There’s a future world in which I fancy myself an old-style crime boss. I infiltrate the organisation, climb to stand at the leader’s right-hand side and when the moment comes ruthlessly snatch power.
I didn’t used to have such ambitions but then what is Sir Keir Starmer if not an inspiration to us all? Forget your party allegiance. If you want to see victory, whole and unblemished, then model yourself on Keir Starmer versus the Labour Left. It’s hard not be impressed, although it would be more gripping as a drama if the bodies along the way hadn’t been so carefully hidden from public view.
Impressed as I am with Starmer, I therefore felt quite hopeful for the country on July 5th. The Government could be brave, it could afford to risk its popularity in the service of good governance, it could fulfil its technocratic promise.
Two months in, I’m not so sure. In concrete term there isn’t much to go on. A reasonable place to start might be the flagship policy of imposing VAT on private schools fees. Is this going to lead to an increase in the number of people receiving a good education over the course of this parliament? Or will it merely cause financial pain to families at the bottom of the top decile of income earners? What is the aim? It can’t all be envy, electoral signalling and class warfare, can it?
Or maybe it can. This policy is aimed at extracting money from parents who already pay twice for their children’s education, once through their taxes and again in fees to private schools. Shouldn’t the willingness of some families to pay twice for education be enough for a party that wants to lift up the less well-off rather than punish the successful. Today’s Labour Party, however, reveals itself in its actions.
My worry is this tax raid won’t only punish the well-off. When the policy is enacted there will follow a migration of pupils from the private to the state sector. Unless your parents are both train drivers, a 20% increase in fees will be unaffordable. Where will these pupils go? At the good comprehensive school where I work, the only reason we’re not entirely serving the local middle classes is because our admissions policy sets aside a certain number of places for children from disadvantaged backgrounds. Before this policy was put in place, the school was following the typical trajectory of successful schools with an inverse relationship between improving results and the number of low-income pupils getting in. Most successful comprehensive schools do not set aside any places for disadvantaged pupils. That will mean the refugees from the private sector will inevitably take places from less privileged children at the best comprehensives. The only way to remedy this would be to create additional places at outstanding state schools, but the Government has no intention of doing that.
Two months in, then, are the tea leaves of early decisions enough to place Starmer in the firmament of the most successful Labour leaders? Only four have won overall majorities since 1906: Attlee, Wilson, Blair and Starmer. But will he make good on this promise? Did Starmer win a huge majority so he can impose VAT on private school fees, take away the winter fuel allowance and pretend that the national electricity grid will soon be carbon neutral? Did Starmer say very little in the election campaign because he actually has very little to say?
After his leadership campaign in 2019, I had Starmer down as a dissembler par excellence and now he has won power I’ve seen nothing to change my mind. He seems to offer more brave words than he does brave actions. He has ruthlessly dealt with his enemies in his party, but to what end? He comes across as a ruthless dissembler with nothing substantial at his political core. At the back of my mind lingers one final question: is Keir Starmer just Boris Johnson but with more hair gel and less testosterone?
The author is a teacher at a London comprehensive.
Correction: An earlier version of this article incorrectly referred to “the Tories’ tax raid” rather than Labour’s in the headline.
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.
Caitlin Johnstone:
“The one single time the US had a monopoly on nuclear weapons at the same time it was at war, it used them. Not because it needed to, but as a show of force. That was the dawn of the modern US empire. That’s how it was born. And it never got any saner from there.
❖
There is a kind of poetic beauty, I guess, in the way the US empire was birthed onto the world stage by a nuclear blast and will probably die in the same way.”
That show of force was directed at the Russians, with their enormous and successful army.
The Japanese had been sending out feelers for surrender for months. The only sticking point was the retention of the Emperor, and that had been approved in US quarters by May 1945.
The Russians were due to enter the war against Japan on August 8, by agreement. Their troops were ready on the Chinese border. After the first explosion of a weapon which had been largely concealed for them (they found out about it anyway), on August 6, they headed across the border; where Communist Chinese had already taken large amounts of territory.
I don’t know about “poetic beauty”, but the curtain is rising on a new act.
Feelers for surrender? It took two bombs to make Japan surrender.
The ‘successful’ red army was genocidal.
FDR, well-documented sycophant of Stalin and sympathiser with communism, encouraged Russia to declare war on Japan, essentially ensuring the Korean war with the communists being armed by captured Japanese weapons.
Soviet forces would have moved into Manchuria regardless of what the US president said or didn’t say, or what happened between the US and Japan.
What makes you think the bombs had any relevance whatsoever for Russia’s moving into Manchuria? The US wasn’t going to start a war with Russia over that, with or without nukes.
I tend to see that the nuclear strikes were necessary, or at least understandable as a way to end the war.
The “genocidal” accusation about the Red Army comes up in lots of western histories such as those of Antony Beevor. Russian historians tend to question this though, I believe. In the past, I would have believed the western narrative without querying it. But, given the total lies that have been almost universally propagated about Ukraine across the west, I am less willing to give the benefit of the doubt.
Given that the Soviet Union lost over 20 million citizens in the invasion by Germany and her allies then some vengeance may be understandable. After all, the RAF and USAF carried out mass civilian bombing that killed hundreds of thousands and do not get accused of genocide by people here. Were Soviet soldiers really more evil than us? And by the way my father served in the wartime RAF. These were brave men doing their duty, as were the Red Army soldiers. We probably ought not to throw stones at others who had a far worse wartime experience than this country did.
To quibble, Stalin knew all about the bombs from the many spies in the Allied program.
The significant point is that Russia, as an ally at the time, should have been told officially. They were not; because they were already being regarded (both by Churchill and Truman) as the next enemy.
An ally doesn’t slaughter 22,000 military personnel of another ally or stand by and watch an ally’s capital city trying to be erased from the face of the earth. But having murdered or killed 25 million plus of his own kind why quibble over a few thousand more as Churchill was to ask Stalin
a) From the point of view of saving US lives, a nuclear strike was valuable.
b) This was the first use of nuclear weapons. Whoever invented them first was going to use them first.
In fact we had a tremendous lucky break that they became usable right at at the end of the war. Not only did this mean rapid victory, it also meant they hardly had any viable devices.
Imagine if nuclear weapons had been invented in between wars, with time for multiple countries to build stockpiles. With no prior use, there would have been no prohibition against their use.
It’s a pity nuclear weapons can’t be uninvented. But given that they had to happen, the timing of their discovery was fortunate.
The single most bizarre post I have seen on this blog yet, and it had to be you Fingers.
But imagine if Japan had invented nuclear weapons first. They could have nuked the sh*t out of the US. Would that have been “fortunate” too? Or if Germany had.
Examine your assumptions.
What is your point?
And nobody has ever been tried for the crime against humanity that was the nuking of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
Never forget that the UN Charter included a special exemption for actions that might be taken against Japan etc.
Little Boy was dropped on the city of Hiroshima on 6 August 1945
The United Nations officially began, on 24 October 1945.
How dare you introduce facts into this thread?
Oops………
The United Nations existed before the United Nations. That appears to be why China got a seat on the ‘Security Council’…The United Nations that existed before the United Nations was made up of those who later formed the ‘Security Council”…
The US was birthed onto the world stage by WW1. WW2 pushed it to adulthood.
Of course the US needed to use the weapons. Japan’s cause was hopeless, with their forces smashed, their merchant fleet practically eliminated and many of their cities’ being burned to the ground (100,000 dead in one nights firebombing of Tokyo alone), but even after one atom bomb it refused to surrender. Its leaders wanted death before dishonour. Look how Germany fought on in an even worse position. The bombs showed Japan that its military could not survive and would only be humiliated more, and that the US wasn’t going to take the other 2 options of invasion with its millions of deaths and of blockade with even more deaths from starvation. Furthermore, the bombs saved 100,000s of POWs and captured natives from being murdered.
As bad as the deaths from the bombs were, the price from not using them was far higher. Anyone who won’t recognise the reality of the far worse consequences of not using the bombs then is IMO wilfully ignorant, cowardly or helplessly prejudiced.
Japan was ready to surrender with dignity. They could not accept their emperor being humiliated. The allies demanded unconditional surrender. A little more diplomacy might have averted the need for the destruction of so many Japanese non-combatants.
Or it might not, but should have been tried.
The US doesn’t do diplomacy only total humiliation of the enemy …or , more recently , of itself.
Ask the Chinese if they would have allowed Japan to surrender with dignity especially after the atrocities inflicted on them by the Japanese military?
Or why it was necessary for Russia to obliterate Berlin rather than allow Germany to surrender with dignity. A dignity they hadn’t showed in Stalingrad
Very easy to discuss events when you haven’t been afflicted by them personally. A completely different matter when faced with a fanatical enemy who will stop at nothing to conquer you. As both Germany & Japan tried to do being led by fanatics.
Japan was considering surrendering after the first bomb , the high Command had to persuade the very large and unbeaten Army in China – the US made sure they did not get the chance as they wanted to experiment with the second bomb on the population of Nagasaki on August 9th 1945, which was of a plutonium ‘implosion’ type – Hiroshima, bombed on 6th August. was hit with a uranium ‘fission’ type bomb.
Three days ….plenty of time of course for Japan to organise the surrender of its widely spread and huge Armed Forces….not.
Not because it needed to, …..
Obviously you weren’t being asked to hop from island to island to dislodge the Japanese while losing your comrades all around you.
I repeat my usual comment.
These characters should be strapped to a chair, and forced to watch Threads on repeat until they get it.
Is this all part of the Greentard Extinction Cult? We need to eliminate humans from the planet so the fluffy bunnies can take over.
