Advertisement



  1. Things you need to know about the new ‘Conversations’ PM system:

    a) DO NOT REPLY TO THE NOTIFICATION EMAIL! I get them, not the intended recipient. I get a lot of them and I do not want them! It is just a notification, log into the site and reply from there.

    b) To delete old conversations use the ‘Leave conversation’ option. This is just delete by another name.
    Dismiss Notice

Ukraine V

Discussion in 'off topic' started by DimitryZ, Jun 29, 2022.

  1. gustavm

    gustavm pfm Member

    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.
     
  2. ks.234

    ks.234 pfm Member

    It was a response to a question raised by someone else who wanted an answer. Is answering someone’s question ok?
     
  3. DimitryZ

    DimitryZ pfm Member

    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.
     
  4. George J

    George J Herefordshire member

    On a Forum, yes; it is and it broadens the discussion usefully.

    George
     
  5. DonQuixote99

    DonQuixote99 pfm Member

    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/
     
  6. DimitryZ

    DimitryZ pfm Member


    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...
     
  7. PsB

    PsB Citizen of Nowhere™

    Quite. Which is why it's such a bad idea to invade large neighbours: it often leads to serious wars.
     
    droodzilla likes this.
  8. droodzilla

    droodzilla pfm Member

    I agree (again, it feels almost too banal to say so).
     
    ks.234 likes this.
  9. droodzilla

    droodzilla pfm Member

    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.
     
    ff1d1l and Hook like this.
  10. Spraggons Den

    Spraggons Den pfm Member

    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.
     
    klfrs and Kirk like this.
  11. droodzilla

    droodzilla pfm Member

    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.
     
  12. DimitryZ

    DimitryZ pfm Member

    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.
     
    George J and klfrs like this.
  13. klfrs

    klfrs chill out

    He also thinks he knows better than women what's best for women.
     
  14. ks.234

    ks.234 pfm Member

    Does he?
     
  15. George J

    George J Herefordshire member

    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.
     
    klfrs, dweezil, Kirk and 1 other person like this.
  16. wacko

    wacko pfm Member

    ^ perhaps in men outnumber women politics today. But women outnumber men with the right to vote. I'm optimistic on that front.
     
    George J and DimitryZ like this.
  17. NeilR

    NeilR pfm Member

  18. Jim Audiomisc

    Jim Audiomisc pfm Member

    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.
     
    George J likes this.
  19. Jim Audiomisc

    Jim Audiomisc pfm Member

    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.
     
  20. PsB

    PsB Citizen of Nowhere™

    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
     
    Seeker_UK likes this.

Share This Page





Advertisement


  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice