Humberto
Relax
You'll be back, eh?
War propaganda, 'Realists' and neocons, and the denigration of the war sceptics
- Thread starter RD2003
- Start date
You'll be back, eh?
RD2003
Got a really fucking shitty attitude
Still here, but moved along the road, away from the rambling, possibly dangerous man at the bus stop, as there's nobody else about on the street And it's late and gone dark.
RD2003
Got a really fucking shitty attitude
I can still hear him, even though I'm skulking in a shop doorway. And still no sign of a bus. Might flag down a black cab if one comes along.
RD2003
Got a really fucking shitty attitude
'Phew,' says our (anti) hero.
Humberto
Relax
I forgot you were so popular yourself.
RD2003
Got a really fucking shitty attitude
Taxi's just pulled up. Hope you get home ok, no matter what
Humberto
Relax
Hope you get home ok, no matter what
Ok lad.
RD2003
Got a really fucking shitty attitude
Our anti-hero waves as taxi pulls away. Sits back and relaxes, finally.
Humberto
Relax
'our'
RD2003
Got a really fucking shitty attitude
In the UK, the former Commander Joint Forces Command of the British army, Gen Richard Barrons, has been interviewed by Sky News about the current situation in Ukraine. He had this to say on the prospect for humanitarian corridors out of Sievierodonetsk, where some 10,000 civilians are said to be trapped:
He stressed that Russia’s President Vladimir Putin seems very secure in his position, observing:
Barrons said that Russia’s action would have to prompt a strategic rethink from Nato, telling viewers:
He suggested that western countries needed to offer further military support to Ukraine, saying:
Pickman's model
Starry Wisdom
but what do you think?
RD2003
Got a really fucking shitty attitude
Nowt, apart from the fact that he seems to agree with me about the stupidy and naivety of assuming the war is all about just Putin, launched on his whim alone.
RD2003
Got a really fucking shitty attitude
Anyway, I'll just move these links up the thread in case they were missed in the distractions of late last night (which I am equally responsible for.)
www.politico.com
To be clear, Russia’s assault on Ukraine is illegal: the Kremlin attacked a country that presented no clear and present danger to Russian national security. Worse, Russia has indiscriminately struck civilian targets, and its soldiers have committed war crimes. Consequently, Ukraine has the right to defend its independence and should be given the means to do.
Yet, we should not delude ourselves about how far the rest of the world will go in supporting Ukraine. Washington has a bad habit of assuming that, with the right amount of pressure or inducement, other states will eventually line up behind the U.S. as it tries to solve a problem, manage a crisis, or punish an aggressor.
But international politics is a far more complicated affair. How the world looks depends in large measure on where a specific country sits and what its interests are and how much of those interests it can reasonably sacrifice. This is true even in instances, such as Russia’s attack on Ukraine, where a wrong is easily discernible. The U.S. would be better served if it were to live in a world of reality — however frustrating that may be — rather than a world of make-believe, in which countries reliably follow the lead of American policymakers. Otherwise, the U.S. will set itself up for disappointment, frustration and potentially failure.
Opinion | The U.S. Can’t Force the Rest of the World to Support Ukraine. Here’s Why.
Outside the U.S. and Europe, countries tend to see Russia’s invasion of Ukraine as a regional conflict, not a global crisis.
www.politico.com
To be clear, Russia’s assault on Ukraine is illegal: the Kremlin attacked a country that presented no clear and present danger to Russian national security. Worse, Russia has indiscriminately struck civilian targets, and its soldiers have committed war crimes. Consequently, Ukraine has the right to defend its independence and should be given the means to do.
Yet, we should not delude ourselves about how far the rest of the world will go in supporting Ukraine. Washington has a bad habit of assuming that, with the right amount of pressure or inducement, other states will eventually line up behind the U.S. as it tries to solve a problem, manage a crisis, or punish an aggressor.
But international politics is a far more complicated affair. How the world looks depends in large measure on where a specific country sits and what its interests are and how much of those interests it can reasonably sacrifice. This is true even in instances, such as Russia’s attack on Ukraine, where a wrong is easily discernible. The U.S. would be better served if it were to live in a world of reality — however frustrating that may be — rather than a world of make-believe, in which countries reliably follow the lead of American policymakers. Otherwise, the U.S. will set itself up for disappointment, frustration and potentially failure.
