In a landmark victory for academic freedom, the University of Louisville will pay nearly $1.6 million in damages and attorneys’ fees to settle a lawsuit brought by a respected psychiatrist fired for questioning the use of puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones on gender-distressed children.
The payout ends the long-running case of Dr Allan Josephson, a nationally renowned child and adolescent psychiatrist, who was targeted by colleagues and administrators after speaking in a personal capacity at a 2017 Heritage Foundation panel on treatment approaches for gender dysphoria.
Represented by Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF), Dr Josephson sued the university in 2019, alleging a campaign of harassment and retaliation for voicing mainstream clinical concerns about the increasingly dominant ‘affirmative’ model of transgender care, which urges clinicians to unquestioningly validate a child’s stated gender identity and, where requested, support medical transition.
Last September, the US Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit ruled that Josephson’s case could proceed to trial, rejecting the university’s claims to qualified immunity and confirming that his comments were protected under the First Amendment.
Dr Josephson, who was hired in 2003 to lead a struggling division he later transformed into a nationally respected programme, had warned during the panel that the evidence for puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones was weak.
Anticipating key findings from the UK’s Cass Review (2024), he pointed to growing evidence that such interventions can cause serious harms, including long-term bone density loss and infertility.
Given “the tendency for gender dysphoria to subside by late adolescence”, he argued that the affirmative model “did not serve [children’s] long-term health interests”.
Instead, he advocated a ‘watchful waiting’ approach – a developmentally grounded strategy that closely monitors children without initiating medical or social transition until their identity stabilises with age.
After learning of his remarks, several university faculty and staff members – including individuals from the institution’s LGBT Centre – objected to his views. Their indignation deepened when they discovered he had expressed similar opinions as an expert witness in earlier state and federal lawsuits involving public school children seeking access to facilities inconsistent with their biological sex.
Court documents reveal one colleague complaining to another that Dr Josephson was “literally going against the scientific and ethical position of the profession… and getting paid to do it”, receiving the reply: “Definately [sic] agree.” Yet in later depositions, both interlocutors disclaimed any expertise in gender dysphoria and were unable to identify a single ethical guideline he had violated.
Remarkably, senior administrators moved swiftly to placate critics, demoting Dr Josephson to the role of junior faculty just seven weeks after the Heritage Foundation panel event.
For good measure, they also reduced his salary, retirement benefits and academic travel funds. Shortly after the demotion, the Chief of Staff to the Dean of School reassured one irate employee: “We’ve taken care of that,” in reference to Dr Josephson’s presentation.
Over the ensuing months, colleagues continued to belittle and berate him, causing irreparable damage to his professional career and reputation. He was barred from treating LGBTQ patients. He was illegally mandated to use transgender terminology – i.e., language inconsistent with biological sex. He was prevented from discussing gender dysphoria with students, stripped of his teaching duties and even temporarily banned from faculty meetings.
University officials also conspired to remove him entirely. Their efforts included keeping a bizarre “Allan tracking document”, soliciting complaints from alumni who were coached on what to say and discussing the need to generate “strong documentation” to ensure he would not be reappointed.
In an op-ed for the Daily Signal, Josephson recalled being “ostracised” and “subjected to other forms of hostility”, as faculty members demanded he apologise for his views on transgender issues, though without specifying to whom.
“Others remained silent, knowing which way the cultural winds were blowing,” he says. “I was stunned to realise I was actually being punished for doing what I was paid to do; namely, think and speak.”
The environment grew increasingly hostile until the university informed him of its highly unusual decision not to renew his contract when it expired on June 30th 2019, bringing a nearly 40-year academic career to an end.
Following his dismissal, he sued, and in March 2023 a federal district court ruled that a jury should hear his claims that university officials retaliated against him for his constitutionally protected speech.
The officials in question then appealed, arguing they were entitled to qualified immunity, which would have shielded them from trial. It was not clearly established, they claimed, that each defendant’s conduct, in isolation, showed retaliation against the professor because of his protected First Amendment speech. They further argued that it was “unclear” whether the First Amendment protected Dr Josephson’s off-campus, off-the-clock remarks.
In response, his counsel pointed out that this was effectively to ask the Court to ignore “decades of established precedent – from this Court and the Supreme Court – that protects professors’ right to express their views on public issues off campus, prohibits public universities from retaliating against professors who exercise this right, and allows wrongly terminated professors to seek reinstatement”.
Last year, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals rejected the defendants’ argument and sent the case back to the district court for jury trial.
Facing the prospect of a public trial, the university opted to settle before proceedings began.
“I’m glad to finally receive vindication for voicing what I know is true,” said Dr Josephson following news of the settlement. “Children deserve better than life-altering procedures that mutilate their bodies and destroy their ability to lead fulfilling lives.”
Despite the ordeal, he said he is “overwhelmed” to know that his case may help other medical professionals speak more freely: “Acceptance of one’s sex leads to flourishing.”