Ooh. Threads. Grim. But was it propaganda of sorts? My take on nuclear weapons is that they’re really used to control the nuclear powers’ own populations by creating the idea that a sword of Damocles hangs over them that only the government can protect them from (by pumping their wealth into staggeringly expensive weapons programmes) Remember the Protect and Survive public information films? Strikingly similar to latter day government covid messaging!
And about as useful.
“Strikingly similar to latter day government covid messaging!”
But with extremely little opposition this time.
I seem to recall CND membership quadrupled in a single year in response to “Protect and Survive”. For a while up until then the criticism of the nuclear warfare state had been seen as a mostly old-fashioned cause.
Of course they are used in that way. But that doesn’t mean they aren’t real or that the threat isn’t real.
And for me, the key point about nuclear weapons is that imo they changed the course of human history by imposing the post-WW2 Nuclear Peace, which still holds, though it is clinging on by a thread at the moment. Not a peaceful world, of course, because there are plenty of colonial and proxy wars, and wars between non-nuclear powers. But a world without, at least, the kind of global mass slaughter we saw in WW2.
Imo there can be no plausible claim that in the absence of nuclear weapons we would have avoided a full third world war long before now. It would have occurred between the US and the Soviet Union, or between China and the Soviet Union, or between the US and China or between the US and Russia. There have been numerous flash-points that would ordinarily have led to all out war between these powers, had they not been deterred by the risks of nuclear war. The rise and fall of superpowers is usually mediated by war.
The risks of nuclear war are inherently different from those posed by warfare in the pre-nuclear age. In all previous cases, those who led countries to war could realistically expect to escape the worst consequences for themselves and their own families. They didn’t always succeed in that escape, but they were able to persuade themselves in advance that they would be able to do so. Not so with nuclear war, in which the likelihood is that even the winners would face a grim prospect.
And there can also no longer be honest doubt, imo, about the effectiveness of nuclear deterrence. “We” (our ruling elites) have been and are right now being deterred by Russia’s nuclear weapons. It is undoubtedly the case, imo, that in the absence of Russian nuclear weapons, NATO bombs and missiles would be hitting Russia and Russian forces right now, as they did Serbia’s forces two and a half decades ago.
Will it hold? Time will tell. The risk is not that our rulers are not deterred by nuclear war. They will not declare open war, imo. The risk is that they will dance at the edge of that risk too closely and there will be a runaway escalation, unintended by either side.
All true – and it kept a lid on Syria too which could very easily have spiralled out of control. I’m not saying the threat isn’t real (although I do think they exaggerate the devastation their programmes could cause) I was really talking about the messaging and the way that existential threats are very good for governments.
Yes, I agree with you about that.
But personally, I very much want my own government to have some of those products of “staggeringly expensive [nuclear] weapons programmes”. To some extent, though this is a very unfashionable position to hold, spending on nuclear weapons is far better than on conventional forces, because the former can only realistically be used for deterrence, whereas the latter can be (and absolutely are, as we have seen repeatedly) misused by our elites to involve us in foreign quarrels and to kill foreigners in our names. Something we need to be putting a stop to.
Love this…
Coronavirus – 1970s Public Information Film – YouTube
Yes it was very good – I did an 80s version. !
Why give them the pleasure? They would be cheering when the bomb hit – getting rid of the “useless eaters” is one of their ambitions!
The radiations surrounding these devices has effects on us, especially males… Declining sperm counts in Western males points to these devices being more effective in reducing (Western) populations than the ‘covid’ de-pop jabs…
I am curious to know whether the levels of radiation near Pripyat are significant, currently 5430 nSv/h but fluctuating, according to weather app.
Ah, it’s Chornobyl, probably nothing to worry about.
The extremes to which Western governments are willing to go to ensure Russia does not “win” in Ukraine, and more pertinently, the extremes they are willing to go to to achieve “regime change” in Russia, does make you wonder
a) what exactly has been going on in Ukraine that they don’t want to stop or people to know about and
b) what exactly Putin is preventing them from achieving that a Western puppet installed in Moscow would allow them to achieve.
They seem quite determined to win at all costs. Why?
Sound analysis.
Why do you ask ‘why’? Isn’t it obvious?
I was listening to Unlimited Hangout last night and Whitney Webb (in her slightly irritating vocal fry) was interviewing John Titus on Sanctions and the End of a Financial Era – it is slightly disconcerting to note that the Russian Central Bank is very far along the road to digital currency, and publicly using Western sanctions as a justification for the implementation of a digital rouble, the head of Sberbank has said it would be good to have a programmable currency so that the public could be prevented from making bad choices (!) At a macro level, it looks to me like the Great Powers are putting the pieces in place for a multipolar form of feudalism. That doesn’t mean that the war is ‘fake’ or being staged by mutual agreement. I hope.
it’s not just Russia, the BIS reckons 90% of global central banks are on the bandwagon
https://corbettreport.substack.com/p/cbdc-a-country-by-country-guide?s=w
The UK HOL reports said CBDC is “a solution looking for a problem” probably the most prophetic signal that we’ll be seeing that problem materialize around mid decade when the EU CBDC is planned for rollout.
Even Iran is ready to rollout digital CBDC wallets, it’ll be interesting to see if their new “Biometric ID” they’ve already rolled out to allow people to get their food allowance during the current rationing will dovetail into the CBDC scheme, I suspect it will.
edit: as an aside, it’s noteworthy none of the high steet banks are talking about it considering it’ll make them redundant.
It’s good that there is one person at dailysceptic who regularly critiques western views on war. I find that the rest of the team is disappointingly un-sceptical.
There is a second topic where I haven’t seen any good critical writing at all on dailysceptic, and that is to challenge the ‘really-existing capitalism’ where immensely powerful companies pursue their own profit, often criminally, irrespective of the
harms to everyone else. You have commented many times on the frauds of the pharmaceutical industry, but you haven’t taken the next step to recognise that this applies to big companies more generally.
I have written a series of beginners’ guides to help people engage with this, at
medium.com/ElephantsInTheRoom
I would be very interested to hear the views of people who have never come across this type of material before. I think that we should try to discuss these things more often on dailysceptic
We urgently need to explore the concept of Stake Holder Capitalism – revived by the Rosthschilds, which is the basis of the Techno/ Digital/Corporate Fascism – a kind of Neo Feudalism to be kept in place by Gene altering drugs and the microchipping of humans they are now clearly intending to impose on the world.
National Government is now busy devolving responsibility and control to powerful Corporates and Global agencies – as we see with the proposed Gates /WHO ‘Power Grab’ treaty which brazenly trashes both Humana Rights and Nation State Sovereignty .
The total insanity and anti-human nature of this dystopian nightmare, cooked-up by the Billionaire Elites for their own greater enrichment and sole benefit, really does need to be taken seriously as they are now stepping up the pace!
When “harms” are invented (e.g. CO2) then you can’t trust much
The problem is these super large businesses are not capitalist, they tend to rent-seek using patents (which are subsidised in various ways).
Perhaps Nuclear War is the answer to the totally diabolic insanity that has now gripped the whole Western World?
After all the, life they are planning for those ‘plebs’ who are allowed to survive will not be worth living anyway?
A touch of fatalism required?
French politician and ‘Banker” ( ?) Christine Lagarde is reported as opining that the old are living too long and should get out of the way to make room ….how old is she again?
No doubt this is a common dinner party line among the Elites. I recall that French Aristocrats had similar derisive views about starving French peasants.
That didn’t end well.
“Grab yer pitch forks and torches!” (Shrek)
“But if he’s as crazy and irrational as people claim“
He isn’t, of course. In reality he’s notoriously cautious, collegiate and very rational. One of the common criticisms of him in Russia is precisely that he is far too cautious. But personally, I view that as an excellent quality in a national leader.
Of course “people claim” he’s “crazy and irrational”. Can anyone recall a leader of an enemy state of the US sphere who was not smeared as “mad” in some form? It’s standard practice.
In part this is just the usual black propaganda, of the kind that is the stock in trade of the Empire of Lies.
It’s also the case, though, that if we do not understand someone’s reasoning, especially if we are unaware or misguided about the facts on which he is basing his reasoning, then by definition his actions appear “irrational” to us. And one of the functions of our media and of our intelligence services is precisely to keep us ignorant and misled about the facts of foreign policy. “Weapons of mass destruction”, evil-seeming “poisonings”, atrocity fabrications, pretences that “we” are not being aggressive when “we” funnel immense amounts of money into destabilising foreign states under the guise of “modernising” or “democratising” them, or pushing other fashionable woke propaganda onto them, etc ad nauseam.
So when you are ignorant, as most on the US sphere are, of the history of aggression by NATO and by the US, and of the history of expansion of NATO to the east, and of the nature of the US-backed nationalist coup in the Ukraine in 2014 after the agreement to settle the Maidan protests, and of the ongoing repression of and war against Russian-speaking autonomists in the east and south (especially) of the Ukraine, then obviously Russia’s use of force in the Ukraine seems irrational at least, and at worst, outright, gratuitously evil. That, of course, is the intent of all this manipulation.
This is the word we live in, the world of the Empire of Lies.
Smartest man in the room as far as I can see.
He has done a very competent job of driving Russia’s recovery from its abject collapse under Yeltsin, and halting the push of US power into the former Soviet Union and its former allies.
But long term his reputation will depend on the outcome of Russia’s current fight against the globalists. The winners write the history books.
In the building in fact! ( if not the street… even the town)
It’s interesting isn’t it though that a decrepit barely lucid Clown-Emperor sits on the Throne of Lies. I can’t work out how/why this has been allowed to happen. The last, say, decade has felt to me like a systematic deconstruction of the US, its people, its history, its constitution, its way of life, its mythology; everything. Whether this is being done from within or without is a fascinating question. I suppose there is no within or without in a globalised system. But I have believed for many year that the ultimate victims of this dreadful period of history with be the US population.
