advertisement


Ukraine V

Seeker_UK said:
ie an agreed border. Given one party would want it to be to the West of the Donbas and the other along the recognized Ukraine / Russian Border, that's a tricky one.
Click to expand...
Not only that, but, to make Russia feel 'safe', a buffer zone of states under Moscow's influence/control would also be needed. How far west and south would that zone need to extend to keep Putin from worry?
 
ks.234 said:
The question is, should “more” arms be sent to Ukraine. How many more? More quantity of more powerful? What does “more” mean. “More” has been emphasised and highlighted, so what does it mean?
Click to expand...

It depends on the objective, if you want Ukraine to be part of Russia stop sending arms, if you want it to be independent enough to drive the Russians out.
 
TheDecameron said:
Exactly. To ascribe an external locus of control to Putin’s behaviours is a grave error. He of course will claim he is simply reacting to external forces but the tell is in his lengthy history of statements about a Greater Russia, gathering in of former Soviet era colonial possessions and the explicit threats of violence he has uttered toward ‘anyone who might consider interfering’ with his conquest of Ukraine.
Click to expand...
The French parliament approved it yesterday, too, 209 for and 46 against.
  • For: 100% of MPs voting from Renaissance(LREM/Modem/Horizons), LR, non-LFI NUPES parties (i.e. all mainstream socialists, all Greens, all other independents)
  • Against: all the LFI/Mélenchonists present (43 out of 75) and 3 other far left (GDR). Their position nicely aligned with Corbyn's.
  • Abstained: all the RN (53 out of 89), and 2 GDR. Marine must've realized there were no bonus points to be picked up here for her brand of "responsible opposition".
 
russel said:
It depends on the objective, if you want Ukraine to be part of Russia stop sending arms, if you want it to be independent enough to drive the Russians out.
Click to expand...
Yes, I did say the answer depends on objectives.
 
droodzilla said:
Introducing the latest addition to the list of Putin apologists...

Amnesty International:

https://www.amnesty.org.uk/press-re...vilians-locating-forces-residential-areas-new

It's always the ones you least suspect, isn't it.
Click to expand...
Amnesty's just doing its job. I realize you're having a snigger, but I have no doubt AI will also investigate reports the Russian army is using nuclear power stations as launch pads for their artillery missiles, just as they investigated these:
https://www.amnesty.org.uk/press-re...n-soldiers-castration-video-must-face-justice
https://www.amnesty.org.uk/press-re...-reckless-attack-odesa-town-new-investigation
https://www.amnesty.org.uk/press-re...-attack-was-clear-war-crime-new-investigation
 
PsB said:
Amnesty's just doing its job. I realize you're having a snigger, but I have no doubt AI will also investigate reports the Russian army is using nuclear power stations as launch pads for their artillery missiles, just as they investigated these:
https://www.amnesty.org.uk/press-re...n-soldiers-castration-video-must-face-justice
https://www.amnesty.org.uk/press-re...-reckless-attack-odesa-town-new-investigation
https://www.amnesty.org.uk/press-re...-attack-was-clear-war-crime-new-investigation
Click to expand...
Yes, indeed.

The serious point (almost too banal to state) is that war degrades everything and everyone it touches.

There are no heroes.
 
Joe Hutch said:
Not only that, but, to make Russia feel 'safe', a buffer zone of states under Moscow's influence/control would also be needed. How far west and south would that zone need to extend to keep Putin from worry?
Click to expand...
It would depend on the negotiations but I do not think that it would be along the lines of the old Cold War Iron Curtain because USA is in a stronger position nowadays. It is imperative that NATO stay out of eastern Europe so it would mean withdrawing from many of the states it has enlarged into. At the same time Russia would have to guarantee neutrality here too. It would be a good buffer.

I am talking about a potential peace plan that will last for the foreseeable future, say 50 years. I think the point in my first post about looking at the situation from Russia's point of view has not been taken on board here. Getting rid of Putin won't solve the problem of Russia's insecurity in the face of US and EU expansionism.

These simplistic jingoistic rants about crushing Putin is really sad to see as an example of a lack of independent critical thought and another example of the willingness to be manipulated by the neo-liberal state and media at a time of appalling suffering to millions. As Le Baron (RIP) pointed out 'do you think it is a game of battleships?'

I ask you, if the Russians have to withdraw defeated from the Ukraine, what happens next?
 
Strategising which takes no account of the democratic wishes of the people of Poland, the Baltics etc. The manifest explanation that it would make the Kremlin feel more secure with the corollary that it makes the above populations less secure because Putin would lack the deterrence of NATO. Of course it’s scare mongering to suggest Putin would invade any of these countries.
 
And, lest we forget, Russia invaded Poland at exactly the same time that Germany did. The Poles certainly haven't forgotten this.
 
DimitryZ said:
For those on this thread from the beginning, it's worth noting that the pattern of increased "let's have peace" posts corresponds to an expected change in the military situation - i.e.Russia not doing well.
Click to expand...

