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

[frogwoman]

Yes Russia was seriously considering it at one point though I don't know if that was as late as 2010. They were also members of the Partnership for Peace programme

 

[Duncan2]

Oh right-did they think better of this idea or were they dissuaded somehow do we know?

 

[not-bono-ever]

goes back to Yeltsin in the 90's.eta he was full of bluster tho .

was reading this the other day actually

Exposing the myth of Western betrayal of Russia over NATO’s eastern enlargement

Thirty years after the collapse of the Soviet Union, Russia is still peddling the old myth of Western betrayal of Russia by expanding NATO eastward after the end of the Cold War. Both Vladimir Puti…

blogs.lse.ac.uk

 

[Duncan2]

That figures I can imagine Yeltsin getting turned down for NATO membership-seldom sober i seem to recall.

 

[not-bono-ever]

he was scrabbling for legitimacy / stability as the southern republics legged it in the wake of Gorbachovs scuppered attempt to reformat the SU whilst still keeping Moscow at the helm

 

[Duncan2]

goes back to Yeltsin in the 90's.eta he was full of bluster tho .

was reading this the other day actually

Exposing the myth of Western betrayal of Russia over NATO’s eastern enlargement

Thirty years after the collapse of the Soviet Union, Russia is still peddling the old myth of Western betrayal of Russia by expanding NATO eastward after the end of the Cold War. Both Vladimir Puti…

blogs.lse.ac.uk

Blimey-so the Russians altogether got the wrong end of the stick.

 

[likesfish]

Russia was probably too chaotic still had thousands of tanks and nukes the Eastern Europeans didn't want to playthings for Russia.

 

[RD2003]

So the choice is let Putin have what he wants or the world burns. That seems a sound strategy for the short term but what about the medium to long term when the precedent is set that we just roll over to aggression?

No-that is only the choice as presented by obedient simpletons.

As I keep saying, who are 'we'? You, in particular, have always liked to present yourself on here as some kind of fearless working class political bruiser. Are we now given to understand that this was conditional on backing your own ruling class and its strategic interests?

 

[RD2003]

Russia was probably too chaotic still had thousands of tanks and nukes the Eastern Europeans didn't want to playthings for Russia.

Thousands of tanks or not, Russia was still in no position to threaten anybody until the ignoring of its strategic interests became a major factor in bringing Putin to power.

Again, it doesn't matter whether anybody thinks these strategic interests are legitimate or not when the Russians clearly do.

 

[RD2003]

I am pretty sure that the vast majority of Ukrainians are very very keen to get as much weaponry as they can to fight off the invader - if there are any voices saying different ive not seen them (although im sure RT or similar can provide) . And of course its not what I - or anybody else - wants. The war is an absolute catastrophe for the whole world and its a question of working out the least shit outcome and there is huge amount of uncertainty as to what that is.
But saying "end the war by not arming Ukraine too much" is no guarantee of anything - and could quite conceivably make the war last even longer, and bloodier. It does not lessen the risk of further wars and nuclear blackmail by putin (especially if hes seen that it works) you may very well just be putting off the day when the world has to call his bluff - but at even greater cost in lives.
You seem incapable of engaging with the reality outside of your smug, condescending, assumed moral superiority. Your argument is as infantile as it is intellectually cowardly.

You are 'pretty sure' how exactly? Have you taken a poll of Ukrainians in Ukraine or something?

I do admit, however, that I am incapable of matching the 'intellectual bravery' of people calling for maximum war from their laptops.

 

[RD2003]

No it isn't

Only in the sense that we must take a stance on everything else that hasn't yet happened.

 

[RD2003]

They still had quite a large armed force and a couple of nukes, so I don't think they were quite as cuddly as you suggest.

However it would have been a good time for UK, US, France and Russia to significantly disarm.

Never said anybody was cuddly. They wanted to rebuild their regional power base but it wasn't possible. By expanding NATO to Russian borders, they brought out the worst in the Russian political culture, leading to where we are now.

 

[RD2003]

That figures I can imagine Yeltsin getting turned down for NATO membership-seldom sober i seem to recall.

But the Russian government wasn't just Yeltsin, and that government was probably the one in Russia that was most friendly towards the west in a century, if not ever.