“It’s interesting isn’t it though that a decrepit barely lucid Clown-Emperor sits on the Throne of Lies.“
A figurehead, very obviously.
I think he’s there for tactical reasons to do with US politics in 2020, mostly. He was what the globalist power-brokers in the US had to work with, to keep the Republicans and Democrat populists out of the White House.
If Biden’s the best you’ve got to work with, things are really, really bad in the Empire!
Things are really, really bad in the Empire.
Meh, if everyone’s downvoted, nobody is.
US Democrat money swung behind Biden to stop Sanders from getting the nomination – which had at one stage looked a possibility.
Those populists do bother them. They threaten their strictly confined notions of what democracy means.
Enjoying your excellent posts above, by the way.
Cheers, AE!
Personally (as you might expect) I much prefer the populists of the right to those of the left.
For example, nobody’s perfect, but Sanders supports BLM, is a climate panicker, pushes normalisation of homosexual activity, was a covid panicker and is a promoter of confrontation of Russia:
“BURLINGTON, Vt., Feb. 24 – Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) Thursday issued the following statement on the Russian invasion of Ukraine:
“The Russian invasion of Ukraine that the world is witnessing today is a blatant violation of international law and of basic human decency. It may well kill thousands and displace millions. It could plunge Europe into long-term economic and political instability.
“The United States and our allies must impose severe sanctions on Vladimir Putin and his fellow oligarchs. At a time when thousands may die as a result of his war, Putin, one of the richest people in the world, should not be allowed to enjoy the billions he stole from the Russian people. The United States must also work closely with international partners to provide humanitarian relief for the Ukrainian people.””
https://www.sanders.senate.gov/press-releases/news-sanders-statement-on-russian-invasion-of-ukraine/
He (presumably) voted with the “unanimous Democrat support” for the immense, $40b in corrupt subsidies to Ukrainian oligarchs and nazis, and to US military industrial types:
“While the aid package passed the chamber with unanimous Democratic support and the backing of most Republicans, 11 GOP senators bucked their party, citing reasons including the cost of the spending and a lack of oversight into where that money might be spent, as well as broader concerns about US national interest.”
Here are the 11 Republican senators who voted against the $40 billion Ukraine aid package
He might have some good anti-elite positions, but overall, very much part of the problem.
I prefer Bernie to Hillary and Biden. I know that’s a very low bar.
He’s a beacon of honesty compared to them, but he has that same susceptibility to absurd metaphysical narratives.
You’re more likely to encounter contrarian realists amongst the Republicans.
“I prefer Bernie to Hillary and Biden. I know that’s a very low bar.“
Such a low bar that even I much prefer Sanders to those two evil clowns.
But I far, far prefer Trump to all three of them ((and he’s far from perfect).
He’s a fucking nutcase, what are you on about?!
…? Any examples you’d like to give of fucking nutcase behaviour?
Profanity?
You should watch the interviews that Oliver Stone did with him. Four hours of subtitles, but worth it. Cunning and shrewd, or he would not have got to be head of the FSB, but nutcase he is not.
If only we had a few “nutcases” like him in charge over here:
“Russian President Vladimir Putin called the movement for transgender acceptance “a crime against humanity” in a Thursday speech.
Putin, speaking at the annual meeting of the Valdai Discussion Club in Sochi, the city that hosted the 2014 Winter Olympics, said that to have children “taught that a boy can become a girl and vice versa” is “on the verge of a crime against humanity,” The Washington Post reports. He claimed supporters of transgender rights are pushing for an end to “basic things such as mother, father, family or gender differences.””
Putin Calls Trans Acceptance ‘Crime Against Humanity’
‘There will be dad and mum’: Putin rules out Russia legalizing gay marriage
Instead we have:
“With the tragedy and destruction unfolding so distressingly in Ukraine, we should remember the values and hard won freedoms that distinguish us from Putin, none more than LGBT+ rights. So let’s resume our series of tweets to mark #LGBTHM2022”
(from the head of our secret service, God preserve us!)
God preserve us indeed – this secret service man said he is there to ‘keep us safe’ – shivers run down the spine!
Another ‘Young Leader’ from Davos?
Those who want rid of Putin should ponder what would happen if the Russian Neo-con element got the top spot!
Abso-bally-lutely!
Too much for them to grasp!
They still believe Putin is Hitler – Hillary told them so!
Russia with the Donetsk Peoples Republic and Luhansk Peoples Republic are slowly winning the war with Ukraine forces surrendering and retreating en masse into built up areas to hide behind human shields.
Russia has no need to use nuclear weapons.
However, the Dr Strangeloves in the US and West will contrive any scenario which will try to provoke Russia to use them first or a false flag event so the mad US “hawks” have the excuse of retaliation.
We are the danger …not he Russians.
Just look at Johnson’s insane posturing!
It was suggested by Alexander Mercouris of “The Duran” that Putin, being a rational man, underestimates the irrationality of western neocons driving current policy.
Lockdown sceptics who also refused the jab might understand this because we all underestimated the irrationality of our fellow men and women.
True – in part I think its the corporatisation of statecraft; all anyone can think about is the next financial quarter – for the Americans whose remaining major exports are fraud and war, stoking tensions in Europe is just a business model. There is no ideology at work here, and no long term strategy.
“Putin, being a rational man, underestimates the [ir]ratiionality of western neocons driving current policy”
Quite a plausible position, imo.
Ideological fanaticism is a form of irrationality. And there are also other resentments and hatreds driving neocon individuals to push policy against Russia – note the origins of so many senior US neocons in eastern Europe and Russia, as was notoriously the case with Madeleine Albright – born in Czechoslovakia – and her vicious personal hatred of Serbs.
On the plus side a nuclear war may cure Covid and global warming (sorry climate crises) as people will have something real to worry about.
They all amount to the same thing – theft and enslavement.
In the far more likely event that he isn’t………
Can we deal with reality instead of someones flight of fancy please?
We have the evidence that pedo Joe has lost his marbles, so why would Putin be any more likely than him to press the button if he was crazy?
Surely “pressing the button” has already been delegated to Victoria Nuland, Hilary Clinton and Kagan.
Are Anderson shelters still available?
Called ‘summer houses’ now
The track record of the west isin’t great, is it
I can’t see it coming to that – it looks to me like the breakaway regions and coastline will be secured and Russia will withdraw behind effectively a new Iron Curtain. Then the new status quo will benefit everyone – each side with an existential threat to be dealt with by rinsing ordinary citizens further.
In fairness to Noah Carl, I think his reason for making this point here was only to highlight the illogicality of the anti-Russian position, not to argue that Putin is in fact crazy and irrational. Though Carl’s position on that is admittedly not entirely clear.
Mind you, the quotes he gives in the piece imo conclusively demonstrate that it is not the Russian side that is the “crazy and irrational” side, here.
Yes.
I read it as justifying his sceptical stance on the war rhetoric, to those less than sceptical, amongst his peers.
If either ‘side’ did push the button first, they’ll suffer global condemnation for the next lifetime.
I doubt anyone will, and we can’t do anything about it anyway, I’m not about to grab my G6 and start thumbing my way through my copy of “surive to fight” anytime soon.
I don’t think Joe could even find the button.
While it is more than interesting to review what Western armchair generals are saying, the main premise of their let’s teach Putin a lesson in Ukraine that he won’t forget is ridiculous. Russia is ripping the massive NATO trained armed and controlled Ukraine military to shreds and it is only using a tiny fraction of it’s own forces to do it. The West only has bluster and failing sanctions, which mean it is now desperate enough to resort to its usual trick of creating a false flag, perhaps chemical or biological, though nuclear cannot be ruled out. Expect something to happen and fairly soon at that.
Yes – I concur, every day I’m waiting for the big ‘atrocity’ sadly.
a tiny fraction?! more than half its military and it is being trashed
Russia hasn’t even mobilised for war.
As for “beIng trashed”, as far as we can tell, Russian forces are methodically grinding the Ukranian military into pink mist and twisted metal, and systematically destroying the infrastructure it needs to support modern warfare.
The Russians and their allies are steadily pushing forward in the areas that are their primary objectives – Donetsk and Luhansk, against massively strong defensive positions prepared for years with NATO assistance, training and equipment, and in the face of full NATO assistance short of open intervention. Have they take losses and suffered tactical setbacks? Of course they have, it’s a war against a serious force backed by the world’s most powerful superpower, not a colonial duckshoot of the kind the US and its satellites love to engage in.
In particular, it appears the Ukrainians have full access to US and NATO satellite and electronic information resources,which means they have real time targeting and planning intel, making it near impossible for the Russians to use operational or tactical surprise.
Pretty good going, for a force that “our” propagandists were claiming months ago was defeated and about to collapse.
Feel free to try to explain how such a defeated force, without competent logistics and with supposedly fatal training and morale issues, mounts effective attacks on prepared defensive positions with evident repeated success.
While you’re at it, explain how the Ukrainians are ever going to regain the steady territorial losses they are making, when they are running out of fuel and have no prospect of ever again (in this war) having the infrastructure to either make fuel or to import and move enough of it to make a difference?
At some point you are going to have to face up to the fact that you have been systematically lied to. You can ignore reality for as long as you want, but you won’t be able to ignore the consequence of ignoring reality.
Great post!
The terrain is more effective stopping Russian advance than the Ukranian forces.
You do know that the Red Army has been across this terrain before don’t you?
It must be gamed in every war school, combat manual ever seen by a Russian Officer!
So?
They’ve tried at least 3 times already! James Le Measurer is alledgedly in theater, so it’s par for the course.
