advertisement


Ukraine V

How would you manage the border between Ukraine and Russia once this is over? What would it look like? Open border? Closed border? How closed?

There will be a time to discuss this, but rather more pressing issues for Ukraine at the moment. I don't suppose many worried very much about the future Franco-German border in 1940.
 
There will be a time to discuss this, but rather more pressing issues for Ukraine at the moment. I don't suppose many worried very much about the future Franco-German border in 1940.
It was a response to a question raised by someone else who wanted an answer. Is answering someone’s question ok?
 
Western information space has been flooded lately with all kinds of "questions."

Isn't Zelensky a megalomaniac?
Isn't Ukrainian government corrupt and full of spies?
Aren't Ukranians selling American weapons on the dark web?
Wouldn't Putin nuke us all if Ukraine doesn't give Russia its' territory?
Wouldn't a future border be difficult to manage?
Wouldn't we all freeze and starve without Russian gas and grain?

These "questions" are being "asked" for a sole purpose of dissuading the Western public from sending arms to and otherwise supporting Ukraine.

Since the intensity of the memes exploded recently, my advice is to watch the battlefield.
 
Gangster rhetoric from a gangster regime. Deputy chairman of Russia’s security council Dmitry Medvedev predicted "serious consequences on a global scale" to the Pelosi visit to Taiwan, and went on to add:

https://srbin.info/en/svet/medvedev...iraju-kinu-na-nepromisljen-potez-nisu-uspele/


He knows there is a big power struggle coming and that he has been demoted recently. He is simply trying to position himself as a tough guy, so he doesn't get simply eliminated in the first round.

In not too distant a past, he was supposed to be a mild-mannered reformer and an Iphone fanboy. His nickname was "Iphonechik."

You think you know someone and then...
 
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.
Yes, a touch of hyperbole, but you get my drift. Bill Millington sounds like a remarkable man.

As it happens, I'm an admirer of Orwell. I don't know if I'd call him a hero of mine but I respect the physical courage it must have taken to fight in the Spanish Civil War, and I admire his intellectual integrity in calling out Stalin's totalitarianism when some on the left were not so clear-sighted. That's before you even get to his contribution to English prose style. On the debit side, I understand he could be a bit of a shit in his personal life and I disapprove of his attempt to grass up fellow left-wing artists and intellectuals (the bastard put Michael Foot on his list!). Still, this was towards the end of his life and maybe he wasn't thinking so clearly by then.

The point being that even people we admire can be flawed in some respects. The unimaginable horror of war is a pretty efficient way of exposing such flaws and bringing out the very worst in people - hence my suggestion that true heroes will be thin on the ground in any major conflict.
 
Yes, a touch of hyperbole, but you get my drift. Bill Millington sounds like a remarkable man.

As it happens, I'm an admirer of Orwell. I don't know if I'd call him a hero of mine but I respect the physical courage it must have taken to fight in the Spanish Civil War, and I admire his intellectual integrity in calling out Stalin's totalitarianism when some on the left were not so clear-sighted. That's before you even get to his contribution to English prose style. On the debit side, I understand he could be a bit of a shit in his personal life and I disapprove of his attempt to grass up fellow left-wing artists and intellectuals (the bastard put Michael Foot on his list!). Still, this was towards the end of his life and maybe he wasn't thinking so clearly by then.

The point being that even people we admire can be flawed in some respects. The unimaginable horror of war is a pretty efficient way of exposing such flaws and bringing out the very worst in people - hence my suggestion that true heroes will be thin on the ground in any major conflict.

But the horror of war should not turn one into a pacifist; capitulation can result in similar horrors. This is why NATO believes in deterrence with modern and professional armed forces as the means for preventing both scenarios. Such forces cost a lot of money but are worth it so as not to endure what the people of Ukraine are going through. I am still astounded that Corbyn thinks he knows better than Zelensky what is good for Ukraine.
 
But the horror of war should not turn one into a pacifist; capitulation can result in similar horrors. This is why NATO believes in deterrence with modern and professional armed forces as the means for preventing both scenarios. Such forces cost a lot of money but are worth it so as not to endure what the people of Ukraine are going through. I am still astounded that Corbyn thinks he knows better than Zelensky what is good for Ukraine.
True enough. I tend towards pacifism (I think it is an important perspective that ought to be represented in public life) but accept its limitations and contradictions.

I focus on people's lives (or conversely people's deaths) rather than sovereignty or territory. So, in any conflict, the key question for me is how to minimise death and suffering and get to the inevitable settlement bit as quickly as possible. I accept that this has both a long-term and a short-term aspect ("appeasement" in the short term might make things worse in the long run).

In that light, I don't find Corbyn's position objectionable, even though I think he is sketchy on details (who could broker a peace deal, how and what cost?). It's a legitimate view and it ought to be possible to discuss it calmly without screeching denunciations on all sides. Hell, not even every lefty agrees with Corbyn over this, but it's still possible to have a respectful debate:

https://twitter.com/owenhatherley/status/1555153602720792577

Does Corbyn think he knows better than Zelensky? I don't think so. By that yardstick, Joe Biden could also be said to know better than Zelensky, having refused his request to enforce a no-fly zone early on. Anyone and everyone is entitled to their view about an issue that has global implications - which is not to say those views cannot be debated and challenged.

Finally, it's worth noting that Corbyn was highly critical of Putin long before it was fashionable to be so:

https://twitter.com/mehdirhasan/status/1025852449431670784

Corbyn was demonstrating against Putin's brutality in Chechnya even as Blair (Tony, not Eric Arthur) praised Putin as an impressive man with a clear vision of what he wants to achieve in his country. How times change.
 