 

[RD2003]

If the Russian government is unhappy with NATO expansion, then they've had every opportunity over the decades to use diplomatic means to persuade their neighbours that joining up was unnecessary. Instead they chose to use subversion and intimidation. The countries seeking to join up with NATO have their own agency in all of this. They have their reasons. Russia is a big part of those reasons.

As it turns out, those reasons are pretty damn justified. If Ukraine compromises now, then what exactly would be preventing Russia taking the time to lick their wounds and recover, before pulling the same trick once again? Because they would know as a matter of record that if they push hard enough, the opposition will fold.

They possibly could have, but, as I said above, NATO expansion, brought Russian nationalism to the fore again. It isn't a matter of right or wrong but of what is.

Still don't understand the reasoning that says that whatever the outcome, Russian armed might and its economy will take years, if not decades to recover from this, especially as Russia is now a 'pariah state' etc etc,, but at the same time they will somehow be in a position to reinvade or invade somewhere else.

 

[Pickman's model]

Only in the sense that we must take a stance on everything else that hasn't yet happened.

Not at all

 

[Magnus McGinty]

No-that is only the choice as presented by obedient simpletons.

As I keep saying, who are 'we'? You, in particular, have always liked to present yourself on here as some kind of fearless working class political bruiser. Are we now given to understand that this was conditional on backing your own ruling class and its strategic interests?

I don’t find autocracy in the ascendency in Europe to be a pretty fantastic prospect and if that happens to be similar to the thinking in Westminster then that’s one of life’s little coincidences.

 

[Kaka Tim]

You are 'pretty sure' how exactly? Have you taken a poll of Ukrainians in Ukraine or something?

I do admit, however, that I am incapable of matching the 'intellectual bravery' of people calling for maximum war from their laptops.

Well all the evidence - including actual opinion polling (90% support for the government) - the rush of volunteers, the tenacity with which they are fighting, what Ukrainians are posting on social media and the complete absence of anyone arguing different all indicate massive support from the population for fighting off the invaders with all means available. Which should - of course - no surprise to anyone bar Vladimir Bonaparte. You want to believe different because it fits your willfully naive "force Ukraine to give in cos peace" position.
Your intellectual cowardice is in your refusal to engage with this sort of reality because it means abandoning that simplistic naivety. ("NATO bad, US bad ergo anyone they dont like must have something going for them")
Do you think the USA should have refused to support the UK in 1940 - because it would have make the war last longer and cause more death and anyway the British empire was an imperialist oppressor ?
Deal with the world as it actually is ffs - not the one in your fuzzy felt version of anti imperialism for fuckwits.

 

[RD2003]

I don’t find autocracy in the ascendency in Europe to be a pretty fantastic prospect and if that happens to be similar to the thinking in Westminster then that’s one of life’s little coincidences.

Neither do I, but it's still possible for us fearless class fighters to try to maintain a bit of scepticism.

It's never all or nothing. The world is a fucking dirty place, with deceptions at every turn.

 

[RD2003]

Well all the evidence - including actual opinion polling (90% support for the government) - the rush of volunteers, the tenacity with which they are fighting, what Ukrainians are posting on social media and the complete absence of anyone arguing different all indicate massive support from the population for fighting off the invaders with all means available. Which should - of course - no surprise to anyone bar Vladimir Bonaparte. You want to believe different because it fits your willfully naive "force Ukraine to give in cos peace" position.
Your intellectual cowardice is in your refusal to engage with this sort of reality because it means abandoning that simplistic naivety. ("NATO bad, US bad ergo anyone they dont like must have something going for them")
Do you think the USA should have refused to support the UK in 1940 - because it would have make the war last longer and cause more death and anyway the British empire was an imperialist oppressor ?
Deal with the world as it actually is ffs - not the one in your fuzzy felt version of anti imperialism for fuckwits.

I don't believe different, nor do I want to. I just wonder where your certainty comes from when you're just sitting in your kitchen or living room 2000 miles away from the action, revelling in your own intellectual courage.

 

[Kaka Tim]

I don't believe different, nor do I want to. I just wonder where your certainty comes from when you're just sitting in your kitchen or living room 2000 miles away from the action, revelling in your own intellectual courage.

So you accept that the Ukrainians overwhelmingly want to fight back the invader but you think they should be pressurised to give in to "save lives" ? And what certainty? We are all in the dark here as to how this unfolds - its you who pontificating from your moral high ground.