“After several years, free speech and common sense have scored a major victory on college campuses,” said ADF Senior Counsel Travis Barham. “Dr Josephson’s case illustrates why – because the latest and best science confirms what he stated all along. Hopefully, other public universities will learn that if they violate the First Amendment, they can be held accountable – and it can be very expensive.”
Dr Frederick Attenborough is the Executive Director of Communications and Research at the Free Speech Union.
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.
Covid: Wales’ top doctor not ruling out future lockdowns – BBC News
“Top Doctor”…….oh yeah?
“The highest-paid public officials in Wales including 14 who earn £200,000 in salary alone”
“Dr Frank Atherton, chief medical officer, NHS Wales: £200-205,000″
Unlikely that he has a £60 overdraft for some kitchen shelves from IKEA.
Well ‘bottom doctor’ might lead to the odd misunderstanding!
Credit to Putin for becoming a warmongering lunatic faster than Donald Trump [/sarc].
I’m not the first here to recommend it but Oliver Stone’s documentary Ukraine On Fire is worth a look. A house down the road has been flying two flags – the blue and yellow, and a black and red. I had no idea what that represented. Ukraine On Fire was an unsettling education.
Thee are plenty more documentaries on the 8 year killing of Russian speaking inhabitants ( 14,000 casualties) of the Donbas caused by the constant shelling by Ukrainian Neo Nazi militias, sworn to eradicate all Russians and Russian speakers – plenty of interviews with locals, film of damage to houses and public buildings, pictures of children collecting shell fragments and vox pops- strangely though we never see them, or any objective reporting on the BBC.
Why do people think that the Russian viewpoint is censored in a way never before seen on Western media but the Western viewpoint is not censored on Russian media?
Why are the West’s rulers so frightened of people hearing the Russian version of events?
We didn’t even have censorship like this during WW2.
The answers are obvious of course.
You must be kidding. Putin has shut down any Russian media which took a critical view – let alone foreign media.
He hasn’t even admitted there’s a war on yet! What do you think? Is it a war or not?
Oddly, top Russian officials throwing around the term “war” have not been jailed.
Last year, 2021…Zelenskyy shut down all opposition media….
pot….kettle!
Not only shut down but openly stated he was implementing a “unified information policy”! He has also banned 11 opposition parties and arrested the leader of the largest.
Have you actually watched Russian media? I watch RT and whilst biased towards Russia, in most news bulletins they give some airtime to the Ukrainian view also. This never happens on the BBC, ITV, CNN etc.
The West is guilty of shutting down media they don’t like with the UK, EU and USA all shutting down RT and cancelling their broadcast license. Russia shut down Western media in retaliation for the Wests actions.
Flat out untrue. Clearly you don’t actually watch the BBC. They routinely interview Russian spokesman. Not that it’s worth it.
It does not happen on their news programs. It may on dedicated comment shows such as Hard Talk which have far lower audiences. When was the last time they sat down and gave fair reporting to the Russian view on Radio 4’s 6:00pm bulletin or The World at One. I don’t listen every day as I cannot afford to waste that much time, but I have never, not once, seen them give the Russian side on either of these flagship programs since the current conflict started.
I’m sorry, but I’ve seen enough of Lavrov spouting crap to suffice a lifetime.
The BBC is funded by Government and is probably the most biased news outlet in this country.
As I have got much of my news from Russian tv and those linked into Russian news I really cannot agree with this.
I see the trolls have pounced and more will follow – to push us into correct thinking again.
What they don’t realise is that very many people on this site have been pushed within an inch of our lives over the last two years. We don’t like; it we recognise it when we see it; and we resist it.
The great consolation for us is how interesting the world is once our eyes are opened; how many interesting people and viewpoints we discover.
Ditto!
It’s also worth taking a look at Stone’s four-part interview with Putin, if people do indeed want to see for themselves how “mad” he is.
I don’t suggest that only one conclusion will be drawn about Putin; I’m sure people will have differing opinions. But at least they will be our own.
This is Part 1:
The Putin Interviews Part 1 : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive
Thanks.
Thanks that was very enjoyable and no I don’t believe for one minute he is ‘mad’. I believe him to be a sincere person who loves his country.
Unlike the traitors in Westminster.
Read what the Empire of Lies and their media manipulators are getting the Western public to support. ‘Stand with Ukraine’ and stand for white supremacism, racism, fascism, state sanctioned thuggery and the murder of all political opponents……https://theduran.com/zelenskys-secret-cia-nazi-ukrainian-government/
And I tell you who I also think has Nazi roots – the EU and the W.E.F.
I’ve purposely avoided the Ukraine conflict, because it was pretty obviously a very grubby affair covered in the grim of Hunter Buydem’s laptop and that family’s dealings with the puppet Ukraine “government”. It was also clear that the comedian “PM” and his cabinet of show buz types were pushing out never ending fake news to our appallingly gullible journalists.
So, I never thought I would read anything that I would not only agree with, but learn more than I have sitting on social media hearing all about the atrocities being committed by the Ukrainians (not all social media is run by the censoring Internet Mafia).
However, the article is utterly superb. It should be required reading for every politician, journalist and social media pundit.