More hopelessly inaccurate reporting from Noah. This is what you get when your starting place is an ideological viewpoint.
In fact Putin has overwhelmingly been regarded as a rational operator, albeit ruthless.
Putin has been rattling his nuclear weapons in their scabbards almost from the start of this conflict.
One serious danger is that Russia does not regard the use of tactical nuclear weapons as off limits.
In fact Putin has overwhelmingly been regarded as a rational operator, albeit ruthless.
It’s The Sun.
They never let anything get in the way of a good pun.
When will we ever get a rational Media?
Russia doesn’t need tactical nuclear weapons to do what it is doing. However, a false flag, possibly nuclear, to be blamed on Russia is now more than likely.
There’s zero evidence for this, and zero appetite for nuclear war in the west.
Putin believes the West doesn’t have ‘the guts’ to go nuclear.
In effect this ends the old mutually assured destruction pact. If one side doesn’t believe the other is serious, it changes everything.
There’s evidence there’s an appetite for nuclear war in the ‘east’?
Putin has considerable evidence the west has the guts to go nuclear, they have done it before.
For example, Putin publicly stated on 27 Feb that he had put Russia’s nuclear ‘deterrents’ on ‘special alert’.
Idiot.
Define ‘special alert’.
Nuclear deterrents are always available for use otherwise they wouldn’t be much of a deterrent.
The west has done it before. 1945.
Clown.
What evidence do you need?
Fingers doesn’t need evidence. He just makes shit up.
For example, a statement such as ‘get out of Ukraine or we’ll nuke you’. That would be a start,
Link.
What’s sad is that you don’t even realise just how stupid that comment is.
Chemical or biological. The Americans have already named this as a red line. Remember Syria, Iraq, wherever else.
Noah is correct that Western media often refers to Putin as mad or irrational. What’s your point exactly?
Sky News, Feb 18th 2022:
Ukraine crisis: ‘Putin an ‘irrational’ man driven by emotion and vengeance’
“Former UK Ambassador to Russia, Sir Roderic Lyne, describes Vladimir Putin as an ‘irrational’ man who is surrounded by people who don’t challenge him.”
CBC News:
Putin’s irrationality meant no one could have prevented war: Canada’s envoy to Ukraine
Foreign Policy [one of the foremost house magazines of the globalist elites], March 13th 2022:
The Intellectual Catastrophe of Vladimir Putin
“Vladimir Putin may have gone out of his mind, but it’s also possible that he has merely gazed at events through a peculiar and historical Russian lens and has acted accordingly.”
Putin’s ‘germaphobic’ and ‘irrational’ behaviour is textbook autocrat
As his attack falters, Putin could become more brutal – and even more irrational
UK’s Johnson says Russia’s Putin may be ‘irrational’ on Ukraine
“In fact Putin has overwhelmingly been regarded as a rational operator,”
Bored with posting examples of the myriad attempts to smear Putin as “irrational” now.
You did better than me!
But you were the first mover…
I had those examples to hand for use in a media studies lesson on tabloids. Imagine how gritted the teeth through which that lesson was delivered were.
Well done. Somebody had to do it, and you both stepped up. Forgive me if on this occasion, I didn’t follow your links.
I said ‘regarded’, not described.
Calculations that Putin would not invade or use nuclear weapons rely on an assumption that he is a rational actor.
You said the reporting was ‘hopelessly inaccurate’ but still haven’t explained what was hopelessly inaccurate about the quote you included from Noah. Confusing.
The notion that the US/the West does not regard Putin as a rational actor.
But the majority of the world including China, India, Africa and Latin America, who all refused to condemn Putin, do consider him a rational actor.
Of course the morons Dementia Joe Biden, Boris and Ursula von der Leyen don’t……..
Dear crisisgarden,
I can see you’re a teacher of sterling quality; persisting with a student who really needs to try harder but isn’t interested in doing so.
A gold star to you, but I’m afraid your student isn’t up to the Mark.
Best wishes,
AE
Well we do try to be forgiving AE!
Judging by what?
Boris and Biden?
That would never happen in America.
Oh wait! 1945.
There’s just no way of keeping things simple enough for you to follow, LukeWarm. Hiroshima/Nagasaki weren’t tactical nuclear weapons, not least because they hadn’t been invented yet.
And at the time there was no international prohibition on their use because no one had even used a nuclear weapon of any kind.
At least you got something right. There was no concept of tactical or strategic nuclear weapons in 1945, they were just big bombs.
Why would it be necessary to use a nuclear weapon before agreeing an international prohibition?
In 1675 France and Germany sign the Strasbourg Agreement, the first international agreement to ban chemical weapons, in this case outlawing the use of poisoned bullets. (Various sources)
In 1874–1907 a series of international treaties signed by most Western nations banned the use of poison and poisonous weapons in war including The Hague convention which banned the use of chemical weapons (e.g. mustard gas) and balloon dropped bombs in 1899 – or Other New Analogous Methods (Various sources)
The first aircraft dropped bomb wasn’t until 1911 when the aviator Giulio Gavotti used them against the Ottoman military in Libya (Various sources)
The first militarised use of chemical weapons wast deployed until the 1914 – 18 war although it had been proposed as far back as the American Civil war.
It’s not beyond the wit of man to anticipate the use and/or misuse of weapons yet to be invented/adapted.
Nuclear weapons were no secret, the technology was understood, what was to stop their prohibition by international treaty?
Simpleton. Dribbling as usual.
So what do you think? That Stalin wouldn’t have used the Bomb if he got it first?
You are such an idiot.
I don’t speculate. You do. In fact you make a habit of it.
But they had tested one and knew full well what it did to ‘civilian ‘human beings.
No military target in either city.
Yeah, but Nagaski was just an ‘experiment’ with an untested plutonium bomb on another ‘open city’ just to see how many it would kill – so doe that count? Chance of a lifetime!
Like “experimenting” with untested vaccines on gullible populations really!
The German doctors in the camps had the same level of injection curiosity!
A reasonably measured article correctly pointing out that the dangers of nuclear war in the current circumstances need to be taken very seriously indeed.
The main factually and morally incorrect statement (and a crucial one at that) was “The reason being that, from Putin’s point of view, he “cannot lose”. So if his forces were on the cusp of defeat, he might resort to nuclear weapons”
Everybody has both free will and a conscience, and at any second Mr Putin can decide that sending forces to destroy and kill in Ukraine was a mistake and withdraw them; never mind decide not to massively escalate things up to a potentially humanicidal level (including re ‘his own’ people) through the first use of nuclear weapons.
He can also realise that bringing about peace is the exact opposite of losing in the only true, ie eternal spiritual, sense.
As for the comments, they overwhelmingly consist of the usual upside down propagandist nonsense putting all blame for a potential nuclear catastrophe on the side which neither initiated the current conflict nor has been making wild nuclear threats on a daily basis;
Ie the Russian regime and its controlled media mouthpieces.
‘putting all blame for a potential nuclear catastrophr on the side which neither initiated the current conflict’
Staging a bloody coup in a country on the border of a nuclear power and putting anti-Russian nationalists in power in 2014 arguably ‘initiated the conflict.’ Your interpretation only works if the timeline started in 2022, rather a blinkered perspective.
A) I don’t accept your analysis of the events of 2014 which consisted of the then Ukrainian President renaging on an EU trade deal overwhelmingly supported by Parliament and instead fully aligning the economy with Russia.
Backed by the Putin regime Yanukovych then ordered the use of massive brutal force against overwhelmingly peaceful demonstrators, resulting on over 100 deaths (there was some limited defensive counter-violence in the latter part of the protests), Parliament voted 328 to 0 for his removal from office and he fled the country to Russia.
None of this has anything whatsoever to do with any external agents (eg the US government) ‘staging a bloody coup’.
B) Regardless of all the above pointing to past historical events by way of explanation or excuse for current ones is a simply a standard propagandist distraction technique.
Any moment now he’s going to start talking about US diplomat Victoria Nuland. And he’s going to say something untrue.
Yes it is inconvenient, isn’t it – that leaked phone call.
No, it confirms the opposite of what Russia intended by releasing it.
That the US and the EU did not engineer the riots.
Its existence confirms US meddling, to say the very least.
It confirms the blindingly obvious, which is that the US was interested in who might succeed Yanukovytch and was using diplomatic influence to try and get the result they wanted.
What do you think Putin was doing? Sitting on his hands?
But it disproves the ‘US/EU staged the coup’ theory, which is what matters here.
Look at a globe – Kiev is almost 5,000 miles from DC. Are you trying to suggest the CIA and State Dept have never staged coups?! This time was different though, right?
Both Russia and the US have staged coups. That doesn’t mean that every protest or revolution is their fault.
A bloody lot of them are though! No one acknowledges it at the time; then thirty years later everyone acknowledges it and it becomes a historical fact. This will be the same.
US coups are largely in the past (outside routine conspiracy theories) while Russia is directly controlling allegedly independent states such as Belarus (and Ukraine before Maidan).
Either, for both Russia and the US, it’s not enough to say that because they have staged coups before, this is automatically another one.
Yep, our side’s wrongdoings are all in the past and if it’s highlighted contemporarily, it’s a conspiracy theory. Perfect.
Didn’t say that. By all means argue against what I actually say.
‘pointing to past historical events by way of explanation or excuse for current ones is a simply a standard propagandist distraction technique.’
Also a standard History lesson technique. No one is ‘excusing’ Russia’s actions – you’re mistaking accounting for/explaining with ‘excusing’.
I don’t agree with your interpretation of events in 2014 at all.
Pot. Kettle. Black.
Not. My. Words.
Well that isn’t in the russian propaganda info pack.
Or you could argue that Russia invaded Ukraine…
Finally someone with a brain on here. The others seem to have lost theirs in lockdowns
Including you.
