The New York Times is by no means an ‘anti-war’ newspaper. In the run up to the 2003 invasion of Iraq, it lent credibility to fabricated claims about “weapons of mass destruction” (later issuing a mea culpa). And in 2013, it said that U.S. policy in Syria “may have to change now that Mr. Assad’s forces are accused of using chemical weapons.”
Which makes its latest editorial on the war in Ukraine something of a bombshell. Back in March, the Editorial Board said the world must “coalesce around the same message to Ukrainians and Russians alike: No matter how long it takes, Ukraine will be free.” Now its stance appears to have shifted.
The Board writes, “A decisive military victory for Ukraine over Russia, in which Ukraine regains all the territory Russia has seized since 2014, is not a realistic goal,” and if it comes to negotiations, Ukrainian leaders will have to make the “painful territorial decisions that any compromise will demand.”
“Mr. Biden,” the Board writes, “should also make clear to President Volodymyr Zelensky and his people that there is a limit to how far the United States and NATO will confront Russia” because Zelensky’s decisions must be grounded in a “realistic assessment” of “how much more destruction Ukraine can sustain”.
The Board says this is “not appeasement”, but rather what governments “are duty bound to do”.
As to why regaining all the territory Russia has seized since 2014 is “not a realistic goal”, the Board notes that “Russia remains too strong, and Mr. Putin has invested too much personal prestige in the invasion to back down”.
The Board criticises U.S. officials for “bellicose statements” that “do not bring negotiations any closer”, referring to Biden’s remark that “Putin cannot remain in power” and Austin’s remark that “we want to see Russia weakened”. It also points to the “extraordinary costs and serious dangers” of escalation.
This is by far the least hawkish editorial I’ve seen in a major Anglophone newspaper since the war began. While hedging a little, the New York Times is basically saying the best way to end the war is through some kind of compromise – as people like John Mearsheimer and Noam Chomsky have argued all along (and as I’ve been suggesting here at the Daily Sceptic).
I have to admit: I’m genuinely surprised to see America’s ‘newspaper of record’ break ranks with the foreign policy establishment on this one, especially given the recent votes in the U.S. Congress – where every single Democrat (and the vast majority of Republicans) voted to send Ukraine another $40 billion in mostly military aid.
It’ll be interesting to see whether any other papers follow suit.
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
The fact that the nappy wearing coffin dodger is considered to be the Wests Spokesman’s and supposed elder statesman is delicious irony.
we need to stop allowing te gaffe prone geriatric from doing and saying silly things
But at least he isn’t Donald Trump! 😱
If Donald Trump would have said the same thing the NYT is saying, then they would never have been able to write their editorial.
Orange Man’s Opinions Bad!
If they’d have wanted to write it and Trump had said the same thing, they would have written it and said screw Trump. He may be infantile enough not to admit that he agrees with his opponents about anything. They’re not.
Do you seriously think Biden is an improvement?
I think Tom was being sarcastic.
That’s not the point
a broken click is still accurate twice a day, no good though if no one believes in it.
Obviously YES.
Is that meant to be sarcasm?
if Trump was in charge, there probably wouldn’t be any Ukrainian conflict.
Otherwise the US economy wouldn’t be in ruins and babies starving.
Some people obviously don’t get irony.
Normally leftpondians
Such strong support for trump, by the thumb people!
Did you follow his advice and inject bleach for Covid.
He is a symbol of the arrogance of the people who put him there. They no longer believe they have to even pretend. Any old figure will do. The Soviets got to this point too.
But pride comes before a fall. And the fall may be from a considerable height.
The Yanks have got a good healthy dose of radical leftism, which should inoculate them against it for a good long time.
In theory.
in practice, the students currently in university that have bought into tbe whole radical left-wing agenda, CRT etc, will soon leave and enter the workforce, and vote.
Will the USA even survive much longer on current performance?
If it does, it will be speaking Spanish!
It will fracture into multiple countries before then. And the Spanish bit will look like Mexico city.
And in time they’ll be running the CIA, the government and media companies.
They’re so high they’ll need a deorbit burn.
Common sense from the NYT? Amazing.
Perhaps they now believe the fight against the greatest threat facing humanity – transphobia – should be fought on other fronts 🧐
‘…the best way to end the war is through some kind of compromise’
How amenable to compromise does this sound?
‘ The “Catholic province” (Western Ukraine as part of five regions) is unlikely to become part of the pro-Russian territories. The line of alienation, however, will be found empirically. It will remain hostile to Russia, but forcibly neutral and demilitarized Ukraine with formally banned Na$ism. The haters of Russia will go there. The threat of an immediate continuation of the military operation in case of non-compliance with the listed requirements will be the the guarantee of the preservation of this residual Ukraine in a neutral state. Perhaps this will require a permanent Russian military presence on its territory. There will be a territory of potential integration into Russian civilization, which is anti-fascist in its internal nature, based on the border with the exclusion line to the Russian border.