 

[NoXion]

They possibly could have, but, as I said above, NATO expansion, brought Russian nationalism to the fore again. It isn't a matter of right or wrong but of what is.

Still don't understand the reasoning that says that whatever the outcome, Russian armed might and its economy will take years, if not decades to recover from this, especially as Russia is now a 'pariah state' etc etc,, but at the same time they will somehow be in a position to reinvade or invade somewhere else.

You're ignoring the role of the Russian authorities in cultivating nationalism for their own ends. That was their choice too. They could have built a political narrative within Russia which might have been more amenable to peaceable outcomes, but they chose not to. The invasion of Ukraine, justified to the Russian people with the sturm und drang bullshit that's now pouring 24/7 out of Russian state media, is the culmination of all that.

I don't honestly know how long it would take for Russia to sufficiently recover from committing this Ukraine atrocity for them to seriously consider getting aggressive with another country. However long it takes, if the Russian authorities take the lesson that they can successfully salami-slice bits off of their neighbours, then why wouldn't they do it again? Nothing from the Russian government so far indicates that they've learned their lesson about being nasty imperialist dicks; instead we get whining about sanctions and more belligerent statements from Putin. They've certainly demonstrated a willingness to throw Russian lives away in the pursuit of such foolishness, so why wouldn't they do it again once they think they've regained sufficient strength, whenever that is?

 

[RD2003]

So you accept that the Ukrainians overwhelmingly want to fight back the invader but you think they should be pressurised to give in to "save lives" ? And what certainty? We are all in the dark here as to how this unfolds - its you who pontificating from your moral high ground.

At least I don't try and talk like a de-facto participant.

 

[Kaka Tim]

At least I don't try and talk like a de-facto participant.

where do i - or anyone else on here - do that? And again - you refuse to actually engage in any of the debate when challenged on your arguments- you just chuck out sneers.

 

[RD2003]

You're ignoring the role of the Russian authorities in cultivating nationalism for their own ends. That was their choice too. They could have built a political narrative within Russia which might have been more amenable to peaceable outcomes, but they chose not to. The invasion of Ukraine, justified to the Russian people with the sturm und drang bullshit that's now pouring 24/7 out of Russian state media, is the culmination of all that.

I don't honestly know how long it would take for Russia to sufficiently recover from committing this Ukraine atrocity for them to seriously consider getting aggressive with another country. However long it takes, if the Russian authorities take the lesson that they can successfully salami-slice bits off of their neighbours, then why wouldn't they do it again? Nothing from the Russian government so far indicates that they've learned their lesson about being nasty imperialist dicks; instead we get whining about sanctions and more belligerent statements from Putin. They've certainly demonstrated a willingness to throw Russian lives away in the pursuit of such foolishness, so why wouldn't they do it again once they think they've regained sufficient strength, whenever that is?

Arguably the early Putin regime attempted to do that. The post-2008 regime is a different beast.

As if the regime is going to learn a lesson in the midst of a war they've presented as wholly justified. However, nothing suggests that they're going to be in any position after this to roll over parts of eastern Europe now in NATO. Or anywhere else

 

[RD2003]

where do i - or anyone else on here - do that? And again - you refuse to actually engage in any of the debate when challenged on your arguments- you just chuck out sneers.

I'm sorry. I should realise that repeated accusattions of 'intellectual cowardice'should not be interpreted as sneers, and that sneers are justified if coming from the morally correct.

 

[maomao]

justified to the Russian people with the sturm und drang bullshit that's now pouring 24/7 out of Russian state media, is the culmination of all that.

They've justified it with 18th century German literature?

 

[Pickman's model]

At least I don't try and talk like a de-facto participant.

We are all de facto participants

 

[bluescreen]

Obvious troll is obvious. Don't let's make the thread all about them and their pontifications.

 

[NoXion]

Arguably the early Putin regime attempted to do that. The post-2008 regime is a different beast.

As if the regime is going to learn a lesson in the midst of a war they've presented as wholly justified. However, nothing suggests that they're going to be in any position after this to roll over parts of eastern Europe now in NATO. Or anywhere else

Well that depends on how long they've had to recover, doesn't it? If the war is wholly justified in the eyes of the Russian government, why wouldn't they try again later?

 

[RD2003]

We are all de facto participants

Some are tank comanders; others laptop jockeys. But we all have our parts to play.