You’re one of the biggest morons on here bleating rubbish 24/7
You seem to have the astonishing standpoint that because Western media lied about Covid, then they must be lying all the time about everything.
Thick as two short planks pal!
With respect, you’re going to need to do better than ‘fucking nutcase’ – even if you thoroughly disagree with RHS about Ukraine and hate Putin/Russia, the detail and depth of his knowledge & reasoning is to be respected I think.
Rambling on in 400 posts a day isn’t “depth of knowledge”!
You’re welcome to submit your considered analysis of the Ukraine/Russia situation if you wish.
Screaming at people because they don’t post what you want them to post doesn’t conform to analysis though.
Do you want a monopoly on screaming at people? Go back and read some of your own stuff.
Most people here probably immediately recognised the same propaganda tactics being used on the Ukraine issue as were used on the C19 one. It’s not a question of intelligence but shrewdness.
And by the way, they ARE lying almost all the time, or at least gross distorting. Even the weather and the sport are distorted. Storms now have to be bigged-up with their own names and when footballers drop on the pitch from the jabs, there’s “nothing to see here” and anyone who says there is gets fired.
What were these lies about Covid?
The western Ukrainians mounting an artillery barrage on Donbas for seven days prior to Russia’s intervention is what started the whole thing.
I have searched but cannot find any evidence for this, or even any claim that it happened other than yours. I am sure you got it from somewhere – but where?
LOL it’s as if multiple people havn’t suppied the links for you multiple times, you have as much credibility as Comical Ali in Iraq, no wait, even he has more credibility.
No one has ever supplied me with a link to a story about an artillery barrage on Donbas for seven days prior to Russia’s intervention. Presumably you have one – perhaps you can provide it? (I don’t doubt such a story exists, I just want to get some idea of its credibility).
https://www.france24.com/en/europe/20220219-live-osce-monitors-report-dramatic-increase-in-ukraine-ceasefire-violations
there you are sweetheart…..
Have you read/listened to your link? It is all about the separatists shelling Ukrainian positions in the lead up to the invasion. It may be wrong but it certainly doesn’t provide any evidence for RHS’s claim that “The western Ukrainians mounting an artillery barrage on Donbas for seven days prior to Russia’s intervention”.
I repeat – I am sure that someone, somewhere has made a case for what RHS claims – he can hardly have made it up (can he?). I just haven’t seen that claim or the evidence to support it.
The OSCE Special Monitoring Mission to Ukraine made it all up.
Sure thing genius.
Unfortunately you’re too thick to understand what they say.
And you’re too stupid to even find information.
All you ever do is bloviate whilst providing no evidence of any of your ridiculous assertions.
Just make shit up as usual.
What you and the idiot RedHotScot have failed to notice is that you’re quoting total numbers of incidents on either side. Most of these are Russian violations, not Ukrainian.
The Russians hadn’t fired a shot before the crossed the border. Fool.
https://dailysceptic.org/2022/05/18/western-audiences-have-a-right-to-be-accurately-informed-about-this-war/#comment-803155
scroll down, it’s in the replies and responses to your post idiot.
I can only see the one reply with a link which, as you can see from the timings, arrived after my comment. Curiously that link does not claim that “The western Ukrainians mounting an artillery barrage on Donbas for seven days prior to Russia’s intervention” much less provide evidence for it. So actually I still haven’t seen a link supporting the case.
try harder, read the whole conversation under your post.
LOL how many replies do you see to posts with the timming before the post?
I am deeply confused – under which post of mine?
Rather than playing these games why don’t you just repeat the link?
is your scroll wheel broken?
I have scrolled along all the comments in response to this article. I then scrolled all the comments in yesterday’s article. Nowhere could I find a link that even began to suggest RHS’s claim that “The western Ukrainians mounting an artillery barrage on Donbas for seven days prior to Russia’s intervention”. The closest was this link of yours (which for some reason you gave indirectly):
https://www.crisisgroup.org/content/conflict-ukraines-donbas-visual-explainer
But it only documents an increase in civilian casualities leading up the war without specifying which side.
because you don’t download the daily pdfs from the link supplied
Do you mean this link? I can’t find any pdfs – daily or otherwise. I was, however, able to get the number of fatalities in the area, civilian and combat, in the 7 days leading up to the war (17/2/22 to 24/2/22). There were just 12 and they were split evenly between the two sides (I think – some of the locations were disputed at the time). If there was a Ukrainian artillery barrage it seems to have been rather ineffective.
But maybe you meant a totally different link?
Repeating unsubstantiated garbage is good enough for sceptics.
You haven’t separated out violations made by Russia/the rebels and violations made by Ukraine.
No, you havn’t, you’re just armwaving. There were ~8000 reports, the claim was 5000 from Ukraine into the Donbas, as an example here’s the report from the 22nd, look at the map
https://www.osce.org/files/2022-02-22%20Daily%20Report_ENG.pdf?itok=63057
~16 hot spot marked on the Ukranian side, ~3 higher intensity
~79 on the DNR/LPR side, ~22 higher intensity
If there’s a line between armwaving and outright lying, you crossed it.
The 8000 and 5000 figures are not in this report as far as I can see.
If you look at the detailed report of the violations, they are on both sides. In the file I don’t see that anyone has added up the totals for each side, just the overall total.
You couldn’t see it if it jumped up and slapped you in the face dingbat.
LukeWarm, you need to go back and do your sums again. You’ve counted all the attacks on Ukraine as if they were attacks on the rebels.
Provide some evidence of your own. But you won’t, because you can’t.
You’re either too thick or too lazy to do any research, you simply contaminate this blog with your unsubstantiated opinions.
The facts are, attacks were perpetrated on the border of Donbas by western Ukrainians. The OSCE Special Monitoring Mission to Ukraine support this observable fact.
In other words, western Ukraine moved artillery to the Donbass border. There is no suggestion anywhere that artillery or any other means of war were moved westward across the Donbas border before Russia intervened.
Do you imagine western Ukraine moved weaponry eastward, to not use it?
Use what little ability of the two brain cells running around in your head to attempt a critical analysis of the situation.
What is offensive artillery used for? Think about it for a nanosecond. It is always, without fail, a prelude to invasion. It’s a cheap and effective means of softening up an enemy before rolling in troops.
What does any Navy do to support Marines immediately before they land on a beach. They bomb the crap out the enemy’s defences with shipboard artillery. A land invasion is no different.
At this point you should be having an ‘Oh shit’ moment.
But there’s more. Whilst Ukraine is not a member of NATO, it is one of the founder members of the UN.
As such, it’s entitled to defend itself with the support of any other UN nation that cares to help. UN article 51 is clear on this.
Ask yourself why, then, have US/UK/Europe not rolled their tanks into Ukraine? If Ukraine isn’t the aggressor they are perfectly entitled to.
But they haven’t, have they?
Ukrainian artillery transported to Donbas border? – Bombardment confirmed? – UN Article 51 invoked? – Russian retaliation in defence of a UN region? – No western response?
‘Oh shit’ moment yet?
Sorry LukeWarm, you’re not helping your case here.
Go and read the detailed daily reports and you’ll see that shells etc were exchanged in both directions, which is hardly surprising as they’ve been at war since 2014.
You are as dumb as a box of rocks.
Did Donbas transport artillery over the border into Western Ukraine?
No.
They are therefore acting in self defence.
Because it’s a daily report I used as an example, can you even read? You were arguing about the report with the totals I linked you yesterday, so you’re being deliberately obtuse, as usual.
Exactly as I stated, many many more ~ 4times more from the Ukranian side just by eyballing the map
It seems you can’t count, or read.
Look, the map shows locations of incidents, but you have to read the detailed reports to understand the scale of attacks. They’re listed under government/non government. Both sides were exchanging fire, as is unsurprising as Russia was already seeking a casus bellum.
Note that Russian troops had been moving into position literally months before the week you’re pointing to.
Eyeballing the map isn’t enough
only if you can’t count, or read a map key.
The map does not tell you who is the aggressor.
It doesn’t say who started it, and by itself it doesn’t tell you the scale of attacks.
Go and look at the detailed reports or else, shut up.
Did western Ukraine transport artillery to the border of Donbas?
Yes!
FFS, who then is the aggressor. Use your brain Fingers!!!!!
Of course they moved freaking weapons to the border, they’ve been at war since 2014 you imbecile!
Then the Donbas forces are the defenders. Defence of their position allows them to whistle up support from Russia under article 51.
Whatever way you cut this Fingers, you cannot support any argument from ignorance you may have, because western Ukraine moved their artillery into an offensive position on the Donbass border and all Donbas did was defend it’s position.
An offensive artillery assault is always a prelude to a mechanised or infantry attack. It’s a waste of materials otherwise.
This is standard military tactics which goes back hundreds of years.
Do try to read some history and military tactics before commenting or I will continue to condemn your dribbling’s as unsubstantiated nonsense.
go learn to count, learn to read a map key showing the line of contact, or shut up.
it does if they draw a line of engagement on it, and show you which side of the line the explosions happened, but then we’ve already established you can’t read a map, typical Ruppert
The map shows where incidents occurred, but not the details of what happened. There’s another file in the link that breaks it down location by location. And it totally contradicts what you’re saying.
The mere fact western Ukraine transported artillery to the Donbas border and engaged in an artillery exchange invalidates any argument you have that Ukraine isn’t the aggressor.
You think things written by you lot are facts?
Liar. I have, numerous times.
I can’t tell you how many times I have posted links for the eejit to follow. He either can’t read or he doesn’t know how links work.
or he’s a liar
Oh! He’s that as well.
Look up Dr crackpot on madhattertube.