…the necessary initial steps of dena$ification can be defined as follows:
— liquidation of armed Na$i formations (which refers to any armed formations of Ukraine, including the Armed Forces of Ukraine), as well as the military, information, and educational infrastructure that ensures their activity;….
— deployment of the Russian information space;
— withdrawal of educational materials and prohibition of educational programs at all levels containing Na$i ideological guidelines;
— mass investigations to establish personal responsibility for war crimes, crimes against humanity, the spread of Nazi ideology and support for the Na$i regime;
— lustration, publication of the names of accomplices of the Na$i regime, involving them in forced labor to restore the destroyed infrastructure as punishment for Na$i activities (from among those who will not be subject to the death penalty or imprisonment);
— adoption at the local level, under the supervision of Russia, of primary normative acts of denazification “from below”, a ban on all types and forms of the revival of Na$i ideology;
— Establishment of memorials, commemorative signs, monuments to the victims of Ukrainian Na$ism, perpetuating the memory of the heroes of the struggle against it;
— the inclusion of a complex of anti-fascist and denazification norms in the constitutions of the new people’s republics;
— creation of permanent dena$ification bodies for a period of 25 years.
To put the plan of dena$ification of Ukraine into practice, Russia itself will have to finally part with pro-European and pro-Western illusions, realize itself as the last instance of protecting and preserving those values of historical Europe (the Old World) that deserve it and which the West ultimately abandoned
And also because not just the Bandera version of Na$i Ukraine will be eradicated, but including, and above all, Western totalitarianism, the imposed programs of civilizational degradation and disintegration
the Bandera element is only a performer and a disguise for the European project of Na$i Ukraine, therefore the denazification of Ukraine is also its inevitable de-Europeanization.’
RIA Novosti 14 April 22
I completely understand why a few old gents in NY might want to move on to another story but, in Ukraine, two nationalisms have collided and that never ends quickly, or well; rarely in compromise.
Just let the Russians win and let them sort it out – most of Ukraine was part of Russia for between 300 and 500 years, the southern littoral was Tartar and Turkish.
Western Ukraine was in Poland and greater Lithuania.
What might seem common sense, rational, reasonable, in tune with history, looks good from leather armchairs in Manhattan, no longer flies as an outcome to this conflict.
How’s that winning coming along? With $40b of Lend Lease on the way the Russians had better get a move on.
LOL! What percentage of that $40b do you think will actually reach Ukainian front lines in a militarily effective form?
First the US politicians will take their pork.
Then the US military industrial orgs will get their payback for their investment in their politicians
Then the Ukrainian oligarchs will take their cut.
Then the low level Ukrainian criminals will divert as much as they can for sale on global black arms markets
Then the Russians, and general Ukrainian incompetence, will “attrit” it on the way to the front lines
And when something eventually does arrive, some of it will be useless anyway, and the rest might get a few shots off before the Russians spot it and blow it to Hell.
10%? If we’re feeling generous..
Beat me to it.
What’s your guess at the ultimate percentage?
Am I being naively generous at 10%?
I genuinely think that’s a reasonable assessment.
My late Father in Law was as UN official in the 50’s – 80’s (when the organisation actually meant something) and was open about the fact that even they couldn’t deliver a fraction of the aid to where it was supposed to go.
Ok, you should engage brain before commenting. No money is being sent to Ukraine. Materiel – that is equipment and weapons – to the value of $40b will be sent to Ukraine. Now, since there is zero Congressional oversight there will be plenty of graft on the US side. So a lot of the $40b will be wasted, but it is still enough guns and missiles to change the course of the war.
Wow not only do we have propagandist trolls on here, there are now fantasist trolls as well
Not sure what gave you the impression I was expecting suitcases of cash to be on their way to the Ukraine. I’d have thought it would be obvious that wasn’t what I had in mind, not least because I wrote: “low level Ukrainian criminals will divert as much as they can for sale on global black arms markets“.
“enough guns and missiles to change the course of the war“
LOL! As Draper233 observed: pure fantasy.
Here’s a clue. Just as guns don’t kill people, arms supplies don’t change the course of a war. You need people, competent, motivated and trained, to use them and you need transport infrastructure to get it to them and move them to the front, and most importantly in this case you need lots and lots of fuel, if you are going to fight modern warfare rather than WW1-style.
Ukraine now has no capacity to make fuel. Its capacity to import and transport it is limited and shrinking by the day.
How, in your fantasy scenario, do you see the Ukrainian military staging the kinds of sweeping strategic counter offensives needed to change the course of this war, with no fuel?
Perhaps the Johnson regime is planning to send them some windmills and Teslas?
Most of which will be trousered.
i don’t think it is a case of letting them win. It looks like things are going to go Russia’s way whatever anyone else does.
WTF???????
