nuclear confrontation we've seen since Cuba '62. Not to mention the effects of the war on the rest of the world, set to last decades, as Pickman's outlined in an excellent post yesterday (can't remember which thread atm.) Sooner or later, the penny is going to have to drop, which, for good or ill means recognising the reality of the fact that Russia will never, suddenly and unprecedentedly, give up on resisting encroachments on its borders (the rights and wrongs of this don't really matter, and nor does the scale of the threat as long as Russia actually sees it as a threat) even if it goes through a period of relative liberalism (not guaranteed.) The rest of the world just has to live with that as peacefully as possible.

And once again, if this war has taken so much out of Russia and it will take decades to recover, how can it restore the Russian empire? And if this is, as many like to claim, largely the project of Putin himself, what happens when he's gone (which is, according to many of those who claim this, going to be sooner rather than later) That's right, you, me and anybody else cannot possibly say.

 

[Kaka Tim]

Russia will never, suddenly and unprecedentedly, give up on resisting encroachments on its borders

So launching a full on war of conquest against another country is "resisting a border encroachment?" ok.
So what do you think will happen if support for Ukraine is stopped? You really aren't engaging with this bit of it other than blithely suggesting it will "save lives" - what is the mechanism, the sequence of events, where we get to "peace" once all the arms and ammo from the west is stopped?

 

[RD2003]

So launching a full on war of conquest against another country is "resisting a border encroachment?" ok.
So what do you think will happen if support for Ukraine is stopped? You really aren't engaging with this bit of it other than blithely suggesting it will "save lives" - what is the mechanism, the sequence of events, where we get to "peace" once all the arms and ammo from the west is stopped?

You keep missing the fact that I'm describing the way the Russians, not I, see it, and have seen it throughout history.

And I've already said that neither, you, I nor anybody else can possibly foresee with any accuracy, any sequence of events. But obviously, all-out war is not permanently sustainable.

I know this is on the main thread, but it relates to this one as well. I'm largely with Simon. You appear to be largely with Liz. Liz Truss risks recklessly inflaming Ukraine’s war to serve her own ambition | Simon Jenkins

 

[Kaka Tim]

You keep missing the fact that I'm describing the way the Russians, not I, see it, and have seen it throughout history.

And I've already said that neither, you, I nor anybody else can possibly foresee with any accuracy, any sequence of events. But obviously, all-out war is not permanently sustainable.

I know this is on the main thread, but it relates to this one as well. I'm largely with Simon. You appear to be largely with Liz. Liz Truss risks recklessly inflaming Ukraine’s war to serve her own ambition | Simon Jenkins

The Russians don't see their war as a response to border encroachment - that's laughable propaganda puff on a par with the Nazi's justifications for their invasions. Putin is on record as describing the very exitance of an independent Ukraine as an affront to his idea of Russia - and he judged that post US withdrawal from Afghanistan and post covid that the time was right to correct that historical "mistake".
And are you going to answer this - cos im all ears -

So what do you think will happen if support for Ukraine is stopped? You really aren't engaging with this bit of it other than blithely suggesting it will "save lives" - what is the mechanism, the sequence of events, where we get to "peace" once all the arms and ammo from the west is stopped?

 

[RD2003]

I don't know what will happen if 'support' for Ukraine is stopped. I haven't called for it to be stopped.

It isn't only me who has pointed out that the roots of what's happening in Ukraine go back to when it was first mooted that Ukraine and Georgia could join NATO in 2008. Immediately you got the brief war in Georgia (after Georgia made the first moves on the ground, providing Russia with the excuse it needed). The fighting in Donbas and the annexation of Crimea happened soon after the overthrow of the pro-Russian president and the seizure of power by a government that immediately started talking about joining NATO.

If the Russians see NATO on their borders as an encroachment, neither I nor you, nor anybody else can do anything about it.

Anyway, are you with Liz Truss or what?

 

[bluescreen]

<snip>Sooner or later, the penny is going to have to drop, which, for good or ill means recognising the reality of the fact that Russia will never, suddenly and unprecedentedly, give up on resisting encroachments on its borders

Who what where? Or do you mean countries wanting to join NATO as protection against possible Russian encroachment on their borders? I don't understand what your position is here.

 

[RD2003]

Who what where? Or do you mean countries wanting to join NATO as protection against possible Russian encroachment on their borders? I don't understand what your position is here.

See the post before yours.

 

[Pickman's model]

Who what where? Or do you mean countries wanting to join NATO as protection against possible Russian encroachment on their borders? I don't understand what your position is here.

he is a man of mystery

 

[Pickman's model]

I don't know what will happen if 'support' for Ukraine is stopped. I haven't called for it to be stopped.

It isn't only me who has pointed out that the roots of what's happening in Ukraine go back to when it was first mooted that Ukraine and Georgia could join NATO in 2008. Immediately you got the brief war in Georgia (after Georgia made the first moves on the ground, providing Russia with the excuse it needed). The fighting in Donbas and the annexation of Crimea happened soon after the overthrow of the pro-Russian president and the seizure of power by a government that immediately started talking about joining NATO.

If the Russians see NATO on their borders as an encroachment, neither I nor you, nor anybody else can do anything about it.

Anyway, are you with Liz Truss or what?

this has been discussed to death and you bring nothing new to that particular table

 

[RD2003]

this has been discussed to death and you bring nothing new to that particular table

You could say the same about 90% of contributions on here. In any case, it's something that apparently needs constant repeating.

 

[Pickman's model]

You could say the same about 90% of contributions on here. In any case, it's something that apparently needs constant repeating.

repetition does not add spice or interest or new sides to the argument and only shows how bereft of a good analysis you are

 

[RD2003]

repetition does not add spice or interest or new sides to the argument and only shows how bereft of a good analysis you are

What can I do but apologise profusely?

 

[Pickman's model]

What can I do but apologise profusely?

you could put some effort into your posts

 

[RD2003]

you could put some effort into your posts

Again, so could most.

 

[Pickman's model]

Again, so could most.

oh right, you refuse to make an effort with your posts because you feel other people don't bother. pisspoor