Jacques Baud’s interview with Delingpole
Thanks for a hint. It is nearly two hours long! You wouldn’t care to direct me to the time in the video when this issue is covered or provide something just a little more succinct?
OSCE (Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe) Special Monitoring Mission to Ukraine.
I have posted links to it for you before but clearly, you are mentally too challenged to comprehend them.
I am sorry if I haven’t kept track of all our comments. There are rather a lot of them. Anyhow I see there is an active debate over whether these reports confirm an artillery barrage so I will not create two such debates.
Strange, I seem to able to keep track of our comments.
Well they are somewhat common and stupid.
I thought you were all about objective analysis, rather than screaming… Your words.
Whilst just possible that Ukraine decided to massively escalate a largely calmed conflict just as their gigantic neighbour had amassed an equally gigantic military force on their borders using the same internal conflict as the excuse to threaten invasion –
The false flag event predicted by Western intelligence (which got just about everything else about the situation right) is overwhelmingly and self-evidently more likely.
No, it’s not “just possible”. It’s a documented fact that western Ukrainians launched an artillery attack on Donbass expending 5,000 rounds of ordnance in the seven days prior to Russia’s intervention.
OSCE (Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe) Special Monitoring Mission to Ukraine refers.
It was most certainly not a false flag event, which should now convince you that you are being lied to by western media and government.
How many did Russia/the rebels fire into government positions?
lots less than Ukraine fired into the Donbas
No
speculation, obviously, because you can’t count, we’ve already established that LOL
I beginning to suspect you haven’t even looked at the files
because I can read a map, and count, and you can’t?
You can’t count what isn’t detailed on the map
Evidence?
It doesn’t matter how many shots the Donbass army fired. It’s in defence….I repeat, defence of their positions. That is the essence of UN Article 51. Russia is allowed to come to their assistance as members of the UN.
Why is this so difficult for you to comprehend, it’s in black and white.
The UN did not accept that Article 51 applied.
You’re lying.
Read article 51 dumbass. No UN member nation requires permission from the security council to render military aid to a fellow UN nation.
They render aid and inform the Security Council of their actions, which is precisely what Putin did.
The UN can do what they want after that, agree or disagree, it makes no odds.
You haven’t a clue.
What worries me is that you (so you say) used to be a policeman.
I guess you played the bad cop.
Thank God you’re off the streets now.
Do you expected people to tell the truth about themselves.
It’s just that you can’t find the document….
While I agree with most of what you write, I fear it does not follow that because Putin is responsible for what he does and can decide to follow the route of peace, he will not do the opposite and resort to nuclear weapons. There is an enormous amount written about his state of mind based on very little evidence, especially as “state of mind” is something that changes. I feel the risk is so enormous he should be given an “off-ramp” – something he can sell to his people as a what he planned to do all the time but not enough to encourage him to try it again.
The other possibility is that Western intelligence agencies know more about what might or might not do than they are revealing. They have performed remarkably well, especially considering the disasters or Afghanistan and Iraq.
Totally agree, the Putin regime certainly has behaved wildly irrationaliy up to now and is capable (though still highly unlikely) of escalating to nuclear. I was just challenging the ‘Putin cannot lose’ meme, again anyone can change track and it is frequently being used as another threatening propagandist technique
Also that the most important thing is to bring the mass destruction and killing in Ukraine to an end asap (for the sake of those currently suffering and to avoid something much wider) if necessary through a face-saving settlement.
The whole experience, including the overwhelming and united dissaproval of the West, sanctions etc, might incline the Putin regime to a more cooperative and less aggressive stance in the future; and it won’t be around forever in any case.
‘ the Putin regime certainly has behaved wildly irrationaliy’
Any examples? I’m not being facetious, I just don’t see what you’re referring to. There was a bloody conflict going on on the border for eight years before Russia acted militarily – hardly ‘wild’ or ‘irrational’.
The conflict in the Donbass had settled down so much that by 2021 (ie when Putin started ammasing a large invasion force) civilian casualties (caused by both sides) were down to 25 – of which only 7 were directly caught up in fighting, the rest mines etc
In that context (or even when fighting was at its peak) Russia invading Ukraine made as much sense as the UK invading Southern Ireland (which provided widespread logistical and other support for the nationalist side) during the Northern Irish Troubles. Not even a direct comparison, because Northern Ireland is in fact part of the UK, the Donbass not part of Russia (in spite of Mr Putin’s recent illegal annexations).
“Not even a direct comparison, because Northern Ireland is in fact part of the UK, the Donbass not part of Russia (in spite of Mr Putin’s recent illegal annexations).”
Pretty direct comparison. Remember that the whole of Ireland left the UK in 1921, and what is now Northern Ireland appealed to the King to be allowed to return – which it could do because the law allowed that.
NI continues based upon that particular historical quirk. It even has a separate Exchequer and Treasury – unlike the other parts of the UK.
There’s little difference with the Donbass deciding to leave Ukraine and Russia accepting them, and the 1921 solution that partitioned Ireland.
Including the befuddled mess that will result with each side pointing fingers at each other. Another Palestine/Israel situation.
It also points to a solution – a “Good Friday Agreement” between Ukrainian and Russia.
‘There’s little difference with the Donbass deciding to leave Ukraine and Russia accepting them, and the 1921 solution that partitioned Ireland.’
Except that Russia didn’t accept them for eight years despite their protestations and worked very hard to find a negotiated settlement that kept them in Ukraine.
Ukraine is a sovereign state with boundaries recognised by everyone.
ROI was recognised up to the NI border.
Currently, ROI has dropped its claim to NI but supports border poll within the terms of the Goof Friday agreement.
Russia could have used the building tensions in the East to make a move on Ukraine in 2014. Like NATO did – fraudulently and criminally – in Libya 2011. Why did they waste their time with Minsk, this brutal expansionist lunatic bloodthirsty power seeking to regain its former imperial glory?
Until this year’s invasion, Putin’s policy has been to destabilise neighbours by occupying or staging rebellions in parts of their country (eg Georgia, Moldova, Ukraine). This was quite clever because it severely handicapped their development and effectively banned them from ever joining NATO.
Putin has departed from his own policy by going for the whole of Ukraine. It’s a tremendous mistake, coming from overestimating his position and the West’s weakness.
‘Putin has departed from his own policy by going for the whole of Ukraine.’
But that idea has been invented in Western discourse. It is neither Russia’s stated aims, nor what we see on the ground.
Russia’s stated aims are multiple, contradictory, and imprecise.
Just because you may buy the notion that the attacks on Kyiv and Kharkiv were ‘feints’, that doesn’t mean that everyone else will.
Demilitarise and denazify. Whether you believe these are true or justified is of course totally up to you. Not seen any contradiction though…
Where’s the bit about taking the entire Ukrainian coast?
No Putin’s aims are to help the Donbas people, so he bombed the place to oblivion.
Perhaps he is not a trustworthy person.
My understanding is Donbas wanted to negotiate an agreement with western Ukraine on their status as a self governing entity of Ukraine, and attempted same since 2014.
As with Crimea, Russia supported this.
Your understanding is limited
limited is better an zero, RHS wins
I’m afraid you’ve allowed him to influence you too much. His ignorance is catching.
LOL.
I can read UN Article 51. You can’t.
By that standard, I do indeed win.
Whatever the legal technicalities of the Anglo Irish Treaty Northern Ireland has been formally part of the UK (and internationally recognised as such) since 1922.
The Donbass has never been formally or legally part of the current Russian state, in spite of the recent annexation backed up by military force.
In general pointing to previous national boundaries and settlements (even where they actually existed) to justify current military adventurism could lead to Mexico invading Texas.
The past is the past.
“The Donbass has never been formally or legally part of the current Russian state, in spite of the recent annexation backed up by military force.”
It was part of the Soviet Union for decades, as Ireland was part of the UK for over a century.
We could similarly say that Ireland has never been formally or legally part of the English state, despite the annexation backed up by military force.
The parallel is very clear with the approach to Ireland during and after the first world war, including the Anglo Irish war that lead to the Anglo-Irish Treaty.
I can only repeat:
In general pointing to previous national boundaries and settlements (even where they actually existed) to justify current military adventurism could lead to Mexico invading Texas.
The past is the past.
At another level all of this historic boundary drawing and redrawing, frequently as a result of military might, merely shows the moral and practical nonsense that is nationalism.
We should be advancing from this fundamentally malign structure toward a peaceful and integrated world.
That is indeed the direction of all progressive history, with the development of multi-party liberal democracy (at least internally and in theory egalitarian and non-violent) pointing the right way;
Whilst the ultra-nationalism and concomitant internal oppression / external military aggression of the current Russian regime (and its main ally China) points in exactly the opposite one.
Indeed ultimately, as this article highlights, towards potential nuclear armageddon.
It doesn’t need to be. It’s a member state of the United Nations. Under article 51 it is entitled to act in its own defence collectively, with another UN member, which in this case is Russia.
The UN did not accept that Article 51 applied.
Stop lying.
Read Article 51 dummy. Any UN nation can come to any other UN nations aid, having informed the security council of it’s actions, irrespective of what the Security Council decides after the fact.
It’s in black and white dumbass.
I’ll even do your work for you, lazy sod.
“Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations
24 Oct. 1945 – Last updated: 01 Oct. 2009 15:42
“Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security. Measures taken by Members in the exercise of this right of self-defence shall be immediately reported to the Security Council and shall not in any way affect the authority and responsibility of the Security Council under the present Charter to take at any time such action as it deems necessary in order to maintain or restore international peace and security.” (my emphasis)
The fact it’s badly written confusing, and ambiguous is a feature of almost any UN Charter, and is neither here nor there.
So kindly STF up about the legality or otherwise of Russia’s intervention.