A reasonable post from Monro.
I just don’t get why you can’t spell Nazi.
“WTF???????
A reasonable post from Monro.”
I could be wrong, but I don’t think you read it the way he intended it.
“I just don’t get why you can’t spell Nazi.”
Bit pathetic, but I suppose he’s just used to censored forums where childish restrictions are placed on using particular terms (more than here).
Entirely likely I read it wrong. I’m watching Rugby so a bit distracted.
To be fair to DS, I have never been taken to task over language or anything, and I have pushed the limits.
Because a Russian wrote it LOL
🤣
“To put the plan of dena$ification of Ukraine into practice, Russia itself will have to finally part with pro-European and pro-Western illusions, realize itself as the last instance of protecting and preserving those values of historical Europe (the Old World) that deserve it and which the West ultimately abandoned”
Government thinking in Russia can be read as having careened between westernisation and the opposite pole for the past few centuries. Sometimes the opposite pole is called “Slavophile”, or you might call it “Great Russian”. This is the first time I’ve seen it called “historical Europe” or “the Old World”. Whatever we call it, the next president of Russia won’t be a westerniser.
Ya know what I’m thinking? How about Sergei Shoigu? He’s been defence minister since 2012. He is from Tuva, a republic within the Russian Federation that borders Mongolia. He’ll be 67 years old tomorrow.
Geopolitics heads may find it relevant that Tuva has been called the geographic centre of Asia.
The Moscow Times in 2015, when Shoigu turned 60, called him “The Man who Would be Russia’s King”.
In other words, the US/UK MIC and OGMC have gotten just what they wanted, the idiotic CFR/Chatham House&co geostrategists now need a way out as everyone realizes that their sanctions are just suicidal and that they were too stupid to fathom the inevitable Russia/China/India&co tieups, and it’s time to focus on saving the deliberately self-harmed US economy again.
Yes, it looks like that.
Coming up – changes in public opinion noticed and voiced by other MSM.
But, but, I thought the war was going really badly for Russia and the Ukraine was winning?
Clearly your ideas about reality have diverged from Official Truth, Comrade.
Let me remind you of what you were told by Authority on March 14th, over two months ago, in no less an outlet than the Spectator, by no less an Authority than a “Professor of War Studies” at Kings College, London:
“I’m gonna call this, I think the Russian armed forces are going to collapse, followed by Putin leaving power”.
Do you think that you know better than a Professor pronouncing Official Truth ex cathedra, under the imprimatur of a Mainstream Media outlet, no less?
You might think you’ve seen reports of surrendering Ukrainian soldiers, and of advancing Russian forces, but such cannot be held to outweigh the Pronouncements of Authority.
Else where would we all be?
Indeed. These people who believe their lying eyes 🧐
🤣
“Professor of War Studies” at Kings College, London
Otherwise referred to as the “Neil Ferguson of War Studies”
I stand with the
NHSCOVID WardensMandatory VaccinationUkraineMonkeyPox
It’s time that the Pox Doctors and their Clerks came into their own, again.
That’s exactly what I was thinking! 🙂 The new/”current thing” = Monkeypox.
‘Vaccine’ adverse reaction.
Very possibly, seeing how doctors have already seen many cases of flare-ups of shingles, herpes and chicken pox after the vax.
Has the enormous advantage of producing photogenic pustules. Much better for the propagandists 😉
It’s the latest ‘thing’.
and lookie here….
Event 201 Monkey Style: 2021 Tabletop Exercise Predicted Monkeypox “Attack” in May 2022
https://lionessofjudah.substack.com/p/event-201-monkey-style-2021-tabletop?utm_source=substack&utm_campaign=post_embed&utm_medium=web&s=r
you can’t make this sheet up…..
I suppose Billy Boy involved.
Have the astrologers at Imperial College produced any modelling on Monkeypox yet?
Are they being magnanimous in defeat? Have they realised that Azov has already had it?
Time for a different crisis?
Monkeypox virus, obviously.
Who says there is a US strategy in Ukraine?
Any strategy is entirely imaginary, US policy has been made up entirely on whim and Joke Biden is extremely senile.
Who? Anyone with a knowledge of the eastern europe in the last thirty years. And if you heard the recent American delegation speak, you’d see who’s running the war from the “Ukrainian” side.
Joe is just there to sign things, not think.
Right, you present your imagination as fact.
I observe that none of this rubbish happened with Donald Trump in charge but it did happen with Joke Biden as either President or Vice-President.
It’s as if Putin can sense weakness and when to pounce.
Putin’s long term strategic goal is the elimination of Ukraine as independent state. The attempt to overrun it in one go proved to be unrealistic. Hence, all he needs to do to move that further along is occupy successively larger parts of Ukranian territory and them compromise (ROTFLMAO) to keep it. The surrender in Mariupol was a surrender. And all territorities presently occupied by Russian troups remaining under Russian control would be no compromise but a Russian victory.
