For years, John J. Mearsheimer, that seemingly ageless, if somewhat chilly presence at the University of Chicago, has been a thorn of irritation to certain establishment ideas. With his pugnacious sense of realist politics, he has little time for the sentimentality that accompanies what he calls the “liberal delusions” of power. It’s all good to feel anguish and worry at the predations of power, but why encourage them when there is no need to?
This somewhat crude summation only does some justice to JJM’s thought process. But it does provide an interesting backdrop to the recent revelations regarding the Ukraine conflict, one that is falling into a horrendous, bleeding stalemate.
In his Foreign Affairs assessment of 2014 on the Ukraine-Russian conflict, Mearsheimer throws in the usual grenades. “US and European leaders blundered in attempting to turn Ukraine into a Western stronghold on Russia’s border.” He noted the pernicious, meddling roles played by such characters as US Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian affairs, Victoria Nuland, who revealed in 2013 how the US had invested more than $5 billion since 1991 to aid Ukraine achieve “the future it deserves.” This involved the spearheading efforts of the National Endowment for Democracy.
As Russian tanks moved into Ukraine on February 24, 2022, Mearsheimer proved unrelenting: Russia had been needlessly provoked into “a preventive war”. While not permissible in just war theory, “Russian leaders certainly saw the invasion as ‘just’, because they were convinced that Ukraine joining NATO was an existential threat that had to be eliminated.” The Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs was so enthusiastic at the views of the realistic scholar, it endorsed his 2014 Foreign Affairs contribution.
For taking such a stance, dreamy liberal humanitarians and neoconservative provocateurs came to detest Mearsheimer. The New Statesman would suggest that he became, as a consequence “the world’s most hated thinker.” Anne Applebaum, in her usual neoconservative biliousness, wondered “if the Russians didn’t actually get their narrative from Mearshimer [sic] et al. Moscow needed to say West was responsible for Russian invasions (Chechnya, Georgia, Syria, Ukraine), and not their own greed and imperialism.”
Mearsheimer was already representative of a field filled with foreboding assessments about what an eastern strategic expansion against Russia would do, warmed by the almost throwaway assurances from US Secretary of State James Baker to Mikhail Gorbachev in 1990. At that point, the still extant Soviet Union had 380,000 troops stationed in East Germany. Baker’s suggestion: Why not remove those troops if NATO did “not shift one inch eastwards from its position”?
The following day, Baker repeated the formula to West German Chancellor Helmut Kohl via letter: “Would you prefer to see a unified Germany outside of NATO, independent and with no US forces, or would you prefer a unified Germany to be tied to NATO, with assurances that NATO’s jurisdiction would not shift one inch eastwards from its present position?” Kohl had preferred to directly inform Gorbachev of his own assurance that no NATO bases would be established in the former East Germany.
In October 1990, the US State Department concluded in an analysis that “it is not in the best interest of NATO or the US that these states be granted full NATO membership” warning against “an anti-Soviet coalition whose frontier is the Soviet border.”
George F. Kennan’s observations seven years later are also prickly with concern. As the father of Cold War Soviet containment, he could only see trouble brewing on the horizon were a now diminished Russia provoked. The decision to expand NATO “may be expected to inflame nationalistic, anti-Western and militaristic tendencies in Russian opinion; to have an adverse effect on the development of Russian democracy; to restore the atmosphere of the cold war to East-West relations, and to impel Russian foreign policy in directions decidedly not to our liking.”
That same year, the current US President noted that, irrespective of the merits of the countries keen to participate in the alliance, an enlarged NATO would constitute the “tipping point” for Russia. His reference point then was the various Baltic States.
A number of former US ambassadors to Moscow have also warned, at stages, about the dangers. In 1997, it was Jack Matlock, testifying before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. At the time, the Clinton administration’s recommendation to enlarge NATO membership was considered “misguided. If it should be approved by the United States Senate, it may well go down in history as the most profound strategic blunder made since the end of the Cold War.”
Eight years later, William J. Burns, then still ambassador to Russia and currently director of the CIA, shot a number of flares on the issue: “Ukrainian entry into NATO is the brightest of all redlines for the Russian elite (not just Putin).”
In a February 2008 memorandum published by WikiLeaks, the assessment by Burns is stark: “NATO enlargement, particularly to Ukraine, remains ‘an emotional and neuralgic’ issue for Russia, but strategic policy considerations also underlie strong opposition to NATO membership for Ukraine and Georgia.” Such strategic policy considerations included, among other things, a fear that the country could be “split in two, leading to violence or even, some claim, civil war, which would force Russia to decide whether to intervene.” Concerns also abounded regarding the “impact on Russia’s defense industry, Russian-Ukrainian family connections, and bilateral relations generally.”
What then made September 2023 special in this overview was an unusually frank admission from the NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg in remarks made to the joint meeting of the European Parliament’s Committee on Foreign Affairs (AFET) and the Subcommittee on Security and Defence (SEDE).
That admission concerned Putin’s unequivocal intentions to invade Ukraine were NATO to be further enlarged: “The background was that President Putin declared in the autumn of 2021, and actually sent a draft treaty that they wanted NATO to sign, to promise no more NATO enlargement. That was what he sent us. And was a pre-condition to not invade Ukraine. Of course, we didn’t sign that.”
Stoltenberg went on to pour scorn on this revealing point. Putin demanded the “removal of our military infrastructure in all Allies that have joined NATO since 1997, meaning half of NATO, all the Central and Eastern Europe, we should remove NATO from that part of our Alliance, introducing some kind of B, or second class membership. We rejected that.” The conclusion is then indefatigably clear: “So [Putin] went to war to prevent NATO, more NATO, close to his borders.”
In such statements, the lines between explanation, justification and wilful blindness are not always demarcated. But here we have a stunning confession that should be minted in every historical overview of a calamitous conflict that may eventually result, in some form or rather, in the very same de facto arrangements Putin demanded in 2021. Russia will have to contend with its own problems and nightmares regarding the Ukraine War, but as such, Stoltenberg, NATO and the US imperium deserve a withering stare from history’s muse.
[textblock style=”7″]
Like what we do at The AIMN?
You’ll like it even more knowing that your donation will help us to keep up the good fight.
Chuck in a few bucks and see just how far it goes!
Your contribution to help with the running costs of this site will be greatly appreciated.
You can donate through PayPal or credit card via the button below, or donate via bank transfer: BSB: 062500; A/c no: 10495969
[/textblock]
So the USA (United States of Apartheid) has entered another war engagement by proxy in Ukraine on the self-important assumption that military technology will overcome bloody minded determination to repel the invader.
.
How many wars does the Us have to lode before the Australian Canberra Bubble recognises that having America as an ally and arms supplier means that there is really no need for any pother enemy.
i think the article is a load of crap. Once again we go down the conspiracy road because the truth is unpalatable, Russia is a country run by a dictator in all but name. Russia being scared of nato was a lot of BS, a camoflage for Putin’s empire buildup.
At any time in the last 2 yrs, Putin could have called a halt to this attempted invasion. He has watched on as 300,000 russian soldiers have been killed, over 5000 tanks destroyed. The picture is one of total defeat approaching, yet he is willing to sacrifice the whole russian population to attack Ukraine. Russia has lost over $400b worth of military euipment. They are consuming 40% of their gdp on this fanciful offensive. Pre this “special operation”, pre 2014, Ukraine had given russia all nuclear weapons as a gesture to ensure peace. Russia promplty invaded crimea.
This is not the sign of being scared of NATO, this is an obvious plan to strike while world political termoil was all around.
Putin himself has said that he wants to take back the empire. Every so often in history we get a mad man in control somewhere. Russia has a history all of its own.
I say this because i know how crude and stupid american foreign policy has been in the past. New england Cocky, you are right to a point. But the Ukraines are fighting an existential war against a would be oppressor. I can guarantee that every bulkan national knows whats in store if russia wins. On this fight, america is right. Dont fall for the stupid idea that you fail most times so you will never be right. Sure they are reveling in Putin’s disaster and are giving a helpful shove. Defeating russia will be a step forward for mankind. It should completely destroy any notion of empire building by anyone going forward.
Lets fight america on the fronts that it has failed, not where it is doing a bit of good.
some of the arguements in this article are rather interesting. Interpretations are not explored but rather an agenda is followed, “this follows from that” narrative that is bemusing to me. At no time is any alternative explanation given or referenced. The article is delivered with an assurdness of being absolutely right. Nobody would say the same about Kim, now would they? He has been drawn into a corner so nuclear weapons have to be developed at all costs would be the arguement. Yet we all know the guy is in charge of a nation down to timing periods when masterbation is allowed. So why is putin any different? His actions show every bit of insanity as Kim. Just another ruthless cold blooded killer on the loose.
Thanks for the potted NATO history Binoy, avoiding the present, not accepting this…..simply more agitprop or grist for the mill for those Koch linked GOP ‘lemmings in suicide vests’ to strangle Ukraine and NATO of funds, feeding into their shared interests with Putin i.e. corrupt nativist authoritarianism?
Surely as an academic you can find more credible and informed sources than Mearsheimer on Russia, Ukraine and NATO?
Mearsheimer is a grifter who is not taken seriously amongst European and US centre or left inc. academia because he is out of date and a generalist (no expertise in CEE/Russia), plus he is linked to fossil fuel Charles Koch Foundation (see Lucy Hamilton’s article on Koch – Atlas types?
https://theaimn.com/climate-change-deniers-theocrats-and-neoliberals-meet-in-london-for-the-scariest-halloween-party/), surely that rings alarm bells?
Further, though not officially listed as faux anti-imperialist ‘tankie’ on VatnikSoup list, he has attended ‘peace’ events in Hungary (Ukraine concedes, Putin ‘peaces all over them’), sponsored by the government of PM ‘mini Putin’ Orban also attended by US GOP linked Christian &/or RWNJs, other tankies inc. Sachs (Rockefeller Foundation) and both have kissed the ring of PM Orban, chummy with Tony Abbott’s who visits Atlas/Koch linked Danubius Inst?
Gets better, many Atlas/Koch linked Anglo conservative Brexit types, for a decade, have tried to use Hungary as a ‘Trojan horse’ versus EU’s constraints on fossil fuels, financial transfers inc. money laundering and avoid the need to abide by labour, environmental, consumer protection etc. standards. Credible or at least very plausible? And allegations of antipathy towards NATO….
According to EU leaders and analysts, the Trojan horse includes PM Orban, Hungarian government, Atlas/Koch, FoxNews & RW grifters, but the horse’s head is Putin, it’s a Russian Trojan horse vs. EU; Anne Applebaum almost but not quite said that when calling out the Danubius visitors after Putin’s invasion ’22 (followed by a rapid unpublicised exit by Abbott’s advisor?)
The provocation argument is the international relations equivalent of the wife beater’s defence.
* She deserved it
* She provoked me
* She wanted to see someone else
* I warned her that I would hit her if she didn’t do what I told her
It’s a pathetic rationale and yet there is no analysis of the fact that every former Warsaw Pact signatory is now opposed to Putin
And Stoltenberg didn’t say NATO provoked Putin
I was reluctant to let this piece through. It certainly isn’t a view followed by the vast majority of our readers, but I didn’t think that was a valid reason not to publish.
Dr Kampmark: Really? Why do you continue to promote the views of people like John J. Mearsheimer? Sure, there will always be outspoken types that get attention, but in your role as a mentor, you should have a filter to question everything that comes before you. When presented with “Russia had been needlessly provoked into ‘a preventive war'” the “I hear BS” alarm bells should have sounded.
Takeaway?
Apparently NATO leadership had prior knowledge that Putin was threatening to invade his neighbour unless they put a general “phuq off we’re full” sign up over their clubhouse door.
Ok, so a multinational grouping based on voluntary membership refused to allow threats of cross-border military aggression to be used as a leverage tool.
Meanwhile, as Putin is reduced to borrowing munitions off the North Koreans in order to keep shelling Ukrainian civil infrastructure, Finland has joined the ranks of NATO and Sweden has application pending.
In an alternative hindsight reality where Vlad acted differently, Russia would still be a conventional arms superpower (albeit one with border insecurity issues), Ukraine and NATO would be playing coy yeah/nah courtship games, Sweden & Finland would be strictly neutral nations, and hundreds of thousands of innocent lives would have been spared from death and trauma.
Lines on maps, ay?
For those decrying, this isn’t Dr Langkamps worst article, nor his best.
Probably the most informationally revealing was an article decrying the deplatforming of Alex Jones by commercial social media as an attack on free speech.
Binoys article admitted his ‘controversial’ remarks regarding matters like the multiple child murders at Sandy Hook*, but neglected to mention that Jones had also called for the killing of FBI 2IC Mueller, who was at the time heading a special investigation into Trump’s suspicious dealings.
Kind of a gaping omissions since it was the explicitly cited reason for Jones being barred.
*Jones’ slanders and slurs against Sandy Hook parents has resulted in multimillion dollar settlements that the slimy toad-scrote has declared bankruptcy to avoid paying
My personal favourite, though, was Dr Langkamps ode to a yardcat, where he excoriated people who kept their cats inside to prevent them from killing native wildlife (IE responsible pet owners) as practicing “tortuous enslavement”.
Not exactly my go-to source.
It’s interesting that the readers who are upset by the article have chosen to attack the author, or people named in the article, instead of dealing with issues covered by the article.
Andy has plucked figures out of thin air, Andrew has aired all his evidence-free pet hates that he hits us with every couple of weeks, AC has said that Stoltenberg did not say what Stoltenberg said, and Fred is shocked that anyone could dispute his view of the conflict that he got from that beacon of journalistic integrity,The Daily Waffle. Even corvy, who tried to start off well, could not resist the urge to engage in character assassination.
Hey fellas, show some intellectual fortitude and engage with the article.
Here’s some random items that might help you plan your offensive. Or not.
The Swiss bank UBS reported in Aug 23 that last year Russia added $600 billion of total wealth, the US lost more wealth than any other country, shedding $5.9 trillion, while North America and Europe combined got $10.9 trillion poorer. Yep, those geniuses sure turned the ruble into rubble.
From the Wash. Post, March 2014, in an article by Henry Kissinger — “the demonization of Vladimir Putin is not a policy; it is an alibi for the absence of one.”
Also from the Wash.Post, 23.10.23. “Since 2015, the CIA has spent tens of millions of dollars to transform Ukraine’s Soviet-formed services into potent allies against Moscow, officials said.” How’s that “unprovoked” thing looking, Fred?
The US military launched 469 foreign interventions since 1798, including 251 since the end of the first cold war in 1991, according to official Congressional Research Service data. So tell us again Andy, defeating which country would be “a step forward for mankind” ?
Perhaps readers who want a more nuanced view should read the full transcript of a Paul Keating speech from 1997.
Search for “A PROSPECT OF EUROPE, Robert Schuman Lecture P J Keating – University of New South Wales Sydney 4 September 1997”
He saw the writing on the wall then.
T T, thanks for the Keating info.
A mind like a steel trap.
Without Paul Keating, and Steve Davis, we could be in blissful ignorance.
“Follow the money” is always a bit of a clue, but how USA manages to finance conflict on 3 fronts( at least) has had me baffled.