It is legal.
“Russia invading Ukraine made as much sense as the UK invading Southern Ireland (which provided widespread logistical and other support for the nationalist side) during the Northern Irish Troubles“
One thing we can be sure of is that the UK would have attacked Eire pdq, if there had been consistent regime cross-border shelling going on long term, especially when combined with a significant military buildup on the border.
Perhaps not under a Labour regime, but certainly under the first non-Labour government to get into office (which would have happened very quickly if there were cross-border shelling going on and the government was ignoring it).
Always amusing how easy it is for people like you to dismiss “just a few shells” as no big deal, when it’s happening to foreigners you don’t sympathise with.
If that had happened Eire would have been shelling British territory, ie have declared war on the UK.
Ukraine forces were engaged in an internal conflict and had not attacked (ie declared war on) Russia.
It was Russia which invaded Ukraine.
Re “Always amusing how easy it is for people like you to dismiss “just a few shells” as no big deal, when it’s happening to foreigners you don’t sympathise with.”
I don’t view any of my fellow humans as ‘foreigners’, we are all part of one extended family, and abhor all violence.
On the other hand I am not aware of pro-Russian comments on this site condemning the shelling that was being carried out by then separatists in Donbass;
And what about the relevant activities of the Russian invasion force since 24 February 2022 –
‘Just a few shells against foreigners we don’t sympathise with (and indeed, against those we consider to be fellow Russians living in the war zone)?
Article 51
of the Charter of the United Nations
“Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security. Measures taken by Members in the exercise of this right of self-defence shall be immediately reported to the Security Council and shall not in any way affect the authority and responsibility of the Security Council under the present Charter to take at any time such action as it deems necessary in order to maintain or restore international peace and security.”
Russia allied with the ethnically Russian Donbas (collective self defence) to repel a western Ukrainian attack perpetrated in the seven days preceding Russia’s intervention. Of this there is no doubt according to the OSCE Special Monitoring Mission to Ukraine.
Putin correctly informed the Security Council of his legal right to intervene under article 51.
Why is this so difficult for you to understand? You don’t like it, I don’t like it, but under internationally agreed conventions, Russia had the right to intervene.
Why do you imagine the west hasn’t rolled their tanks into Ukraine to support a fellow UN member?
It’s straightforward, they know Putin is in the right and daren’t interfere directly as that would be considered an act of aggression under the same Article.
None of this is difficult to figure out. It’s in black and white.
The UN did not accept that Article 51 applied.
Stop lying.
That’s just tough, because the defence of a UN nation, by another UN nation in the face of aggression does not require UN sanction.
This is not a like for like comparison.
Much more parallel is Russia’s response to the attempted Chechen breakaway. They refused to have any dealings with the independence movement and bombed the crap out of it
Interesting though, since you bring up Chechnya, that 20 years later, Grozny is a fully functioning, harmonious, multicultural and completely rebuilt and very beautiful city, and that former bitter enemies of Russia are now staunchly pro Moscow. At the very least, that points to the kind of expert statesmanship on the part of Putin that Western leaders couldn’t even begin to imagine. The US invaded Afghanistan around the same time. How does Kabul look?
Look, they flattened the place and killed any number of civilians.
Russian policy then was the outright opposite to what they ask for on Ukraine.
Your usual cognitive dissonance in the face of facts.
Grow up shorty.
By way of illustration.
May I introduce you to the concept of ‘the past’.
There’s no such thing; time started in February 2022 when the deranged madman/rational actor Putin single-handedly rolled into Ukraine for absolutely no reason whatsoever to rebuild the Soviet Union because he didn’t think Russia was big enough.
You finally get it.
14,000 dead mostly civilian Russian speakers in Donbas from Ukraine shellinbg since 2014.
” A few shells”!
Can I recommend Delingpole’s recent interview of Jacques Baud, where you’ll get a different story on pre-invasion events from an ex-NATO expert on Eastern Europe – some important details that are not making the mainstream news.
Someone needs to put some lead between his ears and fast, the guy is a lunatic. Even more worrying is the support the maniac gets on this very forum.
Biden?
Oligarch puppet Zelensky?
Or the puppeteer Kolomoyskyi?
I think you’re misreading it. I’m seeing dispassionate analysis (which doesn’t mean using terms like ‘fucking nutcase’ which aren’t helpful. Even if you hate Putin, anyone who compared contemporary Russia with the hellhole it was in the early 90s would have to conclude that Putin is an effective leader. Then there’s his popularity. Russians aren’t idiots, they are generally much more politically aware than our society. Clearly, ordinary Russians do not see Putin as a ‘fucking nutcase’, do they?
83% approval rating amongst Russians.
80% of Russians and a higher proportion of faux sceptics believe the Putin propaganda.
Interesting that your so-called dispassionate analysis consisted of repeating the russian line and wholeheartedly backing the invasion.
Saying the guy is not a nutter is not supporting him. The propaganda has lured you into a false dichotomy.
Are you volunteering?
The biggest problem in the west is that their are too many stupid people in positions of power and influence.
Exactly!
Robert Malone said just that!
I see zero evidence of Putin being mad. Evil, yes, but no worse than those pulling the strings in the west, and little different from Zelensky, if you do your homework. Anyone who doesn’t recognise propaganda from our government and mass media after the last two years amazes me. This war is grey vs grey and we ought not to be in any way involved. We should be trying to foster a ceasefire.
People amazingly still think the Government tells us the truth about Covid and vaccinations – so is it really a source of any further ‘amazement ‘or surprise that they swallow the same propaganda from those same sources that brought us the ‘Covid Scams’ and multiple ‘terminological inexactitudes’?
Would Putin be considered evil had he intervened in ethnic cleansing of Donbas? Which appears to be precisely what he did.
The west, on the other hand, allows ethnic cleansing and genocide to occur before responding. Bosnia and Rwanda are two amongst many instances.
Western dullard ignores the risk of appeasing socialist dictator, ignores the risk that appeasement makes nuclear war much more likely.
Brainwashed BBC-worshipper regurgitates hysterical war-mongering propaganda from proven liars who want to drag us into a fight that’s not ours and will only drag us into greater misery the longer it goes on
‘Socialist dictator’? Putin is a ‘conservative’ by any measure of the term in the context of Russia.
Russia and Russian history still it seems reduced to “a far away country about which we know little” .
The US/UK and Europe are far closer to becoming a fascist alliance than Russia.
Putin has taken care not to let technocrats run Russia’s government.
“Existential” is a word that’s been put into the opinion chain in connection with this war. Avoid.
“Cuban crisis” and “Cuban missile crisis” are US propaganda terms, still current 60 years later. Every little thing is called a “crisis”, of course, but that was one of the few sequences of events in the past 70 years that genuinely deserves such characterisation. It really did come very close to nuclear war. So I have no issue with calling it a “crisis”. But try “Cuba-Turkey-Italy crisis”. The line of the US state and its lackeys is still that the nukes they removed from Turkey and Italy were about to be removed anyway. (Seriously!) Far be it from them to accept any loss of “face” where stationing nuclear weapons right up close to their opponents’ territory is concerned.
Thanks for the info about Anders Åslund‘s input. I hadn’t seen that. Somebody must be putting him up to it.
Åslund used to be an adviser to the Yeltsin government, by the way, and then to the Ukrainian one, and then to the Kyrgyz one. So he’s covered in filth. Presumably the guy is close to the Swedish oligarch Jacob Wallenberg. Any others? Didn’t Wallenberg fall out with Kolomoisky (and his pet called Zelensky)? Or did their differences get patched up when huge weapons contracts came onto the horizon?
I fear that the rulers of Sweden – i.e. the Wallenberg family – wouldn’t mind a “little” war in the Baltic region at all. It would suit them nicely. It does seem as though the US and its compradores in that part of the world are itching for the kind of escalation that NATO-slurping compradores in Kiev managed to achieve in the Ukraine and in what they view as the “lost lands” of the two republics in the east that seceded.
The ripeness of the situation in much of Europe for a provocation is almost tangible.
I can still use crisis in my DS screen name though, right?!
Unprecedented might be an alternative.
““Existential” is a word that’s been put into the opinion chain in connection with this war. Avoid.”
Why? It’s a perfectly legitimate term that has a reasonably clear meaning and direct relevance and utility in the issues under discussion.
Exactly!
A bit like ‘unprecedented’. When it get’s used for everything including covid and climate change, it tends to lose its impact.
The US neo-cons seek to use the Ukraine war to effect regime change Balkanisation and economic colonisation of Russia – that looks like a pretty much ‘existential’ threat to me!
If you were from Mars you may be forgiven for thinking that both superpowers in this poxy proxy war spend a more or less equivalent amount on arms.
(The same probably goes for the covid sheep.) Billions of dollars spent on Arms in 2021 :-
USA – 801
China – 293
India – 76
UK – 68
Russia – 66
And yes, we’re 4th in the list of shame – ahead of Russia.
And yet we’re all supposed to live in fear of the Big Bad Bear
-Or, maybe it is just to justify and feed the military/industrial complex of you know who.
They have tentacles all over the world.
A bit like Bigpharma…
Yes Western accounts of Russia have always been a bit schizophrenic – it’s either (a) about to collapse and its armed forces are a rusting broken down joke; or (b) it’s the gravest threat to the world.
With their main battle tank nearly 40 years old, the UK can’t accuse anyone of using outdated equipment.
Such comparisons are extremely difficult and one of the problems is that the figures you use here depend on exchange rates which change constantly. Another is that a given amount of money goes further, militarily, in some countries than in others. Better to use ppp (purchasing power parity) estimates to remove the exchange issue, and better still ppp figures adjusted to be specifically relevant to military matters. Of course, this kind of calculation introduces opportunities for bias, unconscious or intentional.