I don’t think Putin would mind a trully independent Ukraine. The thing is, after the Maidan, Ukraine become a US tool for destabilizing and weakening of Russia, totally dependent on US, the puppet masters.
As other people have pointed out in the past: An independent, souvereign state is free to enter into alliances with any other state. Assuming the above was true, Putin wouldn’t mind it if he considered Ukraine rightfully independent.
NB: I’m just making this argument for logic’s sake. I have no stake in the matter beyond being aware that Separate Russia from its Slavic vassal peoples was a German strategic goal in world war one.
Ukraine entering NATO, which by design was created to be hostile to Russia would mean that Ukraine would have to comply with its policy and depend on it, hence, becoming dependent.
Oft glaubt der Mensch/ Wenn er nur Worte hört/ Es müsse sich dabei/ Doch auch was denken lassen
[Goethe, Faust I]
Roughly: People tend to assume that what was spoken must have had meaning.
I don’t.
Defensive against Russia.
Hostile to Russia? You mean created to defend against Russia.
Your Kremlin fangirling gives you away.
That’s not the reality though. What do you think the US response would be if Mexico or Canada tried to form an alliance with Russia?
Wondered when that would be trotted out.
You think the US response would be ‘OK, that’s fine, no problem”, then?
The reality is that, as a result of geography and history, many countries are beholden to larger countries and are not free do do as they like when it coms to global politics.
It was an independent state before Putin invaded it.
Largely go along with what you say. Russia sees itself as only doing what it has to do in Ukraine. Also Russia has committed only a small part of its military to the operation in Ukraine, while the rest of it is waiting in reserve in case NATO, perhaps very unwisely, begins to feel lucky.
Putin articulated his intentions as defence of ethnic Russians in eastern Ukraine long ago. Now he’s largely incapacitated Ukrainian armoured divisions he’s withdrawn to Donbas.
He has 2,000,000 troops at his disposal, if he wanted Ukraine he could have it with half that number.
Putin didn’t start the shooting. Western Ukraine transported artillery to the border of Donbas and began a bombardment for seven days before Russia rolled in to defend the region, consistent with UN Article 51.
It’s in black and white. Putin is entitled to do that to defend a co-signatory to the UN.
Were Russia the aggressor here, other UN members are entitled to roll their tanks into Ukraine to help out.. They haven’t done that because they know Russia isn’t the aggressor.
This rigmorale of whiny But I didn’t really do anything! justifications for Russian actions hasn’t become any more impressive since the last time.
Why does telling the truth have to be impressive?
I see you’ve now kindly assembled all your lies together into one, convenient piece of bullshit.
Even if considering that Russia is 100% wrong and there is no justification of the invasion at all, you’d still try to think how to save Ukrainian lives and prevent potential global nuclear conflict, based on facts and not on fantasies.
You mean throw Ukraine under the bus?
He does.
This makes no sense to me.
It only makes sense if you have an excessively cerebral understanding of the conflict. It commits the technocrat error of intellectualising the strategy for the entire board, forgetting you can have no control over half of it. There are no levers to pull to force Putin to come to the negotiating table. And to artificially restrict yourself to playing for the draw can easily result in more conflict, and more death and failure than would otherwise be the case.
Look, for example, at the news today. The big decision is over whether to supply anti-ship sea rockets. Without them there is little hope Ukraine can export the grain the world needs and famine is looking likely for some poor nations. How can easing up on providing military supplies help in relation to this issue? There is no control or lever that will ensure Putin comes to the negotiating table. I have no idea how “reducing commitment to supplying Ukraine” has any clear path to a better outcome.
So we should only worry about that which we can control. How does “going easy on military supplies” pull a lever and ensure a humanitarian result? It’s the kind of suggestion intellectuals with no experience of dealing with bullies come up with.
Same goes for nuclear weapons. It is a mistake to worry about that over which we have no control. No matter the horror, if we have no control, we live with the danger and “going easy” can result in just as many contact and flash points are encountered as “going hard” When someone else has started the fight, trying to walk away can be worse than running away. Are you suggesting the West should “run away and run away hard”? Or just try to “walk away”? Which is it?
Have you been asleep? From the start, Russian demands were clear: recognition of Crimea, independence of LDPR, neutral/non-NATO aligned Ukraine. Russian negotiation team was ready to talk, but the West puppet masters didn’t allow any other course of action apart from the one which would weaken Putin the most regardless of Ukrainian lives lost. A Ukrainian guy from the negotiating team was killed for voicing some sort of compromise.
I repeat “It commits the technocrat error of intellectualising the strategy for the entire board, forgetting you can have no control over half of it.”
So more awake than you mate, who seem to think you know the mind and motives of Putin and what it will take to stop/appease him. I have no such conceit.
