advertisement


Ukraine V

Le Baron said:
If you wanted to say there's a cookie-cutter simple line to be followed, we knew that. I think Klassik was injecting some reality into the proceedings. The 'crazed Russia' thesis is shallow stuff.
Click to expand...

There were a number of responses to your post I was considering, but all I'm going to suggest is you go back to the beginning of this thread; and no, I'm not being facetious. There you will encounter a whole shit-load of NATO/US bashing and blaming as the cause for Putins aggression toward the people of Ukraine. My view, limited as it may be, is that there is no clear proof of US motives, nor what they do or don't expect, and finding arbitrary reasons to blame other countries for Putins brutal aggression runs the risk of validating and excusing it.

What is important is that Ukraine receives all the support it can in order defend itself against tyranny and genocide. And if Putin succeeds, he won't stop with Ukraine.

John
 
Le Baron said:
Could be because you just think some are more worthy than others. Ukraine has been used as buffer by both Russia and EU (e.g. not a member and not considered because then they would have to really act). That so much of this is ignored in the press and commentary betrays a loose grasp of what is going on. Or perhaps framing, since old Deutsche Welle articles take surprisingly different view these days.
Click to expand...

The DW's recent commentary is quite interesting. The recent commentary they published on the front page of their website being critical of Zelenskyy is certainly something new from western media...much less state-owned western media. Now, one could argue that Germany's view of Russia is quite different than the US's. Germany is quite clearly reliant on Russian gas and Germany is in love with their export economy which is harmed by the conflict. The SPD party especially has had a close relationship with Putin.

Even with that, and even with the rather united front defending Ukraine and Zelenskyy, it's a bit odd that the article above came out on the front page.

Le Baron said:
That is not the 'bottom line' for us in this discussion. If Ukraine needs weapons they would get them from anywhere (and already have done). The bottom line is: 'who is trying to benefit and in what way'. The naive view is that it's people 'arming for victory'. Anyone who has paid attention to history since 1900 should know that isn't what goes on.
Click to expand...

Sí señor. Ukraine has been receiving arms from the US at the very least for long before the invasion. There are also reports of these arms being smuggled out of Ukraine and into Europe. People can make what they want of the reports, but it's certainly not improbable and should be of concern to Europeans especially. With the possibility of a 'forever war' and possible damaged inflicted on Ukraine and the region should such things happen, the question must be asked what will happen with all these arms in what will surely be a destabilized area with the remaining people possibly being of the extremist bent. Regardless, it seems to Klassik that Corbyn's call for diplomatic measures should absolutely be the first priority.
 
palindrome said:
There were a number of responses to your post I was considering, but all I'm going to suggest is you go back to the beginning of this thread; and no, I'm not being facetious. There you will encounter a whole shit-load of NATO/US bashing and blaming as the cause for Putins aggression toward the people of Ukranian. My view, limited as it may be, is that there is no clear proof of US motives, nor what they do or don't expect, and finding arbitrary reasons to blame other countries for Putins brutal aggression runs the risk of validating and excusing it.

What is important is that Ukraine receives all the support it can in order defend itself against tyranny and genocide. And if Putin succeeds, he won't stop with Ukraine.

John
Click to expand...
That's a fair reply. and I would say yes, exercise caution, though in all quarters. It has so often taken decades before we learn what has really transpired and then too late for us bring people to answer for it. And faceless foreign policy gets away with it. This war hasn't been framed as anything other than: 'madman attacks plucky small country'. It's not that simple. The stuff about U.S. foreign policy is merely to show that they have form, so can't be considered as moderate observers.

I think Putin is a devious man, but he was groomed by the west and only suddenly now needs to be stopped. Just like Saddam Hussein who was assisted until he became useless.
 
Le Baron said:
Whereas your all-seeing knowledge of the situation is just 'balanced thought'. Give us a break Henry Kissinger.
Click to expand...
I don't claim any special visions.

I stated that Ukraine should be helped with lots of weapons to deter Russian aggression.

I asked you if you think Ukraine should be helped with weapons or not.

Crickets?
 
Le Baron said:
That's a fair reply. and I would say yes, exercise caution, though in all quarters. It has so often taken decades before we learn what has really transpired and then too late for us bring people to answer for it. And faceless foreign policy gets away with it. This war hasn't been framed as anything other than: 'madman attacks plucky small country'. It's not that simple. The stuff about U.S. foreign policy is merely to show that they have form, so can't be considered as moderate observers.

I think Putin is a devious man, but he was groomed by the west and only suddenly now needs to be stopped. Just like Saddam Hussein who was assisted until he became useless.
Click to expand...
Your last paragraph is cookie cutter BS. How the duck did we groom Putin? Did we sell his stepdad cheap vodka and told him to beat little Vova, too? Did we write the odious "Make Russia Great Again" books that promoted NovoRossya? Did we run crazy propaganda on Russian TV that made many Russians into war zombies?
 
palindrome said:
@Hook

It's Groundhog Day! We're back in February again, revisiting the less than merry-go-round of deflection for the umpteenth time.

John
Click to expand...

Sadly, it feels that way. Lots of dismissive sophistry and deflection. For example, Dimitry asked whether or not we should provide weapons to Ukraine. For reasons I can only guess at, he has not received an answer. I asked if anyone could explain how a peace-for-land deal would permanently end the war and, so far, have also not received an answer.
 
DimitryZ said:
I don't claim any special visions.

I stated that Ukraine should be helped with lots of weapons to deter Russian aggression.

I asked you if you think Ukraine should be helped with weapons or not.

Crickets?
Click to expand...
If the U.S. wants to run a risk of being considered to be in a proxy war, they should give the weapons. But should also explain if they plan to arm e.g. Taiwan against China or what the strategy is behind arming or not arming some place at the hands of invasion. At the very bottom Ukraine and Europe is nothing to do with the U.S.
 
DimitryZ said:
Your last paragraph is cookie cutter BS. How the duck did we groom Putin? Did we sell his stepdad cheap vodka and told him to beat little Vova, too? Did we write the odious "Make Russia Great Again" books that promoted NovoRossya?
Click to expand...
How many photos do you want me to post of western world leaders 'relaxing' with Putin? Making deals with him. Allowing him to buy property all round Europe with embezzled money? There's always selective amnesia in the history of world affairs for a certain viewpoint.
 
Le Baron said:
If the U.S. wants to run a risk of being considered to be in a proxy war, they should give the weapons. But should also explain if they plan to arm e.g. Taiwan against China or what the strategy is behind arming or not arming some place at the hands of invasion. At the very bottom Ukraine and Europe is nothing to do with the U.S.
Click to expand...
Don't answer for "US" answer for yourself.
 
Spraggons Den said:
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.
Click to expand...
For a moment I thought I was dreaming, and back at a SWP meeting in the 1980s.
 
Le Baron said:
How many photos do you want me to post of western world leaders 'relaxing' with Putin? Making deals with him. Allowing him to buy property with embezzled money? There's always selective amnesia in the history world affairs for a certain viewpoint.
Click to expand...
I see. The West should have declared in 2001 that we didn't like the new President of Russia and we are breaking all diplomatic relations untill they change him?
 
DimitryZ said:
I see. The West should have declared in 2001 that we didn't like the new President of Russia and we are breaking all diplomatic relations untill they change him?
Click to expand...
Why not? You decided you didn't like the new leader of Iran and Cuba and Indonesia and Chile and Brazil and Guatamala... and Venezuela...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.


advertisement


Back
Top