Here’s one attempt to do the calculations:
Debating defence budgets: Why military purchasing power parity matters
As we can see, it doesn’t defeat the main points you are making, which is that the US is by far the biggest military spender, and that Russia is some way down the list and a long way below the US. The idea of Russia as a serious military threat to the US, the UK or Europe has always (in post-Soviet times) been a propaganda lie.:
The Russians don’t conform to typical western tactics of war. For example, America has twenty aircraft carriers, Russia has one.
And if there was an example of exporting war, carriers are surely it.
Russian aircraft are invariably inferior to western aircraft when compared on a one to one basis, but Russia doesn’t deploy them in the same manner as the west.
I’m not suggesting Russia could hold out against America/NATO in a battle, but they do place a different emphasis on what they use, where, and when.
The threat of escalation of Putin’s invasion of Ukraine into a nuclear war is an extremely serious one:
‘‘….not just the B….. version of Nasty Ukraine will be eradicated, but including, and above all, Western totalitarianism, the imposed programs of civilizational degradation and disintegration
‘The peculiarity of modern nastyified Ukraine is in amorphousness and ambivalence, which make it possible to disguise Nastyism as a desire for “independence” and a “European” (Western, pro-American) path of “development” (in reality – to degradation)
‘To put the plan of denastyfication 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’
‘…therefore the denastyification of Ukraine is also its inevitable de-Europeanization.’
RIA Novosti 14 Apr 22
Nuclear war would be the quickest way for Putin to achieve his aim of de-Europeanisation.
It would be the surest way to get the Americans to nuke Russia. Think.
“European” (Western, pro-American) path of “development” (in reality – to degradation)
Putin does not believe that the U.S. (Biden) has the nerve to use nuclear weapons. The U.S. (and Europe’s) complete moral degradation, exemplified by its craven and disorderly withdrawal from Afghanistan, means he believes he has a free play.
Deterrence has failed. That’s why he invaded.
I am surprised that he hasn’t used nuclear weapons already.
So, I would guess, are Finland and Sweden. That is why they are currently sheltering under this country’s nuclear deterrent.
Think.
You need help.
You need Bucky.
Bucky?
HaHaHaHaHa…….I just got it. RedhotScot, – Bucky – Buckfast Tonic Wine (I had to look it up).
“Despite its Scottish reputation, this is an English drink, with holy origins. It’s produced at Buckfast Abbey in Devon, a creation of Benedictine monks who fled France in the wake of anti-Catholic attacks at the end of the 18th century. The monks still make it today.” (Forbes)
ROTFLMAO.
My Christian name is Scot you presumptive pillock.
I think you will find that the placing of Fauci funded bio-labs near Russia’s borders, the killing of thousands of Russian speakers in the Donbas since 2014, the calls for ethnic cleansing of all Russian speakers by Ukrainian Nazis the presence of Senior Nato officers in the Mariupol bunker ( now in Russian captivity) and the total bad faith sprinkled with lie after lie dodgy dossiers and black ops coming from Western capitals regarding Russia for twenty years over the
plans for Nato expansion to undermine Russia, have disintegrated any pro-Western illusions Putin might have had .
In fact those around him who have counselled that you cannot trust the Evil Empire of Lies and its lackies in the UK and EU, have something to be satisfied about in being proved right.
Sadly,Russia is now looking after its own security in whatever way it sees fit, as it cannot trust Western partners and re-structuring its economy to eliminate dependence on the West for anything. It seems tha Russia might also be leaving the Gates/ Tedros WHO, currently seeking a ‘power grab’ over the imposition of binding world health “mandates”.
We must ask who are the beneficiary of all this and who will lose the most?
Beneficiary: Putin
Ukraine has extremely rich and complementary mineral resources in high concentrations and close proximity to each other. The country has abundant reserves of coal, iron ore, natural gas, manganese, salt, oil, graphite, sulfur, kaolin, titanium, nickel, magnesium, timber, and mercury.
Losers:
13 million displaced Ukrainians.
At least 26 countries, including Somalia, Senegal and Egypt, rely on Ukraine for between 50% and 100% of their wheat.
Is it perhaps possible to get Mearsheimer a toy nuke? Maybe a marble one hand-crafted by some nameless assisstant of the great artist Auauau Wehwehweh (Au weh! German for Oh dear!)?
The same rule of thumb which already applied to Corona politics applies here: Everybody who runs around trying to scare people in order to make them do something is a falscher Fuffziger (counterfeit 50DM note, con man) trying to get others to do something that is profitable to him but not to them. If Vladi the Putin wants to commit nuclear suicide in a global conflagration, nobody can stop him. Hence Egal! (doesn’t matter).
It may be possible to make a positive argument for supporting the Russian cause, although I have no idea how that could look like. Morale bombing with really terrifying phrases is not going to work.
People in the post-West deserve to know the full horror of what is going on in the Ukraine.
The horror of the Death March of the Noble Nazis of Azovstal:
“Westie media was horrified at the sight of Neo-Naughties being “marched” down the streets of Mariupol. Click on the “Today Show” propaganda video below, which spins this process as a “parade of prisoners”, not unlike the Bataan Death March of the modern era. The headline emblazening RUSSIA PARADES SURRENDERING UKRAINIAN FIGHTERS!
…
The signage on the outside of the bus window reads, in Russian: “You must wear a mask and gloves” (for covid, natch). Nobody is obeying that rule,”
[bold added]
Yes, you read that right: the brutish Russians are deliberately murdering their Noble Nazi prisoners by exposing them to COVID!
Where are the calls for a proper investigation of this biowar crime against humanity by Putin?
Ukraine War Day #86: The Condition of Mariupol POWs
[Incidentally, this was a very valid observation, as well:
“Their hands are free, they are not in handcuffs or shackles. Please compare this with the way that prisoners and POW’s are routinely treated in the U.S., they are always shackled and often hooded as well.”
The thuggish and intentionally humiliating treatment of prisoners both civil and military has become increasingly prevalent in the US sphere in conjunction with the general decline in our level of civilisation.]
People have the right to know:
Kyiv Region
Andriivka
‘On the night of March 30, Russian forces withdrew.
The next morning, Anastasia Andriivna left home for the first time in weeks, hoping to find her son. About 100 meters from her home, she recognized her son’s sneakers, with a red stripe, sticking out of a barn door.
She said:
The stepfather of Anton Ischenko, 23, said that Russian forces came to their home in Andriivka and took Ischenko on March 3.
Anton had been in the Ukrainian armed forces years earlier.
The family found his body in a field in the suburbs of the village on March 31, the morning after Russian forces left the area.
The stepfather declined to detail the state of Anton’s body but said that they had to identify him by his clothes.’
blimey that’s really bad propaganda, Andriivka is nowhere near Kiev, best part of a 5 hr drive away
Андріївка Poltava Oblast Ukraine
Blimey that’s really bad propaganda:
‘The village of Andriivka, home to over 1,000 people and located 40 kilometers northwest of Kyiv, was under Russian occupation for 34 days. The village had suffered from fighting, with many houses getting damaged or ruined. Local citizens say that the Russians stationed in the village were robbing the houses en masse, stealing flat-screen TVs and valuable home appliances.’
Name your source or as usual it’s bullshit.
now look on google maps, it’s a 5 hr drive from kiev
https://www.google.com/maps/place/Andriivka,+Poltava+Oblast,+Ukraine,+39442/data=!4m2!3m1!1s0x40d84c060f9b2f97:0xb79ff725902904be?sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjHo_GjpfD3AhUznVwKHWvwCM4Q8gF6BAhLEAE
Buck up. How many Andriivka villages are there in Ukraine? Oh! You have no idea! I’ll give you a clue. It’s a number greater than one. Here’s another tip. Eat more fish. Don’t mention it. Bon voyage!
You have no idea either. Bullshit as usual.
No source.
Concocted drivel.
Why on Earth hasnt the corporate propaganda media megaphoned this ? It’s the sort of Human Interest stuff that will really win tons of support for The War Effort !!
You’re dribbling again.
Hmmm. Appease much?
Nuclear weapons simply do not exist. Phillippe Hubert’s scientific paper on testing the age of wine showed that there was no caesium 137 in the atmosphere before the first nuclear power station accident at Chalk River in 1952.
Mad Vlad Putin. The propagandists want us to focus on Putin resorting to Nukes because he’s most likely to if Russia looks like losing The US proxy war against Russia in The Ukraine…And if enough of us believe the propaganda we’ll accept the US pre-emptive use of nukes to ‘deter Putin from using nukes’…
When 500,000 Iraqi kids die as a result of sanctions is considered ” Worth it”, when the economic hardships that resulted from the collapse of the Soviet Union, a result of it being lured into an Afghan Quagmire by the US, is considered “Worth it”, pre-emptive use of nukes against Russia should be an easy sell as “worth it” !
However evil he is, Putin would not use nuclear weapons.
There is no existential threat whatsoever to Russia. No one has the remotest intention or desire to invade an inch into Russia.
It is purely about removing Russia from Ukraine, and he would not unleash a nuclear war over that.
I’ve got a suggestion…why don’t these commentators/historians and other ‘experts’ who talk about nuclear war so blithely offer to go to these theatres of war and put themselves directly in the line of fire and then see how readily they talk about it?
Not sure what the general buzz is on the mainstream news these days as I turned my attention away many years ago but I get an impression it is quite hawkish. At times of other global crises in the past there always seemed to be an effort to broker peace. There always seemed to be attempts to defuse a potentially explosive situation. Does that happen any longer? Are we really that far down the path of insanity that we have lost sight of our basic humanity and desire to live in a peaceful, harmonious world?