True enough. I tend towards pacifism (I think it is an important perspective that ought to be represented in public life) but accept its limitations and contradictions.

I focus on people's lives (or conversely people's deaths) rather than sovereignty or territory. So, in any conflict, the key question for me is how to minimise death and suffering and get to the inevitable settlement bit as quickly as possible. I accept that this has both a long-term and a short-term aspect ("appeasement" in the short term might make things worse in the long run).

In that light, I don't find Corbyn's position objectionable, even though I think he is sketchy on details (who could broker a peace deal, how and what cost?). It's a legitimate view and it ought to be possible to discuss it calmly without screeching denunciations on all sides. Hell, not even every lefty agrees with Corbyn over this, but it's still possible to have a respectful debate:

https://twitter.com/owenhatherley/status/1555153602720792577

Does Corbyn think he knows better than Zelensky? I don't think so. By that yardstick, Joe Biden could also be said to know better than Zelensky, having refused his request to enforce a no-fly zone early on. Anyone and everyone is entitled to their view about an issue that has global implications - which is not to say those views cannot be debated and challenged.

Finally, it's worth noting that Corbyn was highly critical of Putin long before it was fashionable to be so:

https://twitter.com/mehdirhasan/status/1025852449431670784

Corbyn was demonstrating against Putin's brutality in Chechnya even as Blair (Tony, not Eric Arthur) praised Putin as an impressive man with a clear vision of what he wants to achieve in his country. How times change.
It sounds very reasonable when you say it, but he is one of the primary politicians that organized this:
https://www.stopwar.org.uk/article/...e-war-statement-on-the-crisis-over-ukraine-2/

In this case, arguing that we should not support Ukraine with weapons is equivalent to arguing that Russia should take a piece of Ukraine that it deems desirable.

The positions are functionally equivalent and are different only in intent. Russia wants the West to stop arming Ukraine because it wants to destroy the Ukrainian nation. Pacifists want the West to stop arming Ukraine because they are against any violence.

I have always been uncomfortable with philosophical positions that lead to same outcomes for different reasons, with only intent separating say, Putin and say, myself.

It suggests that good and evil are only differentiated by thought, and that always seemed to be a fallacy to me.
 

Does Corbyn know better what is best for women?

No man can. Unfortunately men still outnumber women in politics. I am a modest man, who understands that women certainly know what is best for women, and on the whole know what is best for mankind.

Just a thought from George.

PS: Obviously Liz Truss in not a particularly good example of a woman politician.
 
It is and it's key to our disagreement.

I define "peace" as a state of affairs where Ukraine consolidates its' internationally recognized borders, Russia leaves all occupied territory and isn't able to attack Ukraine again, at least in the near term. Ukraine is free to choose its alliances and partners, as is the right of all sovereign nations, even ones bordering Russia.

Western Left (and Russia) defines "peace" entirely differently. To them peace is the ceasefire that freezes current battle lines, allowing Russia to conduct fake referenda in the occupied lands, annexing them to Russia. Ukraine, having lost its' most valuable territory, should remain as a rump, impoverished nation, while Russia reconstitutes it's military, bribes more Western politicians and gets ready for further expansion into western Ukraine and Moldova.

These are two very different peaches.

I'm not yet caught up with what followed from this posting. Howevere for the avoidance of doubt or error:

I consider my views 'Left' ones, and I suspect many others would also see them as being so. However I do not 'hate the US", etc. I want radical changes in the UK. But I have also happily worked on MoD/NATO projects. I support what the US, UK, etc are doing to aid Ukraine.

More specifically I regard 'peace' to aim for in the context of this thread as being that the Putin invasion should be entirely defeated and the Russian attack repelled and ended. *And* that it become clear that Putin won't do this again in future. What the outcome may be, I don't know. But I agree that having Putin succeed and then oppress/control Ukraine and its people would be hard to call 'peace' any more than I'd have called the Gulag 'peace' without a lot of caveats/qualifiers. Some things in life have to be endured if they are forced upon you, but we then should be clear this is so, and isn't satisfactory.

Sorry if I'm just echoing what many others have said and I've not yet read.
 
Corbyn’s habit of getting on the wrong side of nearly very issue is worse than the statistical probability of chance. For him to presume that he knows better than Zelensky would be laughable if it was not for the seriousness of the situation. What part of Russia invaded Ukraine does he not understand.

Again, coming back late to this thread: My experience in the past is that all too often what he has 'said' *as reported by media* may be different to what he *actually* said and the context of what he was saying. So the criticisms may well be valid, but may also be due to misrepresentations. Either way, he isn't in a position now to do anything about this one way or another, so it seems irrelevant in practice if he spoke nonsense.
 
Like this sort of thing:

Map-Soviet-Union-countries.jpg
Outright annexation is not strictly necessary in some cases, as an arrangement of the type Russia now enjoys with Belarus and Kazakhstan may be good enough. But after that, Putin would certainly feel the need for a serious "conversation" about the neutralization (= departure from NATO) and if possible demilitarization of Finland, Poland, Hungary, Slovakia. Otherwise Russia would obviously end up sharing borders with these awful NATO countries, and that cannot be tolerated. They must be turned into buffer zones, the way they were before*, and sign suitable treaties with Greater Russia accordingly.

* historic references for this going back to the 18th century can be cherry-picked and mobilized if needed
 


advertisement


Back
Top