Our ‘journalists’ arent gullible. They know pertfectly well what they are doing. Lying is the number one job requirement for a Fleet Street apperatchik, and if they can act as well, they might even make it onto tv.
Gonzalo Lyra was an independent Chilean journalist working in Kharkov.
A writer from the Daily Beast drew the Ukrainian government’s attention to him by asking them what they knew about him.
He was abducted by the Azov people last week,
He has now reportedly been murdered by them.
So good to see Western democracy in action. Let’s spread it round the world.
Yes, many Ukrainians opposed to Zelensky and his Neo Nazis have also disappeared presumed murdered. A pro-Russian Mayor ( there are many) in the Donbas was kidnaped and murdered.
They arent ‘disappeared presumed murdered’. The systematic demonisation, terrorising, tracking down, and killing, of political opponents, which includes not only opposition politicians, but also investigative journalists who are digging too deeply, is well documented.
The murders are carried out in broad daylight with those responsible being openly rewarded by CIA/cabal backed and funded Zelensky..
“On April 15, 2015, Oleh Kalashnikov, a politician from the pro-Russia Party of Regions, the party of ousted president Victor Yanukovych, was shot to death in Kiev. The next day, Oles Buzina, a prominent journalist and author who advocated for unity among Ukraine, Belarus, and Russia and campaigned to outlaw neo-Nazi organizing, was shot and killed near his apartment. The culprits were found to be Andrey Medvedko and Denis Polishchuk, neo-Nazis who had served in government and military positions – their confessions were published by Shariy. Yet Buzina’s murderers not only walk free but have received government funding. …”
Gonzalo Lira
@realGonzaloLira
·Mar 26
You want to learn the truth about the Zelensky regime? Google these names:
Vlodymyr Struk
Denis Kireev
Mikhail & Aleksander Kononovich
Nestor Shufrych
Yan Taksyur
Dmitri Djangirov
Elena Berezhnaya
If you haven’t heard from me in 12 hours or more, put my name on this list.
His last tweet……
Prayers for Gonzalo!
While I deplore what’s happening in Ukraine the world seems to have forgotten over another nasty ongoing conflict.
The Saudi Arabian led war in Yemen has led to 20.7 million in need of humanitarian aid, 111,000 killed since 2015, and 4.2 million people internally displaced.
Where is the condemnation of Saudi and their allies?
Why would there be condemnation? That war and that mass slaughter doesn’t obstruct the goals of our ruling elites in the US sphere, which is what triggers the condemnation by our media and political elites, which in turn motivates the mass propaganda to generate condemnation in the masses.
The Saudis are our allies and work with the Deep State.
They can do no wrong.
Will anyone here ‘be heading’ to Saudi Arabia for their Summer holidays?
Ah but the Saudis are different – they get free pass on human rights and warmongering.
And blowing up Twin Towers.
But that action gave a convenient excuse to remove Saddam
Yes..I agree, there’s a lot of holier than thou stuff going on about Ukraine, which is totally hypocritical. I think the new number up to last year are now nearly 400.000 deaths and sixteen million walking towards ‘unprecedented’ starvation, according to the UN…and the cherry on the cake is that a report by the ‘Campaign against the arms trade’ group, showed that although the UK said it’s arms sales to Saudi, at the start of the Yemeni war was around £1.5.billion…the use of the opaque ‘open licence’ system showed those sales were in fact nearer £20 billion…..
Hard to square that with faux hand-wringing about Russia invading a sovereign country!
Also forgotten the thousands being slaughtered and injured by mRNA experimentation un pursuit of the impossible, the eradication of a respiratory virus.
Or genocide as I prefer to call it.
Wrong term, even if it really were a killer. Unless you’re claiming the vaccine can pick out specific races.
The vax uptake among the darker-complexioned in Western countries does seem to have lagged somewhat, so it may not need to pick out specific races, since they’ve self-selected to a degree.
Like other autocrat-led invasions, the military objective is largely in the mind of one man. Whatever happens on the ground, Putin tells us that’s what he intended to happen. If only politics were that easy…
However, both the scale of the attack and the method makes it certain that Kyiv was an original war aim. The elite troops dropped ahead to take Hostomel Airport only make sense in the context of taking the whole city. It also shows that Putin expected low resistance. In the event, lacking heavy armour, they were driven out with heavy losses.
Putin is not an idiot. These were elite troops, rated among the best in Russia’s army. Not to be thrownaway for nothing.
He may have hoped for an Afghan style collapse – but the opposite happened. Ukrainian patriotic resistance has soared. Putin was guilty of believing his own propaganda, that Ukraine is not a ‘real’ state and that the people wouldn’t defend it.
But Russia still has a massive military advantage. Putin is moving to what should have been his target in the first place – the Donbass. Contrary to what the article argues, it has been reported again and again that this could be the battle where the war is decided.
However, the chances that he can take over the whole country and impose a proxy government have almost certainly gone. This means that the only chance for peace is defeat for Putin and (probably as a result) his removal from office.
A divided Ukraine can never