Yes, I recall your exchanges with a poster who in supporting the Russian ‘position’ (and therefore invasion), called for Ukraine from the outset to enter ‘peace negotiations’ to concede Russian demands (effectively, to surrender). Behind all the obfuscation, that poster appears, in essence to still hold a similar outlook.

kensalriser said:
Beneath all the bloviating, pomposity and long winded grandstanding, all I'm seeing is an echoing of Russian propaganda and, at best, a complete failure to recognise the true nature of the Putin regime. It's chilling.
Click to expand...

Agreed, but as I think we’re likely already doomed, I take a more dispassionate view. I’ve found it fascinating and enlightening observing the posts you’re presumably alluding to, seeing them as a masterclass in obfuscation, gaslighting, deflection, evasion, circular and repetitive arguments, practically mirroring the propaganda tactics of the Russian regime. They have also for me served to create even further doubts over the MMT evangelism elsewhere, and, my past (lifelong) voting choice. While I also cynically view it as surely just par for the course on social media, I do find it pointless and tiresome to see the same mind games playing on repeat. I’ve better things to do with whatever time is left to us, and I intend to leave here and concentrate on them.

Super Bigote said:
NATO was mistaken to expand into eastern Europe when Russia was temporarily weak and even more mistaken to continue this enlargement into the 21st century. A world map with Russia at the centre of it shows how Russia is surrounded by hostile powers.

So it might be of value to consider how Russians view the constant advancement of NATO and what a considerable threat it presents them as their buffer is continually eroded.

USA were going to start a nuclear war when Khrushchev installed nukes in Cuba, whereas Russia has been restrained so far despite nuclear weapons pointing at them from western Europe and Turkey plus assistance in nuclear missions from eastern European countries. The actions of USA in this context are ridiculously provocative and interference in the Ukraine which has such great significance to Russia is understandably intolerable to them.

This all contrasts with the uneasy peace of the Cold War where the boundaries were more clearly defined by the Iron Curtain where there was the cruel suppression of Russian 'satellites' but relative stability compared to what we are seeing now, and of course much the same as was being conducted in the Americas in the USA's own sphere of influence, only the Russians were by no means as cruel.

I'm not sure how we are to get out of this mess, and it may not be possible to now that USA and Russia are both controlled by warmongers with vested interests in perpetuating the death and destruction, but I think that the best outcome would be a negotiated peace solution which involves NATO reversing on some of its expansion and the creation of another Iron Curtain which is formally agreed upon by both sides in the manner of that after WW2.
Click to expand...

My initial thoughts on reading this were ‘completely barking!’, but after a moments reflection I saw it as a serious post outlining the Russian position to justify the reinstatement of the former Soviet Union empire. In that light, it makes complete sense, though I’m taken aback at the articulation, almost coming from the horse’s mouth. Leaves me wondering at the Left’s lingering soviet sympathies, despite the Russian core having long ago morphed into something to the political right of Ghengis Khan – presumably the continuing pull is the anti-West hostility.

A couple of points, first, both interference by US in the Americas was as wrong as Russian oppression; to assert that Russian ‘cruel oppression’ was 'by no means as cruel', well great, that’s alright then, no doubt peoples of the former soviet states will relish living under it again. Or maybe they’ll be given a reasonable, by Russian standards, offer they can’t refuse – live under ‘cruel oppression’ or face nuclear weapon strikes? The Russian regime knows full well that NATO is a defensive organisation which has no wish to go to war with Russia, proven over the 70+ years since its inception, including the unwillingness to confront Russian military aggression in Georgia and Crimea. The regime confidently factored this in to their calculations over the invasion of Ukraine, but it is the stiff resistance of the latter (people literally fighting for their lives) which is the crucial difference.

I intend to post no further here. Though I’ve never been more than a very occasional contributor, I’m now finished with this thread, and, indeed, with any of the ‘political’ threads on PFM.
To DimitryZ and other colleagues who are like minded in seeing clearly, without caveat or weasel words, the murder, destruction and brutal oppression being inflicted on the people of Ukraine, my best wishes for what will be an uncertain future for us all.
 
Joe Hutch said:
Not only that, but, to make Russia feel 'safe', a buffer zone of states under Moscow's influence/control would also be needed. How far west and south would that zone need to extend to keep Putin from worry?
Click to expand...

Like this sort of thing:

Map-Soviet-Union-countries.jpg
 
nicetone said:
Yes, I recall your exchanges with a poster who in supporting the Russian ‘position’ (and therefore invasion), called for Ukraine from the outset to enter ‘peace negotiations’ to concede Russian demands (effectively, to surrender). Behind all the obfuscation, that poster appears, in essence to still hold a similar outlook.



Agreed, but as I think we’re likely already doomed, I take a more dispassionate view. I’ve found it fascinating and enlightening observing the posts you’re presumably alluding to, seeing them as a masterclass in obfuscation, gaslighting, deflection, evasion, circular and repetitive arguments, practically mirroring the propaganda tactics of the Russian regime. They have also for me served to create even further doubts over the MMT evangelism elsewhere, and, my past (lifelong) voting choice. While I also cynically view it as surely just par for the course on social media, I do find it pointless and tiresome to see the same mind games playing on repeat. I’ve better things to do with whatever time is left to us, and I intend to leave here and concentrate on them.