SD , you’ll have to identify where Stoltenberg said NATO had provoked Putin. I’m not aware of a definition of “provocation” that includes declining unreasonable demands.
But you and the author of this article might apply the Humpty Dumpty definition – ‘it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.”
In fact, Stoltenberg said – “”Nations decide themselves, and Ukraine has of course the right to decide its own path”
…I suppose you’d deny this too.
Some background. For AC’s benefit.
Not only did numerous serious and credible US figures warn against NATO expansion because this would force Russia to act militarily, (quite a few more than were mentioned in the article, and over a period of years) Putin made numerous public statements from 2007 onwards that left no doubt that he viewed NATO’s expansion into Ukraine as an existential threat.
Speaking at the board of the Ministry of Defense on December 21, 2021, he said: “What they are doing, trying or planning to do in Ukraine does not happen thousands of kilometers from our national border. This is happening on our doorstep. They need to understand that we simply have nowhere to retreat further. Do they really think we don’t see these threats? Or do they think that we will just stand idly by, watching the growing threats to Russia?”
And remember the December 2021 “Ultimatum”? I remind AC about this “Ultimatum’s” key clause:
“We just make it clear that we are ready to talk about how to translate the military scenario or the military-technical scenario into a political process that will actually strengthen the military security of all states in the OSCE, Euro-Atlantic, Eurasian space. If this is not going to happen, then … we will switch to this mode of creating counter-threats, but then it will be too late to ask us why we made such decisions, why we have deployed such systems. ”
Still they ignored Russia’s legitimate security concerns, and ignored Russia’s attempts to resolve them for the benefit of all parties.
Then we have Stoltenberg saying “We rejected that… So, he went to war to prevent NATO, more NATO, close to his borders. He has got the exact opposite.”
Even the US State Dept had provided advice against expansion because it would lead to war, so knowing what the reaction of Russia would be, knowing that expansion would cause war, NATO went ahead with expansion followed by flooding Ukraine with armaments.
When Stoltenberg said “We rejected that” knowing it would lead to war, he admitted provocation. If AC cannot see provocation in that then AC has a comprehension problem.
SD: ‘Andrew has aired all his evidence-free pet hates that he hits us with every couple of weeks’; no they are paraphrased from credible sources and analysis verus…?
Why are Australians so arrogant yet thin skinned and follow opinions, beliefs and sentiments over expert analysis, but lazily assuming they have some undefined BS radar that can bypass any analytical credibility aka don’t ‘trust experts’?
The EU has many analysts with expertise on ‘their’ region, but ignored by the arrogant Anglosphere, with too many ageing lunatic left and RWNJ pundits who quietly admire Putin’s machismo and his corrupt nativist authoritarianism while attacking US/NATO & EU, then use dodgy US/Anglo, often conspiracy, sources to support their opinions?
Don’t get me started on Keating nowadays, why would anyone listen to his opinions on Ukraine, like others in Oz with a profile i.e. no current expertise but via a 1970-80s prism from a far away irrelevant nation ie. Oz, and his personal insults directed at Stoltenberg whose response would be ‘Paul whom?’
Like the author, Keating and many faxu geo-political experts, inc. astrologers, go back in history, build a narrative, but seem to ignore the actual recent events; see Netanyahu vs. Hamas has become Israel vs. Palestine to create distance and protect both leaderships. Or better, in the case of Ukraine’s supposed NATO, US, EU etc. ‘provocations’, the Kremlin and tankie line was about protecting Europe from Nazis in WWII, quitely bypassing the Molotov-Rippentrop Pact and suggesting WWII started in 1941….
SD you are symptom of what’s wrong with society these days not being informed but claiming you are (imaginary BS radar don’t count), by the fact of your ability to denigrate others, but like the author, unable to provide any clear evidence of Stoltenberg’s alleged claims or conspiracy vs. events on the ground? Many cohorts on the Anglo right e.g. CIS*, US GOP, FoxNews, (K)GB News, UK Tories etc. types, would agree with you?
*SD, can you talk to this, US fossil fuel Koch or Atlas Network CIS Centre for Independent Studies has platformed Mearsheimer, what’s that all about (similar messaging in US by Koch Heritage Foundation, Freedom Caucus, GOP, Hungary’s Orban etc.)?
‘Join us in Brisbane, The Westin Hotel on Monday, 23 October for an evening featuring Professor John Mearsheimer and Peter Varghese for a lecture and conversation which will moderated by Tom Switzer. This event will be Professor Mearsheimer’s only public appearance in Australia.’
SD- Let’s deal with the words you used, and I responded to.
You said -“AC has said that Stoltenberg did not say what Stoltenberg said,”
I referred to the statement in the article that Stoltenberg admitted to “provocation”
How about you deal with that rather than attempting to divert the discussion
Sometimes, analogies are useful. If an LGBT couple bought a house in a redneck & phobic anti-gay community – an unlikely event, but nevertheless – or to switch the imagery, if it weren’t a redneck phobic anti-gay district and the LGBT couple had been living peacefully and unthreatened by the phobic anti-gays, but then… bit by bit the adjacent and opposing properties were all bought up and occupied by the redneck phobics who subjected the LGBT couple to incessant abuse and threats of violence for just being, well, who they are… you’d understand if they got a bit paranoid, wouldn’t you?
I’d reckon, as crude and clumsy as an analogy as that is, that that’s pretty much where Russia was at with the incremental ring-fencing that had been going as promulgated by pressure from the USA to keep the issue of putting the screws on Putin alive. Given the Pentagon and elements of the government are hawkish to the core and unadorned supporters of the notion of ‘merica the great, ‘merica the mighty, ‘merica the only country in the world that can fight against evil and them goddamn commies, it brings little surprise that they act in the way they they do, as Binoy along with Steve Davis and others have expatiated.
60 years ago the septics were terrified at having nukes so close they couldn’t retaliate quick enough and they were prepared to go to war to prevent it. Kruschev declined and the threat disapated.
When the actor didn’t, putin pushed but he has lost his way.
Unless nato and the ukraine give him a way out his desperation may go haywire.
Andrew Smith has resorted to a fallacious argument trick that he has used in the past and which I have exposed in the past — guilt by association. He said “Many cohorts on the Anglo right e.g. CIS*, US GOP, FoxNews, (K)GB News, UK Tories etc. types, would agree with you?”
Can you see the trick, the manipulation in that statement? Smithy wants readers to make the connection that because that group agree with me, (allegedly) then I must agree with them. It’s the sign of a lost argument.
As for those who agree with me, I doubt that the CIS is among that number. In fact, as far back as 2007 I was publicly critical of the CIS for their support for US imperialism, and publicly critical of Mark Latham for thinking that an address to the CIS would advance his political career.
AC said “I referred to the statement in the article that Stoltenberg admitted to “provocation”
That was never stated in the article. It was implied in the headline, which may or may not have been the words of the author. Provocation was the word that I used.
Stoltenberg’s statement was referred to by the author as an “admission”, and a “stunning confession”.
As noted in the article, “In such statements, the lines between explanation, justification and wilful blindness are not always demarcated”, but I see the admission as being the view of Stoltenberg, clearly stated, that the Russian intervention was a good thing as it has led to an expansion of NATO.
He said “This is good for the Nordic countries. It’s good for Finland and Sweden. And it’s also good for NATO.” The expansion of NATO was dealt with at some length by Stoltenberg, but there is an air throughout of possibly triumphalism but certainly satisfaction, that makes it indeed, a stunning confession.
There is a disregard, no, a contempt for human life and suffering lying at the heart of NATO machinations.
SD- “It was implied in the headline, which may or may not have been the words of the author.”
it’s not “may or may not, the title was chosen by the author and Stoltenberg said nothing remotely like that.
“Stoltenberg said nothing remotely like that.”
And neither does the headline. The headline is open to interpretation, as most headlines are — they are attention-grabbers.
AC knows as we all do, that the headline is not the story. But, as is his wont, AC is determined to steer clear of the big picture.
Let’s look at a bigger picture.
We know that NATO knew what the Russian response to expansion would be, but they went ahead regardless. That must be seen as a deliberate provocation because the alternative explanation for expansion is in some ways worse. That is, that NATO knew the dire consequences of expansion, but although not planning for war, were prepared to take a chance on starting a war for no better reason than to increase their numbers. In short, that they were OK with starting a war so they would have more security in case of war. It all makes perfect sense, to a sociopath.
No matter what explanation is given for NATO expansion, no amount of whitewashing can obscure the fact that there is a contempt for human life and suffering lying at the heart of NATO machinations. They knew that expansion would result in death and destruction.
In the final words of the article, “Stoltenberg, NATO and the US imperium deserve a withering stare from history’s muse.”
Here’s the point, the author chose to title this article – “NATO Provoked Putin: Stoltenberg Comes Clean”… I pointed out that there is no such admission by Stoltenberg.
You directly chose to contest my point.
Now you’re obfuscating and trying to move from.that.
That’s fine.
“You directly chose to contest my point.”
Yes, it’s true, I must confess, I did contest your point.
But I went one better. I explained how you misinterpreted the headline.
Read my previous comment. There ain’t no obfuscation there, buddy. Wotever that means.
Stevy,
Cheers for the nod.
I note that you didn’t address any of the declarative assessments in my first posting.
Feel free to do so.
I also disagree that my second post constituted “character assassination” (rather loaded charge that).
[If AIMN admin disagree they do not need my consent to disappear my post.]
I simply pointed out prior examples of Binoys authorship where fundamentally crucial info was glaringly omitted, or inappropriately loaded language employed.
Do you think that the fact that Alex Jones had used social media mega phones to call for the “actual assassination” of the 2ic of the FBI was irrelevant to discussion around his subsequent de-platforming?
Do you agree that people who keep their pet cats in curfew to prevent them from slaughtering wildlife are slaveholders guilty of indulging in gratuitous cruelty?
Cheers for the talking points, it was surprising/interesting to hear that a Swiss bank assessment saw rapid decline in US (+ Euro) finances, particularly from the uptown end, whilst wealth accumulation was increasing in Russia, Brasil and Mexico.
Hope it’s trickling down…
Ps, Putin’s 2021 demands weren’t just about NATO denying Ukraine entry, he also wanted the Baltic States (particularly Lithuania) stripped of guaranteed allies.
Maybe because Konigsberg? (sorry, Kaliningrad)
You’re good, CB. Your comment is going nowhere.
MT,
“You’re good”.
Opinions vary based on depth and circumstance of personal interaction, but thanks for the endorsement.
Either way, apportioning secondary blame for Putin’s acts of territorial aggression is kinda out of my jurisdictional realms of expertise, influence or primary interest.
Besides, as you say, my comments are going nowhere…
Maybe I worded that wrong. I meant that it was staying here.
CB, I have no problem with readers taking an author to task for arguments that are wrong or poorly presented, however, I think it’s very poor form to raise issues that you had with previous articles. The place for such criticism is the article at time of publication.
If the faulty argument is repeated in later articles then it’s certainly valid to refer to earlier articles, but the matters you raised had no connection to this article. I would have been happy to let it slide, but I took exception to you mis-spelling the author’s name, twice. A mistake that could have been overlooked, but in the context of a hit piece it had an air of deliberation about it.
Steve,
Thanks for sharing your optimal desired qualities regarding critique, and for communicating the offense-by-proxy you felt at my double-plus-bad misspelling of an uncommon nomenclature (Kampmark).
Anyways, I reckon I’ll leave you and Dr Binoy to it.
All good CB, cheers.
“We know that NATO knew what the Russian response to expansion would be, but they went ahead regardless. ”
More nonsense.
* There was no expansion of NATO at the time of the Russian invasion
* Ukraine had not even applied to join
* Putin made a range of demands that Ukraine had no control over, and used Ukraine as his whipping boy.
“More nonsense.”
Come back and give us your thoughts when you’ve acquainted yourself with the history of the process, a process that began at least as early as 2007.
Let’s see…
The Putin regime threatens to slaughter Ukrainians unless…
* The government of Ukraine stop even contemplating a foreign policy Putin doesn’t approve of
* NATO offload countries that have voluntarily joined NATO , an issue over which Ukraine has ZERO control
Yet you subscribe to some warped notion that it is NATO that provoked Russia
AC, what I want you to do is go away and have a think about the big picture.
I know it’s easier to deal, as you are, with isolated details, but I promise, no harm will come to you.
And I know this will be stressful, but I need you to acquaint yourself with the full history of this tragedy so that I can be sure that I’m not dealing with someone whose only interest in this is to waste my time.
What you want me to do???
Do you seriously imagine that your preferences make any difference to me?
“Arrogance – the quality of being unpleasantly proud and behaving as if you are more important than, or know more than, other people”
May I suggest you read the article, because it illustrates the point I made.
All the points you made have been explained in the article and in the comments.
Your persistence in repeating isolated details out of context (without history) means that my initial suspicion was correct — your sole reason for being here is to waste my time. But you know what? I’ve got plenty of time.
Pause for a moment and take a step back to consider the proposition of “being forced into war”. Nobody forces you to go to war unless they attack you militarily! The formation of alliances, such as the “expansion of NATO”, without being physically attacked is not sufficient justification to go to war. The illegal war in Iraq started by the US after lying to the UN on the false basis of “weapons of mass destruction” is on par with the illegal invasion of Ukraine to de-nazify it. Two wrongs are two wrongs.
Put yourself in the position of “Russian President”. Before going to war, you would consider what the chances of winning are, particularly when you consider the instigator of war may not always win – ref: US wars instigated and lost, Russia’s involvement in Afghanistan, Germany/Japan and WW2, etc. Attacking an enlarged NATO or 50:50 odds of winning would be stupid. However on the plus side there was Crimea, a complete walk-over and hardly any push-back from the west = a green light.
Putin wasn’t forced into war, he decided to do so because he thought he was going to win easily. He is sufficiently heartless to continue the war despite losing an estimated 300,000 troops. The “exercises” in the months leading up to the February invasion was an opportunity to preposition his troops and equipment for a “blitzkrieg” attack, which clearly didn’t go to plan. Can we please stop with the “forced into war”.
“your sole reason for being here is to waste my time.”
Now that is genuinely hilarious! Because you seem to have forgotten that you specifically replied to my comment! You chose to initiate this exchange.
I only made a comment about the article.
May I suggest that you scroll past, because you’re proving again that you misrepresent the facts
Fred,
Can’t really disagree with any of that.
“I only made a comment about the article.”
Your comment was “And Stoltenberg didn’t say NATO provoked Putin.”
The article did not state that. It could be implied from the headline, but the headline did not state it either. The only reference to Stoltenberg in the headline was “Stoltenberg Comes Clean.” Which he did.
You said – “your sole reason for being here is to waste my time.” That’s clearly an invention as you initiated the exchange.
It is factually incorrect.
Is it due a poor memory or an overblown sense of self importance?
You summed it up for me too, Fred. 👍
By insisting that “Nobody forces you to go to war” Fred is trying to establish a moral framework, not realising that in war there is rarely a high moral ground. War is a consequence of failure. Look for the failure.
Fred’s concern about needless suffering is admirable, but his disregard for the suffering of the people of the Donbass republics is… troubling.