I’m not trying to read minds, I read what’s there in the public domain. Russian demands and the fact that they’ve been pursuing a diplomatic solution at the same time are all there for everyone to see. If Russia didn’t want to negotiate, why bother and publicly state their demands and send the team? Why don’t just carpet bomb the hell out of Ukraine or at least Kiev, decapitating the country?
Look your reply started badly with “have you been asleep” which is something of a pejorative when you don’t know me. It’s all too easy to throw around put downs on the Internet. I’m actually quite informed and savvy. I’m well aware of what Putin’s demands are. I’m well aware of Putin carping on for years about Nato expansion (which I actually think is him throwing out a handy argument because its there, rather than his real concern, his real concern not being a danger or threat from Nato expansion, but the flip side of the coin, a reduction of his own influence). I just don’t have any way to judge if backing off will reduce conflict or encourage it. All my experience of bullies, which is non military and based on no more than childhood school conflicts (which I happen to believe in psychological terms are nevertheless pretty pertinent) is that backing off and reasoning just makes the situation worse.
We don’t control Putin and so, IMO should not assume outcomes on his behalf, because we could very easily be wrong. So then the only thing we really control is how strongly he is stood up to.
a little TOO basic a mind…
didn’t mean to offend, sorry if it sounded rude.
and all this talks about standing up to bullies is not totally transferrable tbh, because actual fighting is done by Ukrainians and it’s Ukrainian civilians who suffer the most, not civilians in Boston or in London, because of this fueling of conflict by sending more weapons. If standing up, then do it full on with NATO boots on the ground, which has been ruled our many time over.
this standing up to Russian bullies looks not only pathetic, but tragic for the Ukrainians
‘So more awake than you mate, who seem to think you know the mind and motives of Putin and what it will take to stop/appease him. I have no such conceit.’
But you appear to know Putin’s mind and motives after all?
‘I’m well aware of Putin carping on for years about Nato expansion (which I actually think is him throwing out a handy argument because its there, rather than his real concern, his real concern not being a danger or threat from Nato expansion, but the flip side of the coin, a reduction of his own influence).’
I think the ‘dealing with a bully’ analogy really is oversimplifying the matter.
In other words, you believe what Putin says. That’s not clever.
Does that phrase actually mean anything? You may think you are awake but you appear to be in some kind of fantasy dream world where English is not spoken.
So, Putin demanded that Ukraine concede to the permanent loss of swatches of its sovereign territory and that Russia should have control over Ukraine’s defence policy in perpetuity.
Would you accept that kind deal for the UK?
If you were genuinely only concerned with the most effective action the US sphere could take to resolve the situation and get Ukrainian grain out, you’d be advocating surrender to the Russians (if it’s now too late to get a deal short of surrender), and withholding military assistance in order to force that action.
Although as far as the grain shipments are concerned, Russia has said that it is not blockading grain exports and the ships are free to leave – except that the Ukrainians have mined their own waters.
“The Russian Embassy noted that its naval vessels are ensuring the commercial ships’ freedom of movement through a safe humanitarian corridor that has been operating daily since March 25, but it accused Ukrainian authorities of preventing ships from leaving the ports.”
Russia, Ukraine trade barbs over obstruction of wheat shipments to Egypt
“It’s the kind of suggestion intellectuals with no experience of dealing with bullies come up with“
Your problem is that you are ignorant of the wider reality that it’s the US that is the global bully. You’re like a teacher seeing a bullied victim hit back at his oppressor without being aware of the context, and punishing the victim for fighting.
The miscalculation the West made is thinking it could bully and terrorize Putin and Russia in the same way it did to its own citizens over the last two years.
It’s easy to slap the little man down again and again, a little bit different when you’re messing with the big boys.
Mark, this isn’t true. The Russians themselves are explicitly linking grain exports to sanctions.
Putin believes he can afford to use starvation in Africa to pressure the west, because he won’t receive any criticism domestically.
The reason for tone change is simple. All the relevant MIC industries, think tanks and crony capitalists have gotten the new vpcontracts signed with all the international Western NATO states to increase arms production contracts, 40 billion from the US and 20 from the EU among the rest.
Its time to slowly turn the narrative to the food crisis, starvation, and of course…climate change induced poor harvests, just in time for summer.
Russia A to B to C wash, rinse repeat. Until you are a slave.
I fear this may be the most salient post.
Don’t forget our horrifying legacy of transphobic hate crimes against humanity 🤠
I’m sceptical of anyone chuntering about Appeasement. In my experience that word is trotted out mainly by damn fools who view history entirely through the lens of hindsight, and know little enough history anyway.
Who has ordered the NYT to change its line and why? The fact that its old line was unreflective balderdash doesn’t mean that its new line must be better.
‘While hedging a little, the New York Times is basically saying….’
What people here and more informed, intelligent and analytical people who don’t just slavishly, support ‘The Current Thing’ have been saying elsewhere outside the MSM.