RD2003
Got a really fucking shitty attitude
Opinion | Negotiating to End the Ukraine War Isn’t Appeasement
'Meanwhile, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy insists, not surprisingly, that “victory will be ours” and urges Ukrainians to “defend every meter of our land.” And Biden, even as he makes mention of the need for diplomacy, has so far been unwilling to caution Kyiv against those aims, instead affirming “I will not pressure the Ukrainian government — in private or public — to make any territorial concessions.” “We’re not going to tell the Ukrainians how to negotiate, what to negotiate and when to negotiate,” Colin Kahl, the undersecretary of defense for policy, reiterated this week. “They’re going to set those terms for themselves.”
But Washington has not only a right to discuss war aims with Kyiv, but also an obligation. This conflict arguably represents the most dangerous geopolitical moment since the Cuban missile crisis. A hot war is raging between a nuclear-armed Russia and a NATO-armed Ukraine, with NATO territory abutting the conflict zone. This war could define the strategic and economic contours of the 21st century, possibly opening an era of militarized rivalry between the world’s liberal democracies and an autocratic bloc anchored by Russia and China.
These stakes necessitate direct U.S. engagement in determining when and how this war ends. Instead of offering arms with no strings attached — effectively leaving strategy up to the Ukrainians — Washington needs to launch a forthright discussion about war termination with allies, with Kyiv, and ultimately, with Moscow.'
.
'To prepare the ground for that pivot, the Biden administration should stop making claims that could tie its own hands at the negotiating table. Biden insists that the West must “make it clear that might does not make right.” Otherwise, “it will send a message to other would-be aggressors that they too can seize territory and subjugate other countries. It will put the survival of other peaceful democracies at risk. And it could mark the end of the rules-based international order.” '
'Really? Russia has illegally held Crimea and occupied a chunk of Donbas since 2014. But the rules-based international order has not come to an end; indeed, it has performed admirably in punishing Russia for its new round of aggression against Ukraine. Washington should avoid painting itself into a corner by predicting catastrophe if Russia remains in control of a slice of Ukraine when the fighting stops. Such forecasts make compromise more difficult — and risk magnifying the geopolitical impact of whatever territorial gains Russia may salvage.'
'The claim that Vladimir Putin will end his trouble-making only if he is decisively defeated in Ukraine is another fallacious argument that distorts debate and stands in the way of diplomacy. Writing in The Atlantic, Anne Applebaum calls for the “humiliation” of Putin and insists that “the defeat, sidelining, or removal of Putin is the only outcome that offers any long-term stability in Ukraine and the rest of Europe.” Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin wants to weaken Russia “to the degree that it can’t do the kinds of things that it has done in invading Ukraine.”
But this is wishful thinking, not strategic sobriety. Putin is poised to remain in power for the foreseeable future. He will be a troublemaker no matter how this war ends; flexing his geopolitical muscle and burnishing his nationalist credentials are the primary sources of his domestic legitimacy. Furthermore, humiliating Putin is risky business; he could well be more reckless with his back up against the wall than if he can claim victory by taking another bite out of Ukraine. The West has learned to live with and contain Putin for the past two decades — and will likely continue to have to do so into the next.
Finally, Biden needs to start weaning mainstream debate away from the false equation of diplomacy with appeasement. When Henry Kissinger recently proposed in Davos that Ukraine may need to make territorial concessions to end the war, Zelenskyy retorted: “It seems that Mr. Kissinger’s calendar is not 2022, but 1938, and he thought he was talking to an audience not in Davos, but in Munich of that time.” Biden himself asserts that “It would be wrong and contrary to well-settled principles” to counsel Ukraine on potential concessions at the negotiating table.
But strategic prudence should not be mistaken for appeasement. It is in Ukraine’s own self-interest to avoid a conflict that festers for years and instead negotiate a ceasefire and follow-on process aimed at concluding a territorial settlement.
The United States, its NATO allies, Russia, and the rest of the world have an interest in securing this same outcome — precisely why it is now time for Biden to set the negotiating table.'
'Meanwhile, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy insists, not surprisingly, that “victory will be ours” and urges Ukrainians to “defend every meter of our land.” And Biden, even as he makes mention of the need for diplomacy, has so far been unwilling to caution Kyiv against those aims, instead affirming “I will not pressure the Ukrainian government — in private or public — to make any territorial concessions.” “We’re not going to tell the Ukrainians how to negotiate, what to negotiate and when to negotiate,” Colin Kahl, the undersecretary of defense for policy, reiterated this week. “They’re going to set those terms for themselves.”