The right of the republics to declare independence from Ukraine without consultation with Ukraine was established by the ICJ.
The consequent attack on the republics by Ukraine, resulting in thousands of deaths over a period of years, was therefore illegal under section 2.4 of the UN Charter.
Art.4 of the Charter recognises states that are not members of the UN.
The right of Russia to intervene to protect the newly independent states (known as R2P, Responsibility to Protect) is established in the Kosovo Advisory opinion of the ICJ that was endorsed by the UN in 2005.
Because Ukraine’s attack on the Donbass was illegal, NATO support for Ukraine is also illegal under international Law.
Is that a comprehensive account of the legal situation? Far from it. If the law was simple we would not need lawyers, so it’s likely that there are areas where Russian actions are not so legitimate. But to state that the Russian intervention was unprovoked or illegal is simply not correct.
War is a consequence of failure. Look for the failure.
Thank you SD.
That all fits my reading of the situation.
If the” West” is so so high, and mighty, a little self examination is not such a bad thing.
Because right now, “we” are responsible for a whole lot of unnecessary grief.
S D and D P are more attuned to the correct analysis of this topic than those who do not know or embrace concepts of grand strategy going back decades, centuries. If the words of Fred, worth consideration and not entirely wrong, are to be digested, then better to go back to Mearsheimer’s 2015 talk on “Why the Ukraine is the West’s fault, (c. 30 million views)” which is a clear spread from which to settle some opinion (which should always be able to be reshuffled). “Everyone” in Russia will not accept the prospect of the Black Sea becoming a NATO lake. That would allow USA sourced weaponry a few minutes only to breach Russian defences, Cuba was a great lesson to me, over 60 years ago. If Russia had access to bases, by treaty, in Monterrey or Tijuana, in Ontario, or Alberta, then allow NATO a “gain”. Putin is fascinated by the horrors of history for his deliberations, Napoleon, the Crimean War (which ruined and bankrupted the tsarist state), the Kaiser’s war, Hitler the Horror. Never again. As it now stands, the Russian could get away with a huge successful strike, if both sides are fairly equidistant.
Personally I have had the advantage of listening to Prof Alexey Muraviev, from Curtain Uni, who addressed our summer school on the subject of “The war in Ukraine”. I see him on ABCTV at times.
A prominent regional town in WA. (I sense the laughter)
This was back in january 2023 where he was not only talking about events leading up to what we are told is “The start of the war”, but also tacked on some predictions about how events would unfold during question time.
Pretty bloody accurate
When SD suggests that we take seriously the idea that War is a consequence of failure, IMHO he is on target.
And why Albo has us sneakily involved in the latest US sponsored adventure has me gobsmacked.
Thanks to Douglas and Phil for their thoughts.
Phil referred to Russian memories of past invasions, something the US has not had to contend with for over 200 years, and longer in the case of the UK.
The slaughter of Soviet citizens by Nazis is still fresh in Russian minds, and as Phil has said, for the Russians it’s “Never Again.” If I recall correctly, Never Again is actually written into their Defence Policy. So it should not come as a surprise that NATO activity on Russia’s doorstep is regarded with deep suspicion. Why? What’s the connection of NATO to the Nazis? Quite a substantial connection, in fact.
Not all high ranking Nazis were dispatched or imprisoned following Nuremberg. From 1957 to 1983, NATO had at least one, sometimes more, high ranking former Nazis in full command of multiple departments within NATO. But it gets worse.
The position of NATO Commander in Chief and Chief of Allied Forces Central Europe was a position that was held solely by former Nazis for 16 years straight, from 1967-1983.
Historical perspective is always handy in determining diplomatic policy, but the West does not do diplomacy these days. War is a consequence of failure. Look for the failure.
I rarely comment on these matters, which is not an equivalent to saying that I don’t pay attention to the internecine arguments that seem to characterise this debate, but I offer the following; Steve Davis and his supporters continue to point to the factual historicity that underpins the Russian position in relation to their dispute with Ukraine, and if understood and accepted, provide the complete context for their actions. The past, if ignored, genders ignorance of the present. All else is chaff, a distraction from the relevant.
Fred provides an outstanding summary. Particularly in the context of the false information propagated by the Kremlin and their supporters.
Additional context is-
∆ the Minsk Agreements failed in part because Russia supplied weapons to the separatists in breach of the agreement.
∆ the civil war in Donbass and resulting deaths, was claimed by Putin as a reason to the invasion.
However the independently verified fatalities are approximately 14000 total, 6500 where Russian backed separatists, 4500 Ukrainian military, 3000 civilians that were split between areas occupied by separatists and areas occupied by Ukraine.
There were an additional 300 civilian deaths when Russian backed separatists used Russian supplied missiles to shoot down a civilian aircraft. .
We should also bear in mind the harrowing case studies of the United Nations Commission for Human Rights report, which indentified the systemic rape of Ukrainian women and girls aged between 4 and 82) by the Russian military.
There is no rationale that justifies the brutality of the Putin regime
AC, why stop there? Let’s go back into recent – in a relative sense – history; the Russian experience of the Second World War, the Jewish experience of the Holocaust with the Nazi determination for their extinction and its current aberrant phenomenon of the Israeli genocidal aggression towards the Palestinians, the Turkish determination regarding the elimination of the Armenians, similarly the Japanese atrocities against the Chinese along with their detestable behaviour during WW2 throughout south-east Asia, the Balkans conflicts which spanned almost a century, and not to ignore the many many incidents of colonial policy aimed at elimination of ‘inferior’ races throughout colonised countries in Africa and Asia.. the Germans in Namibia, the Belgians in the Congo, the French in Algeria, the Dutch in South Africa, and so on & so on, it’s a never-ending parade of atrocities, race against race, peoples against peoples, principles against principles whether based on ethnic, political, racial, religious or other differences… the particulars are incidental but the factual issues are that it takes little to trigger the inherent aggressiveness of humankind to slaughter their own, and slaughter, by definition, inevitably invokes the worst that mankind is capable of manifesting. Russia’s foray into Ukraine is only the most recent example of this seemingly irresolvable tendency of mankind to resort to kill its own kind.
Canguro, thanks for elaborating on the importance of history.
Last night I began reading Cynthia Chung’s expose of the US/UK role in the development of 20th Cent fascism, “The Empire On Which The Black Sun Never Set”, and par.2 from the intro hit me like a brick — it made a point that I’ve tried to make here and elsewhere at this site.
It read “Of course, individuals are not encouraged to think about an absolute truth or reality. They are rather encouraged to think on a much smaller scale, on individual ‘facts’. In this way, it is much easier to control, shape, and limit ‘problematic’ thinking such as the ponderance on cause and effect.”
This is what we see in accounts of the Ukraine war in the Western media. A few isolated facts, some of which are not facts, with no context or historical perspective. It worked remarkably well for 6-12 months, but eventually reality has a way of breaking through.
Phil Pryor, Mearsheimer is not deemed as credible in EU: ‘If the words of Fred, worth consideration and not entirely wrong, are to be digested, then better to go back to Mearsheimer’s 2015 talk on “Why the Ukraine is the West’s fault, (c. 30 million views)”’ (using such a timeline ignores changes in Ukraine between Russian invasion I & II)
Mearsheimer is linked to the RW fossil fuel Koch Network, out of date, visits Hungary to kiss the ring and present at anti-EU/NATO events sponsored by PM ‘mini Putin’ Orban, now Australia too; who else but Koch Network linked CIS Centre for Independent Studies which also supported the Voice ‘No’ campaign (with NewsCorp that offshore eg. FoxNews, also messages against Ukraine in favour of Putin).
Losing focus: Will Ukraine and now Israel derail the US pivot to contain China? Join us in Brisbane, The Westin Hotel on Monday, 23 October for an evening featuring Professor John Mearsheimer and Peter Varghese for a lecture and conversation which will moderated by Tom Switzer. This event will be Professor Mearsheimer’s only public appearance in Australia.
While one sandwich does not make a picnic, academic credibility credibility requires synthesis of multiple sources, not just a high profile faux geopolitical expert and grifter of the right.
Andrew, I read and should have mentioned the October 2023 talk in Perth, and others, for as with us all, we mention some things, which do not necessarily limit our total efforts, I E we often say less here than we have found…, but Mearsheimer is not the only one to mention at all, and certainly may not be credible or sufficient to some. Richard Broinowski has issued some equally balaced reporting, and other USA sources, which run counter to prevailing orthodoxy are available, and usually through such sites commonly available as Pearls and Irritations, and also the Conversation. Chomsky’s known and regular efforts are always useful to me and many others and also some offerings by E Lozansky can be a lead. I crave peace, seek it, and would try to encourage all to embrace whatever they perceive as wisdom in pursuing that goal. In mentioning other sites, authors, sources, etc, I do not absorb anything as “gospel” unless its factual areas of likelihood appeal, and endless fact checking is a must. Older types of consideration, and I hinted at a grasp of grand stategy, are still needed as our guide overall. Perhaps we might all say less here and elsewhere, (I for one comment less here to avoid heating the fumes more), while talking more about a future way to improve diplomacy, openness, compromise, negotiation, dialogue and harmony. Thus, again, go back to Mearsheimer’s 2015 talk and start rethinking and reassessing from there…
Much has been written about how threatening the west/NATO has been/is to Russia and those threats being the justification for the invasion of Ukraine. Do remember that NATO was formed in 1949, by 12 member states, with the intent of deterring Soviet expansionism, forbidding the revival of nationalist militarism in Europe through a strong North American presence on the continent, and encouraging European political integration. Fear of Soviet invasion was real, but not justification for continuing war at the time. NATO cooperated with Russia for some years after the “cold war” up until the invasion of Crimea in 2014.
Is the threat to Russia credible? Not really as Russia is about 1.7 times the size of USA (= really big) with only 40% of the population (142 vs 335 Million = that’s still a lot of really p…d-off people if invaded) and most importantly 6,255 vs 5,550 nuclear warheads (= significantly more than needed for Mutually Assured Destruction).
What would ensue if the west actually invaded Russia (it’s a large plot and a lot of people to subdue)? It doesn’t bear thinking about – the losses would be large. I’d suggest the spectrum of options considered by cornered Russian political and military leaders losing a conventional war would include nukes. The western war mongers might point to their advanced technology weapons and say “we’ll win”, but it’s a hollow victory if the planet “glows” 24×7. https://sgs.princeton.edu/the-lab/plan-a
AS Fred has said “Pause for a moment and take a step back to consider the proposition of “being forced into war”. Nobody forces you to go to war unless they attack you militarily! ”
One nation has no right to dictate policy within another. So Putin disapproved of Ukraine possibly joining NATO? Big fucking whoopee; it’s none of his business any more than it was any of the USA’s business when various Central American nations elected certain leaders with foreign and internal policies of which it disapproved. The USA was wrong all those times it covertly intervened to promote – and even arrange – coups in such nations, and Putin is wrong here.
The doublethink required to condemn the one whilst excusing the other boggles the mind.
Nice work leefe. You’ve condensed a complex matter that has a history going back hundreds of years, into a single point.
That takes skill.
I’m not up to an extended essay today, Steve. Do you have a problem with the point I’ve made or are you going to limit your replies to snide ad hominem one-liners?
Do I have a problem leefe? A couple of problems actually.
When your argument relies on a particularly vulgar expletive to make your point, your argument is, from a moral perspective, effectively over.
As to your point about Russia’s disapproval of Ukraine joining NATO, you are correct. Reasons can be given as to why that should not be applicable. But you overlook the fact that valid reasons, drawing on historical perspective, can be given to justify Russian concerns. Prominent and credible Western figures agreed with Russia’s concerns.
You also overlook the point I made in my “snide ad hominem one-liner” (and here was me thinking that my restraint was exemplary!) that a complex matter with a history going back hundreds of years cannot be condensed into a single isolated point.
You also avoid dealing with the right of Russia to intervene to protect the people of the Donbass who were being shelled by Ukraine, killed by the thousands, in breach of international law. Do you see how complex this matter is?
Details are good. Details are essential. But they serve no purpose when presented in isolation, devoid of context. Keep in mind the quote from Cynthia Chung that I gave in an earlier comment;
“Of course, individuals are not encouraged to think about an absolute truth or reality. They are rather encouraged to think on a much smaller scale, on individual ‘facts’.”
When you deal only in details without looking for connections between the details, you are being, or will be, manipulated.
I can’t ignore this –
“the right of Russia to intervene to protect the people of the Donbass who were being shelled by Ukraine, killed by the thousands”
I posted the independently verified details yesterday….
“∆ the civil war in Donbass and resulting deaths, was claimed by Putin as a reason to the invasion.
However the independently verified fatalities are approximately 14000 total, 6500 where Russian backed separatists, 4500 Ukrainian military, 3000 civilians that were split between areas occupied by separatists and areas occupied by Ukraine.
There were an additional 300 civilian deaths when Russian backed separatists used Russian supplied missiles to shoot down a civilian aircraft. “
And I repeat the inconvenient details that AC seems determined to ignore.
The right of the republics to declare independence from Ukraine without consultation with Ukraine was established by the ICJ.
The consequent attack on the republics by Ukraine, resulting in thousands of deaths over a period of years, was therefore illegal under section 2.4 of the UN Charter.
The key takeaway from that is that details about the deaths, details that will be argued about forever, would not have occurred if Ukraine had not shelled Donbass citizens who acted legally when claiming independence.
Just to prove the false information posted here…
From the PDF report…
“OHCHR estimates… 14,200-14,400 killed, at least 3,404 civilians, estimated 4,400 Ukrainian forces and estimated 6,500 members of armed groups”
How was the vote for independence carried out?
Which countries recognise the vote?
Steve:
Tone policing is as valid an argument as ad hominem attacks. Using a word of which you do not approve does not change the meaning of what I say, nor its validity.
“You also avoid dealing with the right of Russia to intervene to protect the people of the Donbass who were being shelled by Ukraine, killed by the thousands, in breach of international law.”
OK, so, according to your argument, neighbouring countries have a right to invade when human rights abuses are being carried out, right? So Indonesia or New Zealand have a right to invade Australia due to the way we treat refugees, or our imprisonment of children for misdemeanours? Canada has a right to invade the USA for a multitude of misbehaviours, not least its interventions in so many other countries? Shit (oh, soz for your delicate sensibilities, I’ve done gone and used another “vulgarity”), if that supposed right was exercised wherever applicable, this entire world would be consumed by war because not one nation is entirely innocent in that respect. (Yes, I know that’s a bit hyperbolic. But I do wonder exactly what your criteria are for the justification of invasion; how much of it is due to what is happening and how much due to who is doing it?). In fact, one could argue that Ukraine showed a remarkable degree of restraint in not invading Russia, given the latter’s record both within its own borders and outside them.
And then there’s the problem that the Donbass situation was, at least in part (and a significant part at that), caused by the deliberate actions of Russia in fomenting unrest and, oh yeah, there’s that pesky invasion of the Crimea in 2014 as well.
As you say, it’s complex. Yet, to me, none of this justifies the destruction and death deliberately caused by an illegal (you’re the one so invested in international law, after all) invasion.
leefe, I agree with you entirely on human rights abuses. It annoys the hell out of me when Australia gets all sanctimonious and starts lecturing others. It’s a joke.