When fantasy collides with reality, the latter always wins.
Now if only the NYT and others would figure the whole climate change scam out… they are part way there with CoVid, so three out of three would be a treat.
Rubbish, I have it on good authority that the NYT is funded by Russian oligarchs and has links to the Kremlin. It’s nothing but a Putin-appeasing propaganda rag. *
* Fingal’s services are being used elsewhere tonight, so i’ve been asked to post this comment as his proxy troll
If Russia can hold out the globalist programme cannot succeed. It looks as if the US is threatening China too, over Taiwan.
Some info on Russia,
EU shock & awe sanctions strategy fails, as oil embargo plan crumbles
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tY-1C3fGOQM&ab_channel=TheDuran
The Fall of the Azov by Jacob Dreizin
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3jm3AqnL2rQ&ab_channel=TheDuran
Kremlin hardliners and the Special Military Operation
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o46WxsO_7gM&ab_channel=TheDuran
What globalist program?
Please explain who, what, why,how…
Where is the explanation?
Surely how much destruction Ukraine can sustain is a matter for Ukrainians, not the New York Times, nor Joe Biden nor dailysceptic.org. But aside from that, I must say if you agree with the New York Times – home of the 1619 Project and Covid cheerleaders par excellence – you are almost certainly wrong.
Do you happen to know what ordinary Ukrainians think about the proxy war happening in their country? Ordinary Ukrainians who are either fighting themselves or have their family members fighting. Because what’s heard the most is from Zelensky and other officials doing the posturing. And here in the West ‘military experts’ paid by the corporations obviously don’t care about deaths and destructions because it happens in Ukraine.
Never listen to what people say, listen to what people do. And large numbers of Ukrainian men are volunteering to fight the invaders. I think it highly likely that Ukraine will soon be able to field a very large conscript army using Land Lease weapons. If that turns out to be the case I think we can say with certainty that ordinary Ukrainians support the proxy war.
Why would a ban on leaving Ukraine for the fighting-age men be required if there is enough of willing volunteers? You don’t even need volunteers if you have up to a million reservists. Large numbers of Ukrainian men also surrender, including Azov battalion. There are plenty of videos of wives and mothers being not happy with their loved ones being sent to the front line. So, you point is just pure speculation.
True, it is speculation, but it is testable. If I am wrong then I’ll say so. But if there is a large volunteer Ukrainian army in the field, will you?
If you’re wrong you’ll say nothing because you’ll disappear from trolling this website when the Ukraine situation dies down. You only joined for that reason in the first place.
Why is disagreeing being a troll?
This is an actual war, where Russia invaded Ukraine.
Zelensky is doing an amazing job of attracting support, for the defence of Ukraine.
Your praise of him is obviously accidental.
What country invaded Ukraine?
Who has bombed the people they claimed to rescue?
Yet you still want a complete Russian victory. Why?
Indeed it’s a matter for Ukranians, but what other countries do to influence the situation one way or the other is a matter for those other countries.
As for the NYT, surely each argument has to assessed on its merits.
Oh dear, obviously completely wrong! I mean, you just have to listen to the BBC who keep informing the world about Putin’s disastrous errors and certain total defeat in the very near future. Come on chaps, the BBC wouldn’t lie to us!?
BBC keeps banging on about Azov ‘evacuation’ from the steelworks plant. Pathetic
Those bowels fully evacuated now, apparently.
[ Mariupol ] Russia announce complete “liberation” of Mariupol; last group of 531 “evacuated”
I mean, how stupid BBC should consider their viewers to be to continue calling it ‘evacuation’
I think the BBC have a pretty well justified contempt for the intelligence of their viewers. Those with two brain cells to rub together mostly stopped paying attention to their tripe years ago.
Two brain cells? Is that the qualification to be a sceptic?
Still don’t know what the word means?
Ever looked up the definition of evacuation?
There must be another BBC because I haven’t seen this
The last three months have been surreal for me. I was an American child, of the Cold War, who somehow grew up not hating Russia. Nowadays, for my refusal to Stand With Ukraine, I’m dismissively addressed as ‘comrade.’ I feel like I’ve finally come home.
Welcome mate. We get much the same from the few trolls here, but we are more interested in the analysis of the situation rather than whose right or wrong.
You don’t speak for sceptics, friend. Mainly because you are only sceptical of your own country, and swallow everything Russia claims.
He’s sceptical of his government and his countries MSM, not his country.
Only triple jabbed?
Why are you hesitant about the fourth?
Probably one of the most moronic comments i’ve ever read.
This is a UK-based sceptic website and the primary focus is therefore on UK policies.
Or maybe you actually think Russians sceptical of Putin should be focusing on the lies of Boris Johnson instead?
It’s what most sceptics do.
They are sworn to disagree with accepted views, no matter what the subject.
On this topic, they MUST back Russia.