But Washington has not only a right to discuss war aims with Kyiv, but also an obligation. This conflict arguably represents the most dangerous geopolitical moment since the Cuban missile crisis. A hot war is raging between a nuclear-armed Russia and a NATO-armed Ukraine, with NATO territory abutting the conflict zone. This war could define the strategic and economic contours of the 21st century, possibly opening an era of militarized rivalry between the world’s liberal democracies and an autocratic bloc anchored by Russia and China.
These stakes necessitate direct U.S. engagement in determining when and how this war ends. Instead of offering arms with no strings attached — effectively leaving strategy up to the Ukrainians — Washington needs to launch a forthright discussion about war termination with allies, with Kyiv, and ultimately, with Moscow.'
.
'To prepare the ground for that pivot, the Biden administration should stop making claims that could tie its own hands at the negotiating table. Biden insists that the West must “make it clear that might does not make right.” Otherwise, “it will send a message to other would-be aggressors that they too can seize territory and subjugate other countries. It will put the survival of other peaceful democracies at risk. And it could mark the end of the rules-based international order.” '
'Really? Russia has illegally held Crimea and occupied a chunk of Donbas since 2014. But the rules-based international order has not come to an end; indeed, it has performed admirably in punishing Russia for its new round of aggression against Ukraine. Washington should avoid painting itself into a corner by predicting catastrophe if Russia remains in control of a slice of Ukraine when the fighting stops. Such forecasts make compromise more difficult — and risk magnifying the geopolitical impact of whatever territorial gains Russia may salvage.'
'The claim that Vladimir Putin will end his trouble-making only if he is decisively defeated in Ukraine is another fallacious argument that distorts debate and stands in the way of diplomacy. Writing in The Atlantic, Anne Applebaum calls for the “humiliation” of Putin and insists that “the defeat, sidelining, or removal of Putin is the only outcome that offers any long-term stability in Ukraine and the rest of Europe.” Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin wants to weaken Russia “to the degree that it can’t do the kinds of things that it has done in invading Ukraine.”
But this is wishful thinking, not strategic sobriety. Putin is poised to remain in power for the foreseeable future. He will be a troublemaker no matter how this war ends; flexing his geopolitical muscle and burnishing his nationalist credentials are the primary sources of his domestic legitimacy. Furthermore, humiliating Putin is risky business; he could well be more reckless with his back up against the wall than if he can claim victory by taking another bite out of Ukraine. The West has learned to live with and contain Putin for the past two decades — and will likely continue to have to do so into the next.
Finally, Biden needs to start weaning mainstream debate away from the false equation of diplomacy with appeasement. When Henry Kissinger recently proposed in Davos that Ukraine may need to make territorial concessions to end the war, Zelenskyy retorted: “It seems that Mr. Kissinger’s calendar is not 2022, but 1938, and he thought he was talking to an audience not in Davos, but in Munich of that time.” Biden himself asserts that “It would be wrong and contrary to well-settled principles” to counsel Ukraine on potential concessions at the negotiating table.
But strategic prudence should not be mistaken for appeasement. It is in Ukraine’s own self-interest to avoid a conflict that festers for years and instead negotiate a ceasefire and follow-on process aimed at concluding a territorial settlement.
The United States, its NATO allies, Russia, and the rest of the world have an interest in securing this same outcome — precisely why it is now time for Biden to set the negotiating table.'
RD2003
Got a really fucking shitty attitude
Opinion | Why non-Western countries tend to see Russia's war very differently
'But therein lies the disconnect with much of the Global South. In conversations with diplomats and analysts from across Africa, Asia, the Middle East and Latin America, it was evident to me that these countries largely sympathize with the plight of the Ukrainian people and view Russia as the aggressor. But Western demands that they make costly sacrifices by cutting off economic ties with Russia to uphold a “rules-based order” have begotten an allergic reaction. That order hasn’t been rules-based; instead, it has allowed the U.S. to violate international law with impunity. The West’s messaging on Ukraine has taken its tone-deafness to a whole new level, and it is unlikely to win over the support of countries that have often experienced the worse sides of the international order.'