In regard to the invasion, and as we’re talking about international law, can you tell me why R2P did not apply.
It is the height of hypocrisy, or worse, to condemn in others what you excuse in Russia,
I have no doubt many here that are critical of Russia’s brutal invasion of Ukraine were against the involvement of the USA is the overthrow of Allende, of the Vietnam War, deeply concerned about Iraq and Afghanistan and critical of Australia’s policies regarding asylum seekers.
There appears to be a couple of verbose and self important types that were critical of all that, but then neglect to apply the same standards to the Putin regime
AC is determined to not confront the fact that the deaths that concern him, and about which we all should be concerned, would not have occurred if Ukraine had not shelled the Donbass.
AC asks how the vote for independence was carried out.
As far as I can recall, and I could be wrong on a few details here, the Donbass district governors informed the Ukraine govt that they intended to hold a referendum for independence, and Ukraine said, sure, good idea, but this will be a big project, so to free up resources for you we’ll supply cake stalls, street entertainers and so on to help ensure that it all goes smoothly.
AC has asked how many other states recognise the Donbass republics.
The Montevideo Convention On The Rights and Duties Of States, as a restatement of customary international law, codified existing legal norms and principles that apply not merely to the signatories, but to all subjects of international law as a whole.
From the Convention Article 1. The state as a person of international law should possess the following qualifications: a) a permanent population; b) a defined territory; c) government; and d) capacity to enter into relations with the other states. Those conditions are fulfilled in the case of the Donbass republics. Thus, under international law, both republics are sovereign States, irrespective of the lack of recognition of this status by other states, as per Art. 3 of the Convention.
Article 3. The political existence of the state is independent of recognition by the other states. Even before recognition the state has the right to defend its integrity and independence, to provide for its conservation and prosperity, and consequently to organize itself as it sees fit, to legislate upon its interests, administer its services, and to define the jurisdiction and competence of its courts. …
1/. Prior to the vote in Donbas the UNHCHR estimated that one and a half million people had fled the territory.
How were their rights protected? Or don’t they have rights?
2/. HRW reported that over 20 people who supported Ukraine were held hostage by separatists during the vote. There were no voices in opposition
3/. Only 32% were able to vote
4/. Widespread voting irregularities were reported by independent observers
5/. Why do you condemn in others what you excuse in Russia?
Steve:
But you don’t say anything about known human rights abuses occuring within Russia, or those they have commited beyond their borders? Hmmmm, interesting.
AC,
Can I suggest a little side track?
You may still find some footage on U-tube of “Bald and Bankrupt” traveling in Ukraine before Putin stepped over the line.
I was following him at that time, and he chats with the locals because he knows Russian and then tells his viewers what is being said.
This was in the Donbas, and its handy to find out what the folk on the ground think of the situation.
We live in what we like to think is a democracy, so the viewpoint of your average voter should carry some weight.
Getting educated is never a waste of time.
leefe, you are unhappy that I “don’t say anything about known human rights abuses occurring within Russia, or those they have committed beyond their borders?”
First, my lack of comment is consistent with my view on human rights abuses that I gave in my previous reply, and my lack of comment follows logically from that view.
Second, I cannot see the point of your question, given that as far as I can recall, I have never expressed admiration for Russia’s human rights record. I’m happy to be corrected on that.
Found a thought provoking video which presents a plausible explanation of why Ukraine was invaded. Ref: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=If61baWF4GE
Skip to 26:15 to see the foundations of the process of an “area becoming a state” followed by Russia “helping out” as per SD’s writings. Skip the marketing at the end.
Fred, many thanks for the link to the video.
Background info from any source is valuable because as I’ve pointed out here, details are of no use without context.
I have to disagree with the assertion that Russia is militarily inferior to NATO. For starters, NATO has no army to speak of, while Russia’s is large on a global scale. And Russia’s missile technology and missile defence is acknowledged by the West as being far superior to the US. There’s even US sources claiming that Russia is militarily ahead of the US now, but these things need to be taken with a grain of salt. Such claims could be emanating from the MIC in order to get even more funding from Congress.
I found the coverage of the water supply matter was very interesting.
And on the whole, a useful video that shows how complex this awful situation is.
SD: You might be right, but when it comes to comparing military superiority there are too many factors, and as they say size doesn’t matter, it’s what you do with it that counts. The only real way of finding out who is superior is to duke it out – which I strongly recommend against. War gaming scenarios might help develop a winning strategy, but in real combat if the enemy does something unpredicted it could all amount to nought. Yes, the “water factor” was news to me.
Fred, in regard to war games, this from Business Insider, March 9th, 2019.
The US might very well lose a high-end fight against a near-peer threat like China or Russia, two war-gaming experts said Thursday. In our games, when we fought Russia and China, ‘blue’ gets its ass handed to it, said David Ochmanek, a RAND analyst, referring to a color code used for the US. In these simulated fights, an aggressor obliterates US stealth fighters on the runway, sinks US warships, destroys US bases and takes out critical US military systems.
I don’t place too much faith in war games, there’s too many unknowns, too many variables. Such as the skill of individual commanders, the ability to adapt to circumstances etc.
And as the great philosopher Mike Tyson once said, “Everyone has a plan until they get hit in the face.”
But here’s a worrying thought when we look at the bigger picture.
The US has for some time now been prodding both The Bear, AND The Dragon, with no certainty that they could win against either of them.
We live in dangerous times.
When war games are played there has to be an objective that the great power sets out to achieve.
When we tackled Russia in our U3A it was evident that Putin needed a reliable “warm water port” to trade his oil and wheat, and whatever.
Shifting oil through Ukraine was dodgy because the corrupt nation would steal it on the way, so a combination of NS1&2 was working for him, and an ability to ship as needed.
Europe was doing well with this but US were now being left in the cold.
US threw Europe under the bus by blowing the pipes, so now they have to rely on US for energy and a means to protect themselves.
I think Putin would be happy with access to the Caspian sea, and allowing Ukraine to use ITS waterfront?
The Donbas is historically the food basket for Russia, so that is a plus.
DP: The jury is still out on who blew the pipes, but Europe isn’t getting the energy deficit caused by the resultant “leaky pipes” from the US. So if the US was responsible, it hasn’t worked in their favor.
Where do you get “Shifting oil through Ukraine was dodgy because the corrupt nation would steal it on the way” from? It triggered the BS alarm. Suggest you chat to somebody clued-up in the oil and gas supply chain to find out how stupid such an assertion is. Oil = big bucks. Whether you move oil by pipeline, tanker, road-transport or whatever the “ins and outs” are tracked meticulously. If anything goes missing the cause is found and fixed. The efficiencies of the various refineries vs the various grades of crude are known and used to determine which source to buy from where a few cents per litre make a difference.
steve, stop being an apologist for russia. That “threat” scenario was just plausible deniability writ large. Ukraine wanted to establish its own identity and russia was in the mood to expand. Ukraine didnt have anywhere near the army needed to threaten russia. Nato was having existential thoughts and just drifting along.
And another thing, just look at russia’s behaviour in the last year. Its been an attempt at total destruction in the ukraine. This is not the sign of trying to “de-nazif-y”. Its blatant terrorism. No nefarious “security” scam can justify this type of action.
And steve, if you care to , statistics are readily available on russian losses. I didn’t pull them out of thin air. They had to have a call up last year because their standing army of 200,000 was decimated. The number of tanks destroyed is accurate, just look at the tanks from cold storage that they are left with, made in the 70s.
Its you steve who has a blind spot in your logic. Fuck yea.
“Nato was having existential thoughts and just drifting along.”
Andy, I can see from your final sentence that you have a passion for truth and understanding, but did you just make up the NATO thing?
As for the de-nazifying objective, my view is that Russia has hugely overstated the problem.
From 2014 to 2019 it was regularly reported across the mainstream Western news media that Ukraine had a serious problem with right-wing and nationalist extremism. Those reports ceased when it became clear that war was around the corner. We’ve not heard a peep about this since. Those reports were so effective in shutting down extremism that many in the West now deny that there ever was a problem. How good is that? Never underestimate the power of fearless investigative journalism.
Now, let’s talk about that provision in international law known as the Responsibility to Protect.
“Responsibility to Protect.”
How many times has that been discredited as a rationale for the brutal invasion?
Does responsibility to protect include the rape of Ukrainian women and girls aged between 4 and 82 by the Russian military?
Fred, the jury might be out in your quarter but for those who’ve been paying attention to this question of who destroyed the Nord Stream pipelines the question has been pretty well answered for some time now.
Seymour Hersh has written extensively on the USA’s covert operation to cripple the flow of gas from Russia into Europe; he’s made all the appropriate and possible investigations, and naturally his exposé has been denied in official circles, just as ‘official circles’ have maintained their version of ‘who dun it,’ but I’d argue that Hersh, who has a long and impeccable record as an investigative journalist of the highest order, is well & truly on the money.
The jury, as you quaintly phrase it, will always be out on this matter because the Americans are never going to admit that they schemed and plotted and carried out this piece of massive sabotage of a piece of critical energy infrastructure; another act of deep criminality directed at a sovereign foreign entity and exactly the sort of black ops that they, via the CIA, have long mastered in their lunatic desperation to maintain their self-declared status as the planet’s hegemon.
“How many times has that been discredited as a rationale for the brutal invasion?”
Ummm … Never? I’m sure AC would have mentioned it before this, if it had.
And AC forgot about the beheaded babies. Is he going soft?
We are all concerned by the atrocities of war. War is an atrocity by definition. But we know that AC’s concern over Russian atrocities is manufactured to suit the occasion because he somehow overlooks Ukrainian atrocities.
Ukrainian atrocities began in 2014, in a constant stream. Do I waste everyone’s time with repeated stories about this? To do so would distract from the big picture. We need to stick to the big picture.
War is a consequence of failure. If we wish to prevent war, look for the failure.
Canguro, as you say, we will never know about the pipeline, but a good indicator occurred the very day that Germany was set to formally proceed. It was only a matter of days until the gas would flow.
A high ranking US figure, could even have been Biden, simply said, with absolute confidence, it’s not going to happen. No explanation, no elaboration, no reasons, just “it’s not going to happen.”
Being on the wrong thread is the only error in my comment
You on the other hard, dismiss the findings of the ICJ, which considered the evidence submitted by Ukraine, Russia and a range of other parties.
You prefer Kremlin propaganda and anecdotes to the evidence
By the way, the entire transcript of the ICJ case is available and accessible on your phone.
You said you have plenty of time, so how about you review it and explain which part of the evidence should have resulted in a finding in favour of Russia.
Here’s an interesting article that links actual evidence to debunk the claims
https://theconversation.com/putins-claims-that-ukraine-is-committing-genocide-are-baseless-but-not-unprecedented-177511
SD: “until the gas would flow”??? Canguro: If you look at the facts and timeline, it doesn’t make any sense for the US to destroy the pipelines.
– 22 Feb 2022 Germany halted certification of the Nord Stream 2 pipeline linking the country to Russia in response to the Kremlin’s recognition of two separatist regions in Ukraine.
– 24 Feb 22 Russia invades Ukraine. At that time Germany was getting 55% of its gas from Russia.
– Subsequently German political, business, and labor union leaders debate whether to embargo the import of Russian gas.
– Procrastination sets in.
– June 2022, before Germany’s leaders acted on an embargo, Russia’s government-owned energy giant, Gazprom, reduced gas flowing through its Nord Stream 1 pipeline by 40%.
– End of August 22 NS1 FLOW HALTED ENTIRELY, driving natural gas prices to record levels in Europe.
– End of September 22 Nord stream explosions
I cannot see what advantage there is to the US blowing up the pipes.
From AC on the wrong thread — “The ICJ didn’t think the invasion was a suitable decision.
By Order of March 16, 2022, the ICJ has already indicated among its provisional measures that “the Russian Federation shall immediately suspend the military operations it began on February 24, 2022 in the territory of Ukraine”.
That’s it, that was his comment.
My reply was, “The order of the ICJ is not a legal decision. It is a standard response to any outbreak of armed hostilities.”
ACs response to that, after he got his bearings, was “You on the other hard, dismiss the findings of the ICJ,…”
I dismissed the finding because even a non-lawyer like me could see that it was not a finding, it was merely an order, a standard response.
As can be seen here from the ICJ —
“The Court further reaffirms that the decision given in the present proceedings in no way prejudges the question of the jurisdiction of the Court to deal with the merits of the case or any questions relating to the admissibility of the Application or to the merits themselves. It leaves unaffected the right of the Governments of Ukraine and of the Russian Federation to submit arguments in respect of those questions. For these reasons,The Court Indicates the following provisional measures:
The Russian Federation shall immediately suspend the military operations that it commenced on 24 February 2022 in the territory of Ukraine.”
Does AC see the key words? “in no way prejudges”, “leaves unaffected”, “provisional measures”
Now, from the Conversation article that AC thinks is credible– ‘Given Russia’s lack of evidence of atrocity crimes and its failure to engage with other world powers,…”
That’s two elements that have been discussed at length here. I saw from the beginning of the conflict that it would be unlikely that useful information would come from The Conversation. This article confirms that.
“SD: “until the gas would flow”???”
Fred, that was the impression given by the media at that time. This is why the declaration by the US that gas would never flow was so memorable.
To me it’s no big deal, to focus on it is a distraction until such time as absolute evidence emerges, and as we all agree, that’s unlikely.
@Fred, so you’re saying you dispute the several pieces Seymour Hersh has put to print based on his investigative enquiries, which have included a number of off the record interviews with individuals within the USA military and security agencies?
How intriguing. Do let the readers know what alternative information you have to back your claim of no USA involvement, or are you just punting a subjective opinion based on, well, next to nothing, as opposed to Hersh’s investigations, which, to repeat what has been said many times about that particular journalist, are those of a man with the highest level of impeccable research?
And, assuming that you read the whole article linked in my post, what is your response to it, or is it another case of TLDR [too long, didn’t read]?
Fred,
Jo Biden is at his best when he is awake, and speaking, and goes off script.
He boldly pronounced that NS 2 would never happen, ask no further questions.
And, good grief, but thats exactly what did happen
No real surprises.
Thanks Doug, I had an idea it was Biden, but was not sure.
Canguro: The problem with Seymour Hersh’s story is that it is all hearsay – because all of the evidence has been destroyed. Convenient! Once he took his stance, he was obliged to continue on theme.
The reason given why the US did it, is “4-legged” lame:
“The Biden administration blew up the pipelines but the action had little to do with winning or stopping the war in Ukraine. It resulted from fears in the White House that Germany would waver and turn on the flow of Russia gas—and that Germany and then NATO, for economic reasons, would fall under the sway of Russia and its extensive and inexpensive natural resources. And thus followed the ultimate fear: that America would lose its long-standing primacy in Western Europe.”
Oh really! At the time of the explosions, no gas was going to Germany because Russia had turned off the supply. Germany committed to stopping the dependence on Russian oil and gas and acted on it. They managed to build a new LNG terminal in 200 days instead of the usual years. Germany went to market and secured enough fuel to ensure the reserves were adequate for winter and since found replacements. So “Germany would waver and turn on the flow of Russia gas… would fall under the sway of Russia” is utter BS, the Germans are smarter than that.