Russia is the county that shot down a Malaysia Air plane and lied about it. The country that poisoned Dawn Sturgess in Salisbury and lied about it. The country that doped its athletes at the Sochi Olympics and lied about it.
The idea that a sceptic must believe anything that Russia says is completely grotesque.
In the first two instances there is no evidence that Russia did those things, and some evidence that other countries/agencies were in fact responsible. They were MSM smear jobs/false flags/frame-ups or cock-ups by other countries.
About the sporting thing I don’t know, haven’t read anything about it.
On the contrary, the evidence is very strong and if it ever came to court, would very likely to lead to a conviction
If you haven’t heard about the doping, that says much about your range of knowledge.
Only russian loving and Ukrainian hating folks allowed here…
When will your analysis start?
What people don’t take you seriously? Don’t worry there are literally 10’s of like-minded people here who will support you.
An interesting new [likely] lie from the Empire of Lies, trailed in TheBasicMind’s comment on this thread:
“Look, for example, at the news today. The big decision is over whether to supply anti-ship sea rockets. Without them there is little hope Ukraine can export the grain the world needs and famine is looking likely for some poor nations.”
There does indeed seem to be a coordinated US sphere media push to use blaming Russia for hunger caused by non-delivery of Ukrainian grain held in Ukrainian ports as a lever to justify the installation of better anti-ship missiles in southern Ukraine to allow them to harass the Russian naval presence in the Black Sea.
As far as I can tell this is pure black propaganda, and the Russian position is as it was set out a month ago, that they are not obstructing the transit of merchant ships, the problem is that the Ukrainians have mined their own ports:
“The Russian Embassy noted that its naval vessels are ensuring the commercial ships’ freedom of movement through a safe humanitarian corridor that has been operating daily since March 25, but it accused Ukrainian authorities of preventing ships from leaving the ports.”
Russia, Ukraine trade barbs over obstruction of wheat shipments to Egypt
I have seen a lot of US sphere media attempts today to misrepresent a Russian statement by Deputy Foreign Minister Andrei Rudenko as an attempt by the Russians to hold the process hostage to a review of the sanctions on their own exports (eg Moscow Says Opening Ukraine Ports Would Need Review of Sanctions on Russia – Interfax), but the quote attributed to Rudenko appears to relate to other issues contributing to world food shortages, not to opening the ports per se.
Is this another shameless lie by the US sphere media?.Unless Russian policy has changed since the embassy quote in April, it would appear likely to be so.
Be interested if anyone has any more information about this.
Needless to say, sending anti-ship missiles to the Ukraine would do absolutely zero to alleviate world hunger. If that were really the issue the Ukrainians could just demine their harbours and send the ships out, and dare the Russians to blockade them.
In reality, all sending more anti-ship missiles would achieve would be to shift the likely offensive to secure Odessa and the south up Russia’s “to do” list a few notches.
It is interesting to see you lot teach each other tranches of misinformation. Write-read-believe-repeat.
Just missing out on the confirm and think actions.
But the Russians are blockading Ukraine and that’s the reason ships can’t leave.
The mines are also a problem – but so long as Russia keeps attacking Ukrainian territory over which they have zero claim, then the Ukrainians have no choice but to defend themselves.
Also I was wondering why the ‘west’ can come together and send literally billions of pounds worth of guns, tanks, rockets and other armaments that kill maim and destroy…. but somehow can’t organise produce onto lorries overland through friendly border countries, which can then go via air, or the Baltic? It shows what the priorities are doesn’t it?
Ah that’s alright then. The russians always tell the truth.
Here’s some more information.. what you repeat from Russia is a pack of lies. If you believe it, you will fit in well round here. That is not a good thing.
Well Noah, it’s because the US doesn’t want war, and neither does any other Western country.
That’s right, they don’t want war in their own countries and that’s why they’re fighting Russians in Ukraine by the hands of Ukrainians. To the last Ukrainian.
Perhaps it would have been good if the Russians had not invaded Ukraine.
That way the Ukrainians would not be defending themselves, which they need to avoid annexation.
I have never seen such a poorly executed and unconvincing propaganda campaign as the pro-Russian one on these boards, whose only strength lies in numbers (both in terms of the now several daily articles by Mr Carl, and massed up-ticking subscribers and commentators).
The standard technique, as here, is a kind of gasp-inducing truth inversion which once seen through becomes truly surreal.
This is not meant as a personal attack on those taking part (including greggsy01), propaganda about the unilateral imperial aggression of a totalitarian neo-fascist regime backed up by humanicidal nuclear threats is necessarily weak. I suppose they do the best they can with the material they have to deal with.
In any case, the country which started and continues to pursue this war and is decimating the population (both soldiers and civilians) ‘to the last Ukrainian’ is Russia, not the United States.
The fact that America and other nations sympathise with and provide logistical support requested by the Ukrainian government is irrelevant to this basic fact.