My initial thoughts on reading this were ‘completely barking!’, but after a moments reflection I saw it as a serious post outlining the Russian position to justify the reinstatement of the former Soviet Union empire. In that light, it makes complete sense, though I’m taken aback at the articulation, almost coming from the horse’s mouth. Leaves me wondering at the Left’s lingering soviet sympathies, despite the Russian core having long ago morphed into something to the political right of Ghengis Khan – presumably the continuing pull is the anti-West hostility.

A couple of points, first, both interference by US in the Americas was as wrong as Russian oppression; to assert that Russian ‘cruel oppression’ was 'by no means as cruel', well great, that’s alright then, no doubt peoples of the former soviet states will relish living under it again. Or maybe they’ll be given a reasonable, by Russian standards, offer they can’t refuse – live under ‘cruel oppression’ or face nuclear weapon strikes? The Russian regime knows full well that NATO is a defensive organisation which has no wish to go to war with Russia, proven over the 70+ years since its inception, including the unwillingness to confront Russian military aggression in Georgia and Crimea. The regime confidently factored this in to their calculations over the invasion of Ukraine, but it is the stiff resistance of the latter (people literally fighting for their lives) which is the crucial difference.

I intend to post no further here. Though I’ve never been more than a very occasional contributor, I’m now finished with this thread, and, indeed, with any of the ‘political’ threads on PFM.
To DimitryZ and other colleagues who are like minded in seeing clearly, without caveat or weasel words, the murder, destruction and brutal oppression being inflicted on the people of Ukraine, my best wishes for what will be an uncertain future for us all.
Click to expand...
Who was it that posted from a Russian position and supported the invasion?
 
WTF (from todays Guardiian):

The former German chancellor Gerhard Schröder has come under fire for a private meeting held with the Russian leader, Vladimir Putin, after he travelled on holiday to Moscow to meet him. Schröder told German media in a lengthy interview he had nothing to apologise for over his friendship with Putin, whom he met last week during a visit to the Russian capital.
 
droodzilla said:
Yes, indeed.

The serious point (almost too banal to state) is that war degrades everything and everyone it touches.

There are no heroes.
Click to expand...

Not in total agreement, from the Imperial War Museum archive:

Pilot Officer Bill Millington was flying as part of a section on aerodrome guard patrol over Kent on 31 August 1940. A large number of German Dornier and Messerschmitt aircraft were sighted and the RAF pilots went into the attack. Millington managed to cause damage to one of the Dornier bombers but he soon found himself under fire from three Messerschmitts. He quickly put one out of action and shook off the other two.

Millington was now outnumbered by the Luftwaffe aircraft but he didn’t leave the fight, and instead fired on the bombers. Now the Messerschmitt fighters began to target him, and he drew on all his flying skills to evade one and shoot another down. But as he did so, one more fired a cannon shell into the engine of his Hurricane, which also wounded him in the thigh.

With his aircraft ablaze and his leg in agony, Millington knew he would have to abandon the battle. His immediate thought was to bail out and parachute to safety – but he noticed that, if he did so, his aircraft would almost certainly crash into a small village.

Despite his injuries, the intense danger of remaining in his rapidly burning aircraft and the difficulties of controlling it, Millington stayed in the cockpit. He managed to crash-land his Hurricane clear of the village and escape from it before it exploded. For his determination to avoid causing harm to others, whilst placing himself at risk, Millington was awarded the Distinguished Flying Cross (DFC) in October 1940.
 
Super Bigote said:
It would depend on the negotiations but I do not think that it would be along the lines of the old Cold War Iron Curtain because USA is in a stronger position nowadays. It is imperative that NATO stay out of eastern Europe so it would mean withdrawing from many of the states it has enlarged into. At the same time Russia would have to guarantee neutrality here too. It would be a good buffer.

I am talking about a potential peace plan that will last for the foreseeable future, say 50 years. I think the point in my first post about looking at the situation from Russia's point of view has not been taken on board here. Getting rid of Putin won't solve the problem of Russia's insecurity in the face of US and EU expansionism.

These simplistic jingoistic rants about crushing Putin is really sad to see as an example of a lack of independent critical thought and another example of the willingness to be manipulated by the neo-liberal state and media at a time of appalling suffering to millions. As Le Baron (RIP) pointed out 'do you think it is a game of battleships?'

I ask you, if the Russians have to withdraw defeated from the Ukraine, what happens next?
Click to expand...
Your information page says you are all of 21 years old!

So full of anti-american dogma at such a young age!

Do you have a stereo system yet?
 
Joe Hutch said:
And, lest we forget, Russia invaded Poland at exactly the same time that Germany did. The Poles certainly haven't forgotten this.
Click to expand...
And the Katyn massacre is kind of a grudge with Poland.

And the suspicious deaths of their government on Russian territory a few years back...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.


advertisement


Back
Top