After having Russia turn off supply, once new supply has been obtained, why would Germany go back to Russia with the probability of being blackmailed? Why blow them a month after supply was cut rather than waiting to see Germany waver or fall under the sway? I doubt that is the best the “White House” could come up with. That said, the US could well have done it, but it doesn’t make sense.
Fred, to each his own, and as it’s said in more vulgar circles than you or I frequent, case fucking closed. I note, in closing, that you’ve provided no credible alternative than the option I offered as to who the protagonist is, with the USA remaining the prime suspect. As to your comment on Seymour Hersh, I think you do him a gross disservice, and one that he would rightly take offence at. The only thing you’ve said that comes close to admission is your couched phrase that the US ‘could well have done it,’ and as to whether it makes sense or not is entirely beside the point, given that the US is a county whose geopolitical behaviour is so often beyond the pale and beyond the capacity to ‘make sense of’ for the majority of sane & rational thinkers.
Long one 🙂 My issue with Anglo and specially US faux anti-imperialist tankies of the left (& right ‘libertarians’) inc. Hersh, Grayzone, Greenwald, Mearsheimer (Charles Koch appeared at CIS recently), Sachs (Rockefeller) et al. is there lack of specific expertise current or otherwise, with their avoidance of credible sources, vague language and the weird feature.
They are coming from one of the most narcissistic and uninformed nations in the world i.e. US (followed by UK & Oz?), but the faux or genuine US left then gaslight not just GOP etc. but normies in the rest of the world for supporting Ukraine (claiming Russia is a victim of the US) and especially including Europeans/EU whether bona fide experts or just informed citizens; clear links with Putin’s Russia on much of this inc PR and motley crew of supporters and allies inc. Trump, Farage, Orban, (K)GB News, Fox News etc.., behind many faux experts.
Canguro: FYI, the reason why I haven’t nominated a perpetrator is because no country stands out as benefiting the most from the NS destruction after the gas was switched off by Russia.
Prior to the invasion, had NS 2 come online, Ukraine was set to lose $3B in gas transit fees. Equally, Poland opposed the NS 2 project as it threatened the security of central and eastern Europe. After the invasion the push was on to move away from Russia.
The day before the leak, Poland and Norway opened a new, 850-kilometer natural gas pipeline, Baltic Pipe, through Denmark. An interesting coincidence. Norway made up the lions share of what Germany lost due NS 1. Could any of these countries want to make sure there was no “going back”.
Given that NS 1 had been shut down and NS 2 was not going to happen, with the likelihood it would be a very long time before any gas was shipped, there was no point in pressurising and maintaining any of the 4 pipelines. The opportunity for a “false flag” event puts Russia in the frame.
Assigning numbers 1=USA, 2=Ukraine, 3=Poland, 4=Norway, 5=Denmark and 6=Russia, I rolled the dice and can report that Ukraine is responsible for the explosions. Nuff said.
I haven’t noticed comments about the Tucker Carlson** interview with Putin. During the interview, Putin sought to justify Hitler’s standards and reasons for starting WW2.
During the past 2 years, many have observed that Putin used the same excuse as Hitler for his invasion. Many others denied this.
Putin has now put on the record that he believes Hitler was provoked and left with no option. Putin (and others) made this point to excuse the brutal invasion of Ukraine. The “provocation” rational is over, as is the “multi-polar” view.
Unless you prefer a multi-polar world with Nazi sympathisers increasing their prestige and influence.
** It’s interesting that Tucker’s parents had a sense of humour and used rhyming slang to name him.
rah rah rah, people trying to justify Russia’s attack on Ukraine makes me so angry.
Ukraine didnt initiate and there was NO FAILURE as some seem to suggest. Stopping NATO expansion was just his attempt at plausable cause. NATO was in disarray. Putin thought he could get away with it….just like Crimea…..no other reason required.
Historical context is something to learn from, not a press and repeat.
Ukraine had elections and the people wanted to be cosmopolitan EUROPEAN and not pauper RUSSIANS.
All this historical mumbo jumbo is just the ramblings of mad people used to justify the lie.
You want proof, watch the Carlson “interview”, its there in all its glory. Putin is Trump’s pin up boy, another mad man at the helm.
AC and Andy are hoping that readers will not take the trouble to read through the earlier comments to this article. They still push the failed line that was pushed earlier, that the Russian action was unprovoked. Maybe they think that if they say it often enough, readers will believe them.
Here’s a little reminder from above.
From the Wash.Post, 23.10.23. “Since 2015, the CIA has spent tens of millions of dollars to transform Ukraine’s Soviet-formed services into potent allies against Moscow, officials said.”
And here’s Putin pleading for a mature dialogue two months before coming to the conclusion that Russia had to act.
“We just make it clear that we are ready to talk about how to translate the military scenario or the military-technical scenario into a political process that will actually strengthen the military security of all states in the OSCE, Euro-Atlantic, Eurasian space. If this is not going to happen, then … we will switch to this mode of creating counter-threats, but then it will be too late to ask us why we made such decisions, why we have deployed such systems. ”
That’s not the full story of course. Please read all the comments above to save us re-hashing the whole thing.
I was tempted to comment in serious mode, because Andy is not the only one to get angry.
But it will probably fall on deaf ears.
Anyone who has digested Russian classics will know that its long winded, but the writing is fully capable of keeping the audience attentive.
So the 2 hour talk that Putin delivered was revealing and addressed the provocation that took place, and put context around it.
Thats the subject under discussion.
He was honest in relating why his special operation went ahead, and he had the solution for peace to the situation, but most of the media which is mainstream failed to pick this up.
I am sorry for the Ukrainians who would have related to the way the conversation went.
Now I have heard that a sequel is in the pipeline where Carlton Tucker talks to Netenyahoo about how he secured the release of 2 hostages while killing the best part of 100 innocent Palestinian civilians.
The interview would only be granted if he is not asked to explain the provocation that he placed on the Gaza population, and the fact that 20,000 have died so far.
The 2 hours will explain the necessary rule by Apartheid, the genocide, the plunder of more land and resources, and if this does not bring on a puke, then you have an undamaged right wing.
To complete the trilogy Tucker is going to spend 2 hours chatting to Biden about how the war is a good one seeing as their arms sales are on the up and up, and they have wrested control of the energy market from Russia now the pipelines are disabled, and the European economy is in tatters.
The White office is flat out wondering how to keep him from dozing off, and wondering where he is.
Steve, it is you who choses to rewrite that which we have all seen. There is no moral argument for Putin’s attack. Nor is there a logical reason. Saying it is so doesnt make it so.
Just listen to the rantings, Ukraine is russian, ukraine is run by nazis, ukrane is run by fascists, we want to liberate them…..fuck me…what else needs to be said about their intentions?
The west was bending over backwards to accomodate Russia, eg, gas pipelines, foreign investment and all. Nato in disarray was edging closer to russia? No, the people themselves moved away from russian influence. Net result of this crazy attempt of an invasion , more countries joined NATO. That wasnt the position before, so those countries must know a bit more than arm chair experts.
its like the bully decided to beat the shit out of me because somebody bought me lunch. Fearing i was being influenced. Its MAFIA behaviour. Historical rational is just an excuse to cover a psychopathic regime, no matter what dumb argument you put up. Something about Trump that has totally destroyed any morality in some people.
You guys need to be a bit more sceptical about assertions. War is not a binary, only due to failure.
I want to know how you negotiate with a bully. I fail to see how when a country says no, we dont want your control, thats a failure that invites an invasion.
the only failure i see is Trump delaying assistance to Ukraine before the invasion. Maybe trump was the real puppet here. I have no evidence so wont persue this line, but thats a line for serious conspiracy theorists to chase.
Putin said-
After [WWI] this territory was transferred to Poland, and instead of Danzig, a city of Gdańsk emerged. Hitler asked them [the Poles] to give it up amicably, but they refused…
[The Poles] went too far, pushing Hitler to start World War II by attacking them. Why was it Poland against whom the war started on 1 September 1939? Poland turned out to be uncompromising, and Hitler had nothing to do but start implementing his plans with Poland.”
Putin has sought to justify Hitler’s actions. Those who support Putin are supporting a Nazi sympathiser
You will note that AC is unable to disprove the clear provocations Russia had to contend with prior to intervening in Ukraine, so he has switched his angle of attack to imagining a relationship between Hitler’s attack on Poland and Russia’s attack on Ukraine. Did Putin say he supported Hitler? Of course not. But AC wants readers to make that connection.
I’ve taken AC to task in the past for his inability to see the big picture, but apparently his condition is chronic, perhaps terminal. In his first comment today he condensed the genesis of WW2 into a single sentence. That takes some doing, a very special skill. The causes of WW2 probably run into the hundreds and so require careful analysis. But AC does not do careful. And nuance does not figure in his lexicon.
While the rise of Hitler meant that war of some kind was inevitable, given his position on lebensraum, it’s fair to say that in regard to the initiation and progress of the war, Hitler was suckered into it. Which is possibly the intent of Putin that got lost in translation.
How was Hitler suckered?
It’s quite a story, but that’s where nuance and the big picture come in. Let’s start with the British Cabinet papers from 1939.
On January 1, 1970, when the Cabinet papers for 1939 were published, the Guardian wrote,
“The Cabinet papers for 1939, published this morning, show that the Second World War would not have started in that year if the Chamberlain Government had accepted or understood Russian advice that an alliance between Britain, France and the Soviet Union would prevent war because Hitler could not then risk a conflict against major powers on two fronts.”
So on March 18th 1939 we have USSR pleading with the West for action to stop Hitler. Russia was clearly told to go at it alone.
On April 16th 1939, Stalin in desperation proposed that Russia, France and Britain make a pact that would bind their three countries to declare war on Germany if they or any nation between the Baltic and the Mediterranean were attacked. Britain and France refused.
The USSR was left with few options. The Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact signed August 23rd, 1939, has gone down in history as notorious. However, an important fact is often left out which completely changes the character of the popular interpretation of the Soviet compromise with Nazism. This notorious pact was signed a full 11 months after UK Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain signed the appeasement deal with Hitler on September 30th, 1938, known as the Munich Agreement (aka the Munich Betrayal).
The usual account of the Munich Agreement has it that the British government agreed to partition Czechoslovakia only as a desperate measure to avoid a greater European war. This view is based on the idea that Germany was already an overwhelming military power that could easily crush Czechoslovakia’s weak defenses. However, this idea is patently false.
Created in 1919, Czechoslovakia was the most prosperous, most democratic, most powerful and best administered of the states that emerged from the Habsburg Empire. The idea that the Germans had a military advantage and that Czech’s security was weak were both fabrications of a sustained propaganda campaign, which was orchestrated by the British media and government representatives to mislead the British and European public. In terms of quality, armaments and fortifications, the Czech army was known to be the best in Europe and was superior to the German army in every way except for air support. On September 3rd, 1938, the British military attaché in Prague wrote a cable to London, stating: ‘There are no shortcomings in the Czech army, as far as I have been able to observe…’
Czechoslovakia did in fact capitulate without resistance, but this was not because her defenses were weak. Rather, it was because her government had been given false promises and was ultimately played in favour of Germany by the treacherous scheming of Britain’s secret diplomacy.
The Munich Agreement subsequently allowed Hitler to acquire Czechoslovakia’s superior army and transformed Germany into a colossal military threat that would be much more difficult to defeat. Germany had been allowed to become an ultra-supreme force through direct British intervention.
It was only 11 months later that the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact was signed by the Russians as a means to forestall what was clearly the inevitable; a German attack on Russian soil, with the backing of Britain and France. In addition, the Bank of England and the Bank of International Settlements, through BoE Governor Montague Norman, allowed for the direct transfer of 5.6 million pounds worth of gold to Hitler that was owned by the Bank of Czechoslovakia.
So with Hitler being viewed favourably in the West for destroying communism in Germany, with the West giving him easy money, it’s easy to see why Hitler assumed that his military adventures would meet with little resistance from the West. He was suckered. Or, given the West’s antagonism to communism, some might say he was provoked.
Messy, isn’t it.
But to avoid all that messiness, all we have to do is condense the history of the 1930s into a single sentence as AC has done. Then it’s easy to extrapolate from our newly fashioned nonsense to make profound statements about global events in 2024. Because everything is really simple if you look at it … simply.
Some efforts are little better than an attempt to examine the minute haemorrhoidal possiblities in identifying an obscure fossil whose remains just remain. Where does it get us? The disputes in Polish hstory, including with Hitler. remain just so. Could we wish for. plan for, negotiate for, suggest for, some peace in today’s world disputes? Ignorant, ineffective men (mostly) fail us all.
All your wishes would come true Phil, if only you and I were in charge.
🙂
ok lets turn this around for Steve. What if trump gets re elected and throws poland to the wolves. Are we going to troll over what his great grandfather went through and how it traumatised the family into believing they are above the law and poland doesnt matter?
Of coarse not, we will call him every name under the sun.
Steve you want to traverse every minute detail of russian history to give a perspective of what? a totally brutalised nation?
Russia learnt that when they invaded crimea the world sat silent, he got away with it. You do know that russia has more territorial ambitions? Seeing trump playing games and nato in disarray was all the motivation he needed. Havent you worked out who PUTIN is? A monster who is willing to torch 390,000 of his own soldiers doesnt need an excuse, he just follows the voices in his head. You do know why NATO was formed?
If russia was a normal country, they would be prosperous and mind their own business. But they have proven time and again, they are every bit the nasty bastards we think they are. Hostage diplomacy and people falling out of windows seems to be the norm.
Andy, have you checked the number of Russian lives lost during WW2, compared to allied losses?
Thought not.
Andy, I haven’t even scratched the surface of European history yet.
And it was your mate who sent us down this path, not me.
If you’re not happy with the direction this is going, pull him into line.
I tried to keep the discussion focused on the provocations. Remember those provocations you keep overlooking?
Always with the “provocation” line.
An individual always has an option to non-physical “provocation”. So do nations. Until the fiirst punch has been thrown, there is no “provocation” that requires throwing a punch. There are always other ways of dealing with it. Putin, like Hitler, threw the first punch.
So did Hamas, and there we get into the concept of “commensurate force”; you don’t need to shred someone’s body with an AK47 because they pinched your backside. You do as much as necessary – and only that – to neutralise the immediate threat.
This is like reading an international politiical version of “she made me do it”. The whole debate makes me sick.
leefe, thank you for your interest.
You said “there is no “provocation” that requires throwing a punch.”
That is wrong both in common law and international law.
There’s still difference of opinion in the area of international law, but it appears that “necessity, proportionality and the existence of an imminent threat” are accepted as necessary pre-conditions.
You also overlook Russia’s “Responsibility to Protect” under international law, the people of Donbass that had been shelled by Ukraine forces for several years prior to the intervention. So your statement that “Putin, like Hitler, threw the first punch” is also wrong.
That’s not just my opinion. NATO chief Stoltenberg let it slip that the war started in 2014. That’s 8 years before “Putin threw the first punch.”