'The damaging consequences of American interventionism play a significant role in the calculations of countries across the Global South. Most of them seek close relations with the U.S. But because of U.S. unilateralism, they desire options to find counterweights against U.S. power when needed. The emergence of a multipolar system provides countries of the Global South with a degree of protection against American adventurism, while they largely see Russia’s military intervention in Ukraine as a European affair that doesn’t change the larger global picture, in which balancing options against the U.S. rather than Russia are sought after.'
'But therein lies the disconnect with much of the Global South. In conversations with diplomats and analysts from across Africa, Asia, the Middle East and Latin America, it was evident to me that these countries largely sympathize with the plight of the Ukrainian people and view Russia as the aggressor. But Western demands that they make costly sacrifices by cutting off economic ties with Russia to uphold a “rules-based order” have begotten an allergic reaction. That order hasn’t been rules-based; instead, it has allowed the U.S. to violate international law with impunity. The West’s messaging on Ukraine has taken its tone-deafness to a whole new level, and it is unlikely to win over the support of countries that have often experienced the worse sides of the international order.'
'The damaging consequences of American interventionism play a significant role in the calculations of countries across the Global South. Most of them seek close relations with the U.S. But because of U.S. unilateralism, they desire options to find counterweights against U.S. power when needed. The emergence of a multipolar system provides countries of the Global South with a degree of protection against American adventurism, while they largely see Russia’s military intervention in Ukraine as a European affair that doesn’t change the larger global picture, in which balancing options against the U.S. rather than Russia are sought after.'
It's pointless and irritating though. And no-one's going to read all that copy and pasted text.
RD2003
Got a really fucking shitty attitude
I don't see how you can know who is or isn't reading what.It's pointless and irritating though. And no-one's going to read all that copy and pasted text.
And it's no more pointless or irritating than the regurgitated hand-wringing and 'rah rah rah the war' stuff that certain posters have been indulging in since before the invasion itself.
You don't have to read anything you don't want to though.
Pickman's model
Starry Wisdom
i'd rather read teuchter's tosh, which at least he's come up with himself, than your dreadful litany of cut and past shit, you've not a thought of your own
Last edited:
RD2003
Got a really fucking shitty attitude
There's little need to add anything of my own in these instances, when the bolded bits are saying basically what I've been saying for months. As it seems I have to keep pointing out.
And they say it better than me, a bit like they say things better than you or almost anybody else on here. Which makes for a better/easier read.
Some people may feel the need to comment on absolutely everything. It's how you take your posts into the hundreds of thousands, I suppose. Others are able to rein in their inner windbag.
Takes all sorts to make a world...
And they say it better than me, a bit like they say things better than you or almost anybody else on here. Which makes for a better/easier read.
Some people may feel the need to comment on absolutely everything. It's how you take your posts into the hundreds of thousands, I suppose. Others are able to rein in their inner windbag.
Takes all sorts to make a world...
Pickman's model
Starry Wisdom
i wish i could say that was the truth but the way you carry on posting other people's thoughts without showing either agreement or dissent with their views suggests that's not the case for you, you post up ream after ream of verbiage which adds fuck all to the thread
Supine
Newt Member
I thought teuchter was urban’s main anti-hero.
The challenge is strong
Storm Fox
Trying the find the next noun to verb
If you were in a country and one of your neighbouring countries invaded and threatened to wipe you and your culture off the map, as Russia has done.
Firstly would you be bothered?
Secondly, would you care where the help came from to try and push back the aggressor?
Thirdly, Your country has been invaded by another country. Are you going appreciate that the sentiment from some people in safe countries is that the countries giving help are being blamed for the death of your friends and family and not the country that is shelling you?
I assume you aren't going to answer this, or just give some vague answer about having answered it already.
Firstly would you be bothered?
Secondly, would you care where the help came from to try and push back the aggressor?
Thirdly, Your country has been invaded by another country. Are you going appreciate that the sentiment from some people in safe countries is that the countries giving help are being blamed for the death of your friends and family and not the country that is shelling you?
I assume you aren't going to answer this, or just give some vague answer about having answered it already.
RD2003
Got a really fucking shitty attitude
Maybe stop coming on the thread, or add something of your own? At least half of your near quarter of a million posts must surely be just moaning about other posters you could easily ignore.
RD2003
Got a really fucking shitty attitude
No idea. But none of that has anything to do with the posts under discussion, which I've already said I largely agree with. Of course, that's agreeing while sitting at a safe distance of several thousand miles. Others prefer to join the action, from a safe distance of several thousand miles.
As I said, it takes all sorts.
Similar threads
- Poll