It’s the same technique used in all the sceptical campaign subjects. Covid, vaccines, climate, and now Ukraine. Very formulaic and predictable. Repeated lies become facts in weak minds, then a conspiracy nut leaps into the conversation, shouting “globalist” and “conspiracy”
The tickers don’t even grasp the statements they make, when supporting terrible views.
Just occasionally, someone claims to be a “dispassionate evaluator of the evidence”, which is ludicrous.
But for Putin, there would have been no war in the Donbass all the way back to 2014.
This is Putin’s war, start to finish.
The New York Times article was probably in (part) payment for President Putin allowing the Israeli soldiers and mercenaries to leave the Azovstal steel plant on the quiet.
“Senior Zelensky adviser: 40 ‘Jewish heroes’ fighting in Mariupol steel plant”
The Times of Israel, 15 May 2022
https://www.timesofisrael.com/senior-zelensky-adviser-40-jewish-heroes-fighting-in-mariupol-steel-plant/
The only party wishing to keep quiet about the existence of Israeli or Jewish personnel fighting alongside the Azov Battalion in Mariupol is the Putin regime –
Because it completely contradicts the ‘denazification’ part of its excuses for invasion. – remember Azov is meant to be the most Nazi-sympathising (hence anti-Semitic) element in Ukraine.
So no need for quid pro quo New York Times articles.
In any case thank you for highlighting this issue which is so embarrassing for the already wafer-thin Russian propagandist cause.
Wow. Didn’t know that.
A Jewish president and Jewish soldiers serving in the so-called Nazi brigade!
Meanwhile, contributors to this site like to pretend the Wagner Group has nothing to do with Putin and they ignore its manifest Nazi inspiration.
If Putin wants to denazify Ukraine, all he has to do is withdraw his army.
I wonder if all this Nazi justification is perhaps not really the case.
You seem to be saying that when Zionists fund and cooperate militarily with neo-Nazis they wouldn’t mind if everyone knew. Either that, or you think that everyone that Zionists cooperate with is automatically not a neo-Nazi. Which is ridiculous, because there are many non-Jewish national socialists – and national conservatives or whatever who have been strongly influenced by national socialism and fascism – who are pro-Israeli.
After all, Israel is a fundamentally racist construct, and you only to have change a single word of the US neo-Nazis’ famous “14 words” to get a statement that could be the mission statement of Zionism: “We must secure the existence of our people and a future for (Jewish) children.”
And anyway, do you think the Zionists give a toss about what happened in the distant past? They’re known for their practicality. (A year ago, could there have been a Ukrainian leader wearing a Christian cross on his clothes addressing Israeli parliamentarians saying how the Ukrainians are the natural partners of the Israelis? Or might someone have mentioned a few things that happened in the Ukraine, with enthusiastic participation by Ukrainians, during WW2? And that’s before we get to the Khmelnytsky business in the 17th century which for a long time was a standard reference in Israel.)
As for nobody other than what you call “the Putin regime” wanting to keep the Israeli presence in Azovstal under wraps, well why is it that since Zelensky’s adviser said what he said last week Zelensky hasn’t said a peep about it? Zelensky also boasted that big boys, much bigger than him, were involved in talks about Azovstal – a patently obvious reference to Israel.
Yes, Noah; isn’t a free press a wonderful thing? Shame Putin hasn’t got the courage to try it.
All hail the New York Times, beacon of freedom, eh?
Just for completion of this deceased thread, seeing as it appears a bunch of US sphere dupes have jumped onto its corpse to try to get their version in without it being contested, here’s confirmation that my suspicion was correct that the US sphere media claims of Russia blockading grain in Ukrainian ports are false, and as usual the opposite of the truth.
No, The Ukraine War Has Not Stoked A Global Food Crisis.
As I suspected, the Russians are not blockading civilian ships in Ukrainian ports,in fact they have specifically maintained an exit route for them. And consequently, Russia has not held the grain ships’ departure hostage to lifting of sanctions on Russia, as has been alleged, that’s just an outright dishonest misrepresentation of what was said.
In fact, it’s the Ukrainians who have mined their ports and are preventing the departure of the grain ships.
Bear this in mind for all such future Empire of Lies stories, and when considering the credibility of the opinions of the likes of Fingal, Sontol and LordSnotty here.
“As I suspected, the Russians are not blockading civilian ships in Ukrainian ports, in fact they have specifically maintained an exit route for them.”
The Russian navy is only offering a safe-passage corridor outside of Ukraine’s territorial waters ie the ships have to get to the rendezvous point first (and trust the commitment will be honoured);
But whatever the details of the unofficial blockade the basic fact remains that it is Russia that is engaging in an aggressive war against Ukraine, and directly or indirectly preventing these vessels from taking their vitally important, life saving cargoes across the world.
As soon as it ceases and withdraws the ships can sail.