Did you not read the evidence I gave above of Putin pleading for a mature dialogue two months before coming to the conclusion that Russia had to act? Here it is again.
“We just make it clear that we are ready to talk about how to translate the military scenario or the military-technical scenario into a political process that will actually strengthen the military security of all states in the OSCE, Euro-Atlantic, Eurasian space. If this is not going to happen, then … we will switch to this mode of creating counter-threats, but then it will be too late to ask us why we made such decisions, why we have deployed such systems. ”
The reason for you saying “The whole debate makes me sick” is you are having to process the fact that people you trust fed you lies about this conflict, and every other conflict. I agree. It is sickening.
Steve, now your treading on the unbelievable ” “Responsibility to Protect” under international law, the people of Donbass …”
Fuck me, isnt it obvious that russia created the troubles as a pretext? If america did it, you and I would be jumping up and down…….well guess what, thats what russia did.
“.. the fact that people you trust fed you lies …”. No, ukraine was telling the world they needed help to stop the impending invasion.
Trump lied about stuff to bully ukraine into giving false evidence against Biden. Russia said up to one day before hand , no we will not invade…….who fucking lied here? This was planned over a long period of time. All their info pointed to an easy rd into Kyiev…….BS in BS out. A massive failure of their intelligence. So when the conditions are right, we will invade is their Modus Operandi. Diplomacy ha, just another Chamberlin ruse.
All the shit you want to inject is just a pretext, any old excuse so long as its plausible. Its plausible alright, to a sick mind like Putin. We see what a sick mind is everyday with Trump. Now thats closer to the truth than your misplaced even handed crap.
“isnt it obvious that russia created the troubles as a pretext?”
You mean Russia got Ukraine to shell the Donbass for 8 years just so they had a pretext?
You are ranting.
Most credible estimates of the 2014-2022 Donbass conflict (Ukrainian Gov vs Russian-affiliated separatists) put the overall death toll (civilian & military) at somewhere around 15,000.
Between various claims, the overall number of graves filled by the 2 year Russian invasion of Ukraine (aka 6 week “special operation” to eliminate fascism) is reliably estimated to run well into the six digit spectrum.
Bitova shitty equation for a supposed humanitarian intervention.
A link to some year by year mortality statistics for civilians killed in Russia/Ukraine friction 2014-2023.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/1293409/civilian-deaths-related-to-russia-ukraine-conflict/
Note the low casualties during Zvlensky’s first 3 years of government (>100 overall) then a sudden spike in 2022 (>8000)..
Wonder what caused that?
“Bitova shitty equation for a supposed humanitarian intervention.”
How about a bitova shitty attempt at misdirection by CB?
He well knows that the Responsibility to Protect was just one of three reasons for the Russian action.
And “then a sudden spike in 2022.”
Gee, who could possibly have foreseen that? That came out of nowhere!
If the spike in deaths has CB so concerned that he is condemning NATO for refusing Russia’s repeated requests for wide-ranging security arrangements, then I support him to the hilt.
If he is blaming Boris Johnson and NATO for the deaths because they sabotaged the peace agreement Ukraine and Russia were about to sign in April ‘22, then I’m with him all the way. An end to the war in April ‘22 would have seen the operation go down in history as little more than a skirmish.
But because the West is using Ukraine for its own political advantage, we now have a mountain of bodies with more to come.
Somehow I don’t think that’s what he has in mind.
“…You mean Russia got Ukraine to shell the Donbass for 8 years just so they had a pretext?…”
are you crazy too? Russia created a war zone and its Ukraines’s fault for wanting their territory back. Kinda stupid logic to me.
So what you are saying is that Ukraine had no right to that land that russia annexed? They should have given it up and russia wouldnt then extend their occupation ambitions? So russia moved closer to nato and then decided that nato was too close so invaded in force? Its a nonsense, its a manufactured pretext.
your assumption is that russia is a normal country running on normal western values. No MAFIA style organisation operates that way. By their actions you shall know them…… never was a word so true.
Responsibility to Protect, the principal cassus belli giving President Putin immediate reason to launch a combined arms cross-border special operation (also cynically called pretext for a war of invasion)..
Because Ukraine had been shelling the Donbass for 8 years.
During the first 3 years of Zvlensky’s presidency (2019-2021) there were 78 overall civilian deaths due to armed friction (77, 76 then 75 ).
One civilian death per fortnight.
Desultory shelling?
In 2022, with explosive fanfare, that number suddenly jumped to over 8000 innocents lost.
Around two dozen civilian deaths per day.
“We had to destroy the ville in order to save it”.
I echo leefe’s sentiments
That’s OK CB, it’s OK to keep on ignoring the historical context to this tragedy, you just keep focused on the Responsibility to Protect, because keeping it simple makes everything so much easier, doesn’t it?
If you really were worried about dead bodies you would look for causes.
So I think your concern is false. I think that you claim concern as a cover. I think that as the massive Western propaganda effort in support of cynically using Ukraine as a proxy to advance NATO’s political agenda slowly frays at the edges, then starts to disintegrate as a truth here and a truth there makes its way into the public sphere, you are having the problem I raised earlier.
You now have to process the fact that people you trusted lied to you. And that hurts. As Mark Twain said, it’s easier to fool a man than to convince him that he was fooled.
As part of your processing you are still at the beginning — denial. Sound familiar?
Just as AC tried to condense the history of the 1930s into a single sentence, you deny uncomfortable truths by condensing the history of this conflict into a set of statistics from a graph that does not show its sources or how the stats were collected.
I raised other relevant factors that you chose to ignore. You prefer to focus on a graph. You’ve made a set of numbers your argument three times
.
You might be like AC, afraid of the big picture, but in the area of global politics it’s only by looking for the big picture that we get to the truth. Even then, what we get is an approximation if we are lucky. Global politics is by definition the big picture. It cannot be condensed to a set of numbers.
I’ve made assumptions here about your motives and thought processes, but not without reason. I’m more than happy to be shown that those assumptions are incorrect.
‘The Operation’
(“little more than a skirmish”).
The initial Russian military forces assembled thenaggressively deployed into Ukraine involved, by conservative summation, somewhere over half a hundred combat battalions (but probably <100), drawn from combined arms elements (infantry, artillery & armour), and also included large scale air and naval support..
Openingphases of the special operation involved simultaneous lightning attacks upon multiple fronts, including a direct airborne assault on the Ukrainian capital (a’la Market Garden).
It was the 3rd largest military engagement to occur this century, only surpassed by the carnage of the Syrian civil war and the spuriously launched invasion of Iraq.
I have to say, CB, that I’m disappointed. I was going to take you under my wing and walk you through the 5 stages of grief — denial, anger, bargaining, depression, acceptance. Clearly you’re still in denial of the lies you were told. At least I’ve got the graph off your mind, so that’s one tiny win.
But I’ve got a long way to go to get you searching for the big picture. In fact, we went backwards on that one.
Instead of pursuing the graph, you’ve picked up on a throwaway line of mine that I’m perfectly happy to renounce. But a warning, we are now entering the area of the big picture.
Yes, the Russian action was forceful, but it must be seen in relation to the massing of Ukrainian forces at the Donbass border, a factor that was conveniently withheld in news media reports. (Sorry, this is just adding to your grief.)
The Russian moves on Kiev have been described by some as a brilliant tactic as this forced Ukraine to move troops away from the Donbass, thereby effectively protecting the region from what appeared to be an imminent large-scale invasion of people exercising their rights under international law. I’m not a military man, so I could not possibly comment.
How Konigsborg became Kaliningrad, and why the enclave orblast matters so much (in terms of the bigger picture).
Discuss.
Meanwhile, I have a watercourse to paddle, riparian grasses to ID, and frogs to count by guestimate (because maps and graphs).
Corvus out.
“Discuss.”
No, you discuss.
I want to see how my mentoring is going.
At least you referred to the bigger picture, so perhaps I see a tiny glimmer of light?
Steve, you are delusional. “..but it must be seen in relation to the massing of Ukrainian forces at the Donbass border,….”
Forces massed on border for what reason? To take their territory back …..too obvious for you
“.. described by some as a brilliant tactic as this forced Ukraine….” so it was preplanned. Moscow bragging about how it would only take 3 days to overcome Ukraine spells out in black and white how much russia respected ukraine’s territory. AND HOW MUCH OF A THREAT Ukraine was in their thinking.
Its you who choses to quote history without context . Hubris has a long history of self inflicted wounds. Russia siding with Hitler and then Hitler invading russia are prime examples of Hubris. Russia trying to invade Ukraine is but the latest episode .
My father sold this house and I am here to take whats rightfully mine back. if you dont give it to me , i will burn it down and there is nobody around to help you……….pretty fucked shallow thinking if you ask me.
History my arse, its you who fails to learn from it.
Steve, your looking for the Logic to the war in all the wrong places. It doesnt lay in historical facts.
It lays at the head of a government that thinks it is an empire on the move. You cant beat them into 2024 thinking because they have had a long time to play this empire game in their minds. Its delusional and dangerous to play with them.
Just like you cant argue with a stupid, they have more experience at stupid than you.
Andy,
You could benefit by looking at some history on U tube when Bald and Bankrupt is traveling through Ukraine before the brown stuff hit the fan.
It explores the opinion of the civilians living in the Donbas.
I was enjoying following him at this time of our recent history.
But to quote you, it does not lay in historical facts.
So to repeat another of your quotes,you cant argue with stupid
“History my arse,”
Andy, I sense that you are having trouble coping also. But stick with me my friend, we’ll work through this together. I’ll get you to “acceptance” in no time. With a little luck, we might even be able to by-pass anger, bargaining and depression.
Contrary to what you’ve been taught, history is actually very important, in particular to a matter that has you concerned; the massing of Ukrainian troops at the Donbass border.
Here’s just a little of that history.
When the Donbass people began the struggle for autonomy within Ukraine, and retention of the Russian language that had been taken from them, they met armed resistance from Kiev. But the Donbass forces, lightly equipped and mobile were more than a match for the Kiev army.
The rebels were not armed by Russia as the media would have us believe, they were re-enforced by Russian-speaking Ukrainian forces coming to their aid, complete with equipment. (How are you coping? I know, it’s hard to admit you were lied to.) Even the OSCE admitted that “despite the rather crude claims, we have not detected any Russian military arms and materiel shipments.”
These military failures are what made Kiev commit to the Minsk agreements. But immediately after signing the Minsk 1 agreement, Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko launched a massive anti-terrorist operation against the Donbass. Following bad advice from NATO officers, (Yes, they were up to their necks in it. How are you feeling? Do you need a break?) the Ukrainians suffered a crushing defeat at Debaltsevo, which forced them to commit to the Minsk 2 agreements.
It must be emphasized here that the Minsk 1 (September 2014) and Minsk 2 (February 2015) agreements did not provide for the secession and independence of the republics, but for autonomy within the framework of Ukraine. That’s all they were after. Autonomy within Ukraine.
Under the agreements, Kiev and the representatives of the republics had to negotiate with each other about the status of the republics, in order to find an internal solution in Ukraine. That is why, from 2014 on, Russia had supported the process while refusing to participate in the negotiations because it was Ukraine’s internal matter. (Take some deep breaths Andy. I know this is difficult.) Just as a matter of interest, a US intelligence map published by the Washington Post on December 3, 2021 does not show Russian troops in Donbass.
So back to your concern about the massing Ukrainian forces at the Donbass border. Why were they there? To reclaim their territory as you assert? You are right and wrong. Wrong because the territory had not been taken from them. They had agreed to autonomy, only the details were missing. But right because, well, you’ve implied an imminent invasion just as the Russians suspected. We can only speculate, but it’s good to see that you support Russia’s thinking on this.
It is clear that Kiev had no intention of implementing the agreement reached in 2015 for reuniting the Donbas provinces into Ukraine with a large degree of local autonomy—an agreement with Russia, France and Germany which the United States endorsed. And indeed, that interpretation of subsequent events has been confirmed by Merkel and Poroshenko. Both have admitted the Minsk agreements were simply to buy time.
The question you need to ask yourself is — buy time for what?
S. Davis had made earlier comments on Munich, 1938 and should have added the Russian position which was to join others so as to squash the Hitler menace then. But, the west, Britain and France wavered, and the Russians were stalled. the USSR had three thousand planes, of which 1,000 were comparable to German gear and available. However, both Poland and Rumania would not allow collaboration, even transit, for USSR movements to get to the unsinkable airfield of Czechoslovakia. And the stupid Polish action of hacking off parts around Teschen was fatally stupid, for Hitler would do far worse. Even old Lloyd George, untrustworhily observant as usual, said that if Britain went into a conflict over this, without USSR support and agreements, then Britain would be walking into a trap. As for the French, Pouffe!! Not worth a zac at that time through national disunity, division, idealogical illogicalities. Chamberlain did what he could inside the numbers and attitudes prevailing. The USSR??, betrayed as outsiders, lepers politically. A united defence with all parties in would have crushed Hitlerism, easily.
Phil Pryor,
“A united defence with all parties in…”.
Do you mean something like a voluntary-application multinational membership treaty organisation where democratic nations pledged assurance of mutual defence against any cross-border aggressions?
Yeah, could’ve worked in theory.
Steve:
“The reason for you saying “The whole debate makes me sick” is you are having to process the fact that people you trust fed you lies about this conflict, and every other conflict. I agree. It is sickening.”
Don’t you fucking dare to presume to lecture me on why I respond in a particular way to ANYTHING! You don’t know me, you don’t know my life, you don’t get to decide my motivations. Of all the pretentious, patronising bullfuckingshit you have written on this site, that is the absolute worst; now I’m not just nauseous, I’m incandescent with rage.
You could give a masterclass at gaslighting – sorry, I mean attempted gaslighting because, despite the smoothness of your language, it isn’t working. You’re just babbling intoo the ether, obeying your master’s string-tuggiing liike the good little Putin-puppet you are. I hope he pays you well.
Corvus, what I suggest is old orthodoxy, correct, well summarised by Jacques De Launay in his “Major Controversies.” I still possess British foreign office document copies, miscellaneous no. 9 (1939). A J P Taylor also supports the view, and satirises the childish British delays in replying. The USSR, Molotov acting, Stalin assessing, could see clearly the Hitlerite path. So, in 1939, having been “betrayed” by the west, they sought accommodation with Hitler.
PP,
Truedat.
Then, clutching a newly minted German/Soviet NAP, Stalin’s USSR proceeded to militarily annex the Baltic states then invade Finland.
Not quite sure where this is going…
It is, and was, true historically, long ago, so.., but, it does matter a little in embedding itself in the attitudes of Putin.
“Of all the pretentious, patronising bullfuckingshit you have written on this site, that is the absolute worst; now I’m not just nauseous, I’m incandescent with rage.”
Thank you so much leefe, that’s going straight into my Biggest Hits file, along with Andrew Smith telling me I represent everything that’s wrong with society. At last I’m being noticed.
Hint: When you’re dismissive in your comments the responses will reflect that. Go back to my comment at February 14, 2024 at 4:49 pm. I disagreed with AC and Andy but my response was simple and direct. With just a hint of frustration because they were rehashing old ground. It was only when it was implied that I was supporting a Nazi sympathiser that sarcasm came into play.
Heat, kitchen, you know the drill.
Phil P, many thanks for the extra info.
Phil,
not sure how much pop-psyche insight you or I can personally glean into the mindset of a career spook elevated into a couple decades of autocratic rule over an oligarchal kleptocracy.
Leefe,
Based on my own personal interactions and observational experiences, I am not entirely unsympathetic to your honest expression of sentiment.
Corvus, I read, investigate, retain, assign, calculate; material is available…(we all may be fallible)…and, if more is required on Daladier, General Beck, Chamberlain, Litvinov, etc…)
Steve:
“When you’re dismissive in your comments … “
I disagreed with you and wrote a concise summation of the rationale. That’s not “dismissive” (unless you consider every disagreement wiith your holy pontifications to be so).
Mostly I am actually dismisive enough of your continually illogical cherry-picking propaganda to ignore it. Every now and then, however, it seems appropriate to respond – but I’m not going to waste the effort of a 1,000 word essay, because your submissions just aren’t worthy of that.
Leefe,
It looks like you are proving a point. Steve can induce a state of knotted knickers with quite innocent remarks.
So, rather like Putin you were provoked into action.
It can happen to the best of us, but no Ukrainians were damaged during this war.
Douglas P,
I wanted to see how my mentoring was going.
You disappoint me.
I was going to take you under my wing and walk you through the five stages of grief.
You are in denial.
I have a long way to go to get you to see the bigger picture.
I think that your concerns are false
I think that you use concerns as a cover.
I’ve made assumptions about your motivations and thought processes here, but not without reason.
No offense…
CB, you had ample opportunity to respond in kind to my digs at your thought processes, in fact I invited you to do just that, but instead you chose to divert with a pointless debate about the meaning of “skirmish”.
When that fell flat you tried a reference to Kaliningrad that you apparently had no intention of pursuing as we’ve heard no more about it. Time-wasting.
I’ve spent countless hours trying to familiarise myself with what’s going on in Ukraine. It’s been hard work. But these are serious matters we are discussing, so I have little time for those who think it’s OK to comment with the first thought that comes into their heads then take offense when corrected.
There’s nothing wrong with making a comment without knowing a lot about the issue, it’s the attitude that counts. We’re all here to learn, at least, I hope we are. That’s not necessarily a reference to you by the way, but let’s be honest, you came unprepared.
Does that mean I have all the answers? Of course not. Every time I post I half expect a sharp rebuttal because I’m pretty forceful with my approach, (a habit from participating in some rough and ready forums) but if it happens I’m fine with that because when I’m wrong I want to know about it.
Steve,
Thank you for inviting me to unrestrainedly return your habitual condescending sledging, but I’ll file it away with along with your unsolicited offers of mentorship and refuge in your armpit (which is not only arrogantly patronising, but also somewhat creepy, as if you were offering me some kinda Socrates to Alcibiades arrangement).
You do not choose to own your own words; when your declarative statements are proved unfounded by verifying evidence they become mere”throwaway lines”, and demonstrative disproval of one prior-stated factiod merely sends you not flying to the next conspiracy pat.
You showed your measure when you rejected solid information on numbers of civilian casualties referenced against chronological timeline, mainly because the source had also tabulated the data into…a graph (the horror!).
Resistance to dissenting information is a mark of ideological indoctrination.
Incredibly, you even managed to double think your way into saying that my researching and sharing the comparative rates of civilian casualties that occured in Ukraine 2014-2023 actually demonstrated my disregard for innocent lives.
W.T.F?
With that pretzelated viewpoint, you could perform your own proctology exam.
Konigsberg/Kaliningrad is fascinating historical subject, especially in regard to Balto-nordic geopolitics, but time’s too short with satisfying distractions aplenty.
If someone who has not earned my contempt offers information or curiosity, I’ll gladly chat.
If you want to offer me anything, go find some definitive proof that Ukraine had mobilised significant extra forces in the Donbass area prior to the first reports of Russian military escalation March 2021, rather than in subsequent reaction to the buildup of Russian forces.
Till you do, I’ll just rack your latest definitive claim as just another “throwaway line’, like how ‘8 years of shelling’ triggered urgent ‘responsibility to protect’, resulting in the ‘special Operation’ which, although ‘little more than a skirmish’, logistically resembled a full scale invasion and immediately resulted in thousands of civilian deaths (not that numbers matter).
Bye.
Douglas:
I used my words. This is what we are all doing. No punches have been thrown and my response has, at least – unlike Steve’s – not descended into gaslighting and trying to twist what other people have said.
He pissed me off, I told him to back off. This is how adults are supposed to deal with differences of opinion. No invasions have been launched.
Now, I’m just waiting for the Putin bootlickers (although it’s more like deep-throating those boots) to explain how Alexei Navalny “provoked” his own obviously well-deserved murder by the state.
CB — “I’ll file it away with along with your unsolicited offers of mentorship and refuge in your armpit (which is not only arrogantly patronising, but also somewhat creepy, as if you were offering me some kinda Socrates to Alcibiades arrangement).”
That’s what I was after CB, a bit of wry humour. I particularly enjoyed the Socrates quip. It was straight off the top shelf. Why did you hold back?
“you rejected solid information on numbers of civilian casualties”
The information was not solid. I gave you the opportunity to provide sources and methodology. I’m still waiting.
“saying that my researching and sharing the comparative rates of civilian casualties that occured in Ukraine 2014-2023 actually demonstrated my disregard for innocent lives. W.T.F?”
Yep. And I’ll say it again. If you were genuine in your concern for loss of life you would not be fixated on graphs, you would be looking for the failures of diplomacy that led to the conflict.
You finally got around to Kaliningrad, after almost 2 days; “If someone who has not earned my contempt offers information or curiosity, I’ll gladly chat.”
You need to go back and check your comment. You pulled a subject out of nowhere and requested that I discuss it. That’s not how this works. If you have something to say about Kaliningrad then say it. I’m sure it will be interesting to me as I know very little about it and as you know, I’m here to learn.
But I have a problem. You refer to “Russian military escalation March 2021,” with no details as to numbers, location, or anything at all. If you are referring to Russia putting troops on the Ukraine border, that is not an escalation. Escalation implies a conflict that intensified.
CB, no hard feelings.
I`m on the side of peace, and find it laughable that The Ukraine government has decreed that it it is unlawful to seek a peaceful solution to the conflict with Russia.
I see more sense coming out of Putins prolonged commentary than the western media sources, and he is a KGB man!
In his world what happened yesterday determines what will happen tomorrow.
Western thinking revolves around 3 word slogans.
if you think it was all peace and light in Ukraine after the 2014 uprising then good luck with that.
Leefe,
Putin bootlickers (2 word slogan) are also watching the west murder Assange, and lets not mention the monster from Israel.
Douglas:
…. decisions, decisions … to I go all cliche and just remind you about two wrongs not making a right, do I try to remind you of all the other political murders done at Putin’s behest, do I pretend it’s possible to have a rational discussion without any more whataboutery from you, or do I just walk away in despair at your obvious blindness to fact and logic … time to walk away methinks. Bootlickers gonna bootlick.
Leefe,
“neo-tankies” and “MRGA” (MAKE RUSSIA GREAT AGAIN!) also fit.
Escalation ; a rapid increase or rise.
‘border escalation’.
‘conflict escalation’.
‘numerical escalation’.
‘volumetric escalation’.
From memory, the etymological derivation stems from a French term for a hasty ascent.
Remember kiddies, always do a basic idiot check before diving in headfirst.
During our local Summer School there was a talk from a renowned acedemic on the latest from the war in Ukraine.
Amongst the stats was a figure for the amount of land won back from Russia, per dollar of support received by Ukraine.
Its a whole shed load of dollars for a pathetic amount of ground won.
In fact today that figure is negative based on what I read.
From the perspective of the Ukrainian civilians (who are losing a lot of their finest) a far more personal approach would be the number of lives lost per dollar of help they get.
Because the outcome of this fracas will be determined by a meet of Washington and Moscow, and they may decide that US taxpayers can keep their dollars at home?
Douglas, ah yes, Putin boot-lickers and Putin apologists — they’re everywhere!
You’ll enjoy these comments from another blog last May.
“The coffeeshop test. Asked by acquaintance at next table what’s happening. I mentioned that Artyomovsk/Bakhmut had fallen. “Oh. You mean the Russians gave up?” General hilarity when I said just the opposite had happened. “Ukraine is winning and everyone knows that. You really are a victim of Russian propaganda.” Two emeritus professors from a top tier university in that group. They will not know tomorrow or next week that I was right.”
That one got this reply; “I live in a quite liberal place, probably the most liberal place in the US, and man, you should see people’s faces and hear their utter disbelief when I talk about maps of the battle lines. They’ve never even thought to look for one. ‘Maps? Pssssh. MAPS?’ is about all they can muster. The MSM as far as I can tell has never shown one. They can lie about a lot of stuff, but they cannot lie about where the front is, so they just don’t talk about it.”
There’s something you need to keep in mind about wry humour, CB.
First it needs to be clever, but also when employing it, you need to be careful to not reveal too much about yourself.
Once again, just as with Kaliningrad, you’ve plucked a subject out of nowhere, asked me to comment on it, then failed to follow up. Once again, as with “skirmish”, you want to focus on a single word meaning as a means I assume, given the song and dance routine, of avoiding the substantive topic.
I think I might have hit the nail on the head with my dig about you being in denial. Your behaviour, these sudden changes in direction, is not that of someone with a genuine interest in a subject. This is the behaviour of one who is trying to cope. Are you dancing around the fact that we were lied to about Ukraine? Is that the reason for this odd behaviour?
I made a genuine response to your reference to Russian troop movements. Do you actually want to talk about that or not? Or are you going to walk away from it just as you walked away from providing sources and methodology for your graph.
Nah Steven, you’ve already painted yourself in far too many different shades of putrid stupidity for me to bothered continuing to converse with you.
I not only do not ‘know’ that you are here to learn, you have led me to conclude that you, through your ignorant arrogance of assumption and demand, are either unwilling or incapable of learning.
Either way, I fully concur with others scathing assessments regarding your consistently pitiful displays of both intellectual and ethical integrity.
Departing this gaslit neo-tankie echo chamber,
corvus out & off.
But, but, … I want to talk about Russian troop movements CB.
Don’t leave me hangin’.
CB??
Steve,
This may require more than just a jar of honey?
Douglas, you’ll love this too.
Pearls and Irritations has it also.
Language Warning.
From Binoy’s recent article “When Morrison Met Nemesis.”
“Australian businessman Anthony Pratt already had former US President Donald Trump’s ear on the subject of nuclear-powered submarines when they met at the Mar-a-Lago club in April 2021.Pratt then allegedly shared the details of the discussion with three former Australian prime ministers, 10 Australian officials, 11 of Pratt’s employees and six journalists.”
Oligarch — member of a group that has control of the state and its resources.
Ordinary decent Aussie trying to make sense of it all: “Oh no! This cannot be! We live in an oligarchy!”
Corporate media: “Quiet you fool. It’s only Russia that’s an oligarchy.”
Ordinary decent Aussie: “But you said Russia’s a fascist dictatorial totalitarian autocracy!”
Corporate media : “It’s whatever we say it is.”
” Ordinary decent Aussie trying to make sense of it all: “Oh no! This cannot be! We live in an oligarchy!” Corporate media: “Quiet you fool. It’s only Russia that’s an oligarchy.” Ordinary decent Aussie: “But you said Russia’s a fascist dictatorial totalitarian autocracy!” Corporate media : “It’s whatever we say it is.”….”
I like the way you really knuckled down to being a Putin apologist. It really shows how bankrupt your argument is. You make it out that Putin is a saint and everyone else is guilty by association. Lucky we dont fall out of windows in the west when we dont agree. Its a proud history you support. Lucky man, the world is so black and white……
“My father sold this house and I am here to take whats rightfully mine back. if you dont give it to me , i will burn it down and there is nobody around to help you” is exactly what it looks like.
You keep looking for the perfect pretext, i am sure there are lots of people hanging on everyone of them.
I am not denying any of the facts you present, but i keep telling you it was a setup. Those arguments make no sense for an invasion unless you want to justify your actions……the other facts show that Ukraine had no intention of invading Russia or taking Russian territory. Stealing Ukraine’s land didnt make it russian.
The fact you chose to ignore other reasons that show you may be wrong just plays into the same same narrative…russia good, west bad. Just admit, you could be wrong.
Russia showed criminal intent. I am sure the same way gangsters think they wont end up dead just like all the others before them.
Steve,
I love the fact that one of our most influential statesmen makes cardboard boxes for a living.
Andy,
I think that what has escaped your attention is the will of USA, and the CIA.
Ukraine probably never had intentions toward Russian territory, because for one thing it never had the clout to deliver a result.
But USA certainly saw opportunities to benefit its own economy, and at the same time weaken Russian influence.
It particularly pissed off the USA families making bucks out of flogging energy, and I think the Biden family were doing quite nicely out of it.
Germany had an agreement with Russia which was snubbing USA, but contributing towards making them great.
So, Andy, I suggest you look at the USA agenda, and recognise that Ukraine is simply a pawn in this great power conflict
Douglas, i am so glad you see it my way…lol.
“…Ukraine probably never had intentions toward Russian territory, because for one thing it never had the clout to deliver a result…”
I have no doubt that the USA saw some merit in weaking Russian influence. We all know America’s past history and we all damn them for it, but its a long stretch to implicate them here. And that bit of logic shows the mobster mentality that is russia.
As for Biden family conspiracies, show me the money…….thats an outright lie. You cant argue with assertions that run on conspiracies. “..
Germany had an agreement with Russia which was snubbing USA…”. You know that argument is wearing a bit thin. America maybe a bad faith actor at times, but they are not that criminally intent. Everyone had motive and there are no facts available to prove any of them did it. So on the probabilities i would say…….we dont know who did it.
Your suggesting “facts” when you have non.
What motivates a country to go to war? I suggest history is way way down on the list. I suggest the perceived “easy win” was high on the agenda here.
As for Prat, one look at him and you can smell a wanna be a mile away. He has no influence beyond the dollars in the bank.
If I were in america’s shoes, shit yea i would support Ukraine. No need for secret agendas here. Let russia totally exhaust itself , I call that a self inflicted right hook.
Ok ,lets call out the chickens Steve and Douglas, do you want russia to obliterate Ukraine?
“You make it out that Putin is a saint”
Quote please Andy.
(I’m having a deja vu moment here. I’m sure I’ve been down this road before.)
Andy,
Cherry picking is not on.
I dont think you and I see this in the same light, but what amazes me is the way you casually dismiss history.
You casually disregard the prospect that USA had criminal intent with its push on the NATO borders.
Putin made it clear what kicked this off, and he repeated this during the Carlson discussion.
He is, at least, consistent.
I wouldnt invite him to my dinner table, but then I wouldnt knowingly invite a CIA operative because I discriminate with my friendships.
Ukraine made a ghastly mistake, and they cant get out without US say so.
Did you enjoy Steves aussie translator on blowing up the pipes? Light hearted but spot on.
Douglas, did you or did you not write what i “cherry picked”.
I dont get it, Russia is the country hard done bye here, nato is busting down its doors. WTF are you guys on?
“..Ukraine made a ghastly mistake, and they cant get out without US say so….”………your asserting things. Your anti american bias is clouding your judgement.
Keep talking, your sounding more and more like an apologist.
you guys havent answered the question, do you want Ukraine to lose. Goes to the heart of your agenda. You seem to be hell bent on taking america to task for being malevolent, but you have no problems supporting russia when it does the same or worse. Your willing to give russia all the benefit of doubt and blame america for everything. There is a dissonance in your thinking
Andy, I want that quote where I “made out Putin is a saint.”
Article, date and time please.
Douglas, i dont casually dismiss history . As I said they all probably true facts, but motivation is hard to justify solely on historical pretexts.
You guys are the ones saying Putin is such a smart man.
So your saying Russia doesnt play game of thrones? …………..Chechnia, Kazakstan, Uzbekistan, Azubajian, Georgia.
So your saying Russia doesnt have form.
Nato in disarray, we have europe by the balls with gas, Crimea was an easy win and nobody stopped us, “lets do it…”.
Oh yea, its the americans who did this……….
you cant see these obvious connections yet are willing to use history as a pretext.
steve,
” “You make it out that Putin is a saint”
Quote please Andy.”
Quote what? Its not a quote, its an impression we get from your argument.
“its an impression we get from your argument.”
That’s the trouble with impressions. Things get lost in the translation.
With the origins of the Ukraine conflict still a matter of interest here after AC brought up the Carlson interview, it would not be out of place for me to add this to the mix.
In Dr Kampmark’s article The View From Washington : Let The Killing in Gaza Continue, I made the point that in considering Ukraine and Gaza, there is a connection between the two, a pattern of US behaviour that many were overlooking. I asked “Can a superpower be both noble (Ukraine) and evil (Gaza) at the same time?” as many seem to think.
So it’s gratifying to see that Craig Murray, a former British diplomat, now a historian, commentator, and prominent Julian Assange supporter, who was initially strident, in fact contemptuous in his condemnation of the Russian invasion of Ukraine, has been forced by the Gaza uprising to wrestle with this same question.
Just two days ago on 19th Feb 2024 he wrote — “ The genocide in Gaza – or more precisely the major NATO powers’ active and practical support for the genocide in Gaza – has forced me to re-evaluate my views on Ukraine in a manner more sympathetic to the Russian narrative.
In particular, I was complacent in my dismissive attitude to the argument that the Western powers would back ethnic cleansing and massacre in the Donbass, by forces including some motivated by Nazi ideology. (However) The same powers who are funding and arming Ukraine are funding and arming a genocide by racial supremacist Israeli forces in Gaza. It is beyond argument that my belief in some kind of inherent decency in the Western political Establishment was naive. I apologise.”
He continued “The causes of the Russian invasion of Ukraine are plain. Alarm at NATO expansionism and forward positioning of aggressive military assets encircling Russia. The Ukrainian coup of 2014. Exasperation at Ukrainian bad faith and the ignoring of the Minsk accords. The continuing death toll from shelling of Russian speakers in the Donbass. The suppression of the Russian language, of Russian Orthodox religion and of the main pro-Russian opposition political party in Ukraine are simple facts. These I have always acknowledged: (but) until I saw the positive enthusiasm of leaders of the Western states for massacre in Gaza, I was not convinced they could not have been addressed by diplomacy and negotiation. I now have to reassess that view in the light of new information, and I now think Putin was justified in the invasion.
It is not that any of the arguments are new. It is simply that before I did not believe that the West would sponsor mass ethnic cleansing and genocidal attack on the Donbass by extreme Ukrainian nationalist-led, Western-armed forces. I thought the “West” was more civilised than that. I now have to face the fact that I was wrong about the character of the NATO powers. The alternative to Putin’s action probably was indeed massacre and ethnic cleansing.”
https://reliefweb.int/report/ukraine/conflict-related-civilian-casualties-ukraine-december-2021-enruuk
I left CB’s contribution hanging in the breeze for a few hours so that as many readers as possible could ponder the silliness of condensing a complex matter going back hundreds of years into a set of numbers. CB seems to be unable to get past Dec 2021 with his statistics of civilians killed in Ukraine. The silliness of that will be explained later.
Further to Craig Murray’s thoughts above, from “Ukraine; Taking Leave Of Our Senses” at Pearls and Irritations, 17th June 2023;
“What we know to be a fact is that the United States publicly predicted Russia’s invasion plans pre-war. We know that the United States/NATO military and intelligence agencies had a significant presence in Ukraine and have done so since the 2014. We also know that the Ukrainian Armed Force’s shelling of the Donetsk and Lugansk self-declared Republics increased dramatically in the days immediately before the Russian Special Military Operation commenced as detailed in the Daily and Spot Reports from the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) Special Monitoring Mission (SMM). What we don’t know is the purpose behind this surge in ceasefire violations.
Here is a hypothesis.
The United States predicted Russia’s invasion in January 2022 because it was actively involved in the planning of the upcoming surge in ceasefire violations to be launched by the Ukrainian Armed Forces. The purpose of the surge was to either provoke Russia into responding militarily, and/or as a prelude to an attack to retake the self-declared Donetsk and Lugansk Republics.
This hypothesis should and could be tested. There is sufficient circumstantial evidence to suggest that this is a likely explanation. For example, the SMM Reports were reported daily, in real time. Therefore, President Biden and his advisors must have been aware of this surge in ceasefire violations.
The question then becomes, assuming the United States was attempting to avoid a war, what action did it take to prevent Ukraine from continuing this surge in ceasefire violations knowing the likely response from Russia? How many journalists have asked this question? How many Western governments have asked this question? Has the Australian Government asked this question?
Given the United States long history of starting wars on false pretexts, now might be a pertinent time to reflect upon the causes of this war, and why it is being prolonged.”
Indeed. Unfortunately, when it comes to reflecting on the causes, many people just don’t do reflection.
By the way, CB’s figures for deaths in 2021 dovetail nicely with the dramatic increase in shelling that began in the days just before the invasion. Those figures for 2021 were, according to the report, “the lowest annual civilian casualties for the entire conflict period.”
Why? Because Ukraine had a shortage of munitions from the outset and had to conserve and accumulate firepower for their planned onslaught in 2022. Ah, yes. Lies, damned lies, and statistics. And silliness.
In Putin’s own words,
Hitler invaded Poland because they wouldnt just peacefully hand over the keys.
So WW2 was Polands fault. , What does that say about your historical background pretext? Its BULLSHIT. Putin can make up whatever he wants….what ever pretext suites him.
So all your historical pretext is just hot wind, your own leader just said it him self.
” …causes of this war, and why it is being prolonged…..” As I said, who amongst you want Ukraine to get obliterated? The war is being prolonged because the Ukraines are fighting for their lives.
To say America is prolonging the war actually says to me, Ukraine needs to lose. What form of loose morals are you playing with? If your anti american imperialism, you should be anti russian imperialism too. The same moral arguments apply.
” had to conserve and accumulate firepower for their planned onslaught in 2022….” Fuck me……self defence is an onslaught?
Pot, Kettle Black?
“Unfortunately, when it comes to reflecting on the causes, many people just don’t do reflection “.
I call your historical analysis a misinterpretation of Putin’s intents. You cravenly omit all of putin’s own actions…as if Putin was an innocent bystander.
Now your assertions are boiling to the surface. Your following Russian talking points.
Its all Ukraine’s fault. If they had just given russia the keys……..
This is you Andy, from above — “its an impression we get from your argument.”
And I see that you are still dealing in impressions rather than facts. You cannot even quote someone without presenting it as an impression.
So I’m starting to work out why so many of your comments are rambles. You’re working with impressions instead of facts. For you, that’s a good thing. Let me explain.
As the reality of what is occurring in Ukraine slowly makes its way into the public consciousness, a grieving process will begin. The Western powers will grieve over their mistaken belief that sanctions would cripple Russia in a few months. Ordinary decent folk will grieve at being deceived by the corporate news media as to the West’s machinations in Ukraine that were hidden from them.
But you will be spared this grieving process Andy, because as more unpleasant facts emerge they will be of no concern to you.
When the reality facts get sharper, more painful, and they surely will, as they travel from your computer screen to your brain you will convert them into mere impressions. And an impression never hurt anyone.
In one sense Andy, you live in an ideal world.
Verification of sourcing and methodology for the civilian casualty figures in previous ‘statista’ citation (UNHRC), posted as repeatedly demanded for.
(“I’m still waiting!”)
You’re welcome, you delusional narcissist ingrate
“You’re welcome, you delusional narcissist ingrate.”
You delivered, I dealt with it, what’s the problem?
I’ll spell out exactly what one problem is.
Statistics presented without full context are just lies if the lack of context is deliberate.
Was the lack of context deliberate?
Here’s another problem.
You came here unprepared and object to being challenged on that.
Some folks are not suited to this form of interaction.
so tell me steve, do you want russia to obliterate Ukraine? would that satisfy your indignation?
you cant seem to answer a simple question. tell us, who do you support?
As for me quoting you, i think i got the context of your words about right.
I dont live in an ideal world, and i can smell BS. And you reek. because only you know all the facts and nobody else has an idea. One conspiracy after another to support your logic. Not once have you renounced russia’s misadventure, not once. Us in the west are always the villains, aint we.
keep implying I am gullible and stupid and i will do the same. I have my sources of information and its not mainstream media. Stop being a condescending prick.
I will repeat, In Putin , we have a pathological dictator. Most psychos dont need a motive to do anything. Putin just grabbed one off the shelf. You just just dont get it.
Your just happy to explore the “american conspiracy” angle and everything else is irrelevant to you.
Andy,
You obviously have some info that has impressed you, thats brilliant.
However, the conclusions that you jump to are a bit far fetched.
Putin is a very well qualified KGB guy, and they can be a bit nasty, rather like CIA and Mossad
Unless you have undertaken the same training its pretty unlikely that you will read Putins mind or his intentions.
But thats what you presume to do, and its hardly mature.
He has told the world its about the NATO threat and he wants Ukraine to demilitarize.
Coming from a nuclear powered nation its not that unreasonable, but you dont seem to agree.
He is not there for a game, and just needs talking to.
Andy56, DP, SD, CB, et al: As is obvious to most observers that you all will not be changing your minds/positions any time soon and consequently the ongoing diatribe will likely never end, can you please acknowledge this fact and call a “ceasefire”?
Fred, thank you, your advice is welcome, and I understand your frustration, but the matter being discussed is serious almost beyond description.
Recently 2400 Ukrainian soldiers died in two days. Untold numbers were wounded. There needs to be a serious discussion about how it got to this point, what the failures of diplomacy were that led to it, because we don’t need a crystal ball to see that the US is using the same playbook with Taiwan.
Unless something is done to steer things in a different direction, we will soon be watching this butchery in our backyard.
I see Craig Murray’s confession and apology as a positive development that deserved to be widely disseminated in order to help bring about the change in approach that we need to prevent a similar disaster in which we will be directly involved.
I will continue to agitate on this, because if war with China does eventuate, and as we know the war drums are already beating, it will not matter if we are on the receiving end of the death toll or helping to dish it out, our position will be despicable.
Russian border escalation Nov/Dec 2021
https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/satellite-images-show-russia-still-building-up-forces-near-ukraine-2021-12-24/
On ground reports from aid organisations on escalations in fighting Feb 2021just prior to the Russian invasion, including the shelling of Ukrainian schools.
https://www.hrw.org/news/2022/02/18/ukraine-shelling-residential-areas-puts-civilians-risk
Report on civilian casualties 24-28 Feb, mostly caused the preparatory bombardment just prior to the invasion.
https://reliefweb.int/report/ukraine/ukraine-civilian-casualties-2400-28-february-2022-enru
I agree with your point entirely, CB.
We need to figure out the failures of diplomacy that led to this tragedy.
NATO’s ‘aggressive expansion’.
Between 2009 and the Russian invasion of Ukraine in 2022, NATO formally accepted membership applications from 2 nations, the military powerhouses of Montenegro (2017) and North Macedonia (2020)
Since the invasion and war began, previously neutral Finland has joined the voluntary alliance, Sweden has acceptance pending. and polled support in Ukraine for joining NATO seems to have significantly increased.
(Trigger warning, graph included)
https://www.statista.com/statistics/1294468/public-opinion-on-ukraine-joining-nato/
I agree with your point entirely, CB.
We need to figure out the failures of diplomacy that lead to this aggressive expansion which is, as you point out, ongoing.
In regard to the aggressive expansion of NATO that CB has brought to our attention, it’s worthwhile pointing out why Russia sees such expansion as aggressive.
In CB’s excellent point above, he highlights the expansion of NATO that began in 2009. It’s important to note that this expansion occurred even though Putin had made it clear in his Munich speech of 2007 that Russia had been deceived over expansion and regarded further expansion as a threat to Russia.
So why would Russia be worried?
The United States has deployed nuclear weapons at NATO bases in Western Europe since the 1950s, when Cold War tensions were mounting with the Soviet Union. The weapons were first transferred to the United Kingdom in 1954, and later to Germany, Italy, France, Turkey, the Netherlands, Greece, and Belgium. Today, U.S. tactical nuclear weapons remain at six bases in five NATO member countries, Belgium, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, and Turkey. The UK and France have their own nuclear forces and no longer host U.S. weapons.
Because NATO did not remove these weapons after the dissolution of the USSR, and because Russia had been deceived before about expansion, Russia took the view that pledges from NATO that additional NATO members would not become nuclear armed were just worthless promises. They see the refusal of NATO to negotiate fixed, written security agreements for all of Europe as evidence that their suspicions are correct.
It’s important to look for the failures of diplomacy that led to this confrontation.
So, does anyone think that the nation that sponsors NATO used undue influence to get it in the expansive mode?
Could USA be the provocoteur?
Could it be the pattern that they most often use?
Could it be that being thier friend makes our situation more dangerous?
Should we tip them out of Pine Gap as a starter?
“Recently 2400 Ukrainian soldiers died in two days. Untold numbers were wounded. There needs to be a serious discussion about how it got to this point, what the failures of diplomacy were that led to it,”
You fail to mention Russia lost 16,000-40,000 soldiers taking avdiivka. So you think russia only lost 5000-7000 for the whole war as putin says? Did Ukraine lose 10,000 tanks as russia propaganda says? They only had 200 at the start so everything that they say has to be fact checked and to be truthful, they lie and lie and lie. What else did they lie about?
Douglas, you know its more nuanced than that. Stop with the conspiracy theory. Yes some truth in what you say, but its not the whole picture.
The unspoken and deeper message from Craig Murray’s confession and apology is that those who reacted to Western propaganda by supporting Ukraine, as did Craig Murray, were not actually supporting Ukraine at all.
They were deceived into supporting US foreign policy.
That’s why so many cannot do what Craig Murray did. It’s difficult to admit to yourself that you were deceived. Even more difficult to declare it publicly.
It takes dignity and courage to admit a mistake in the manner that Craig Murray did.
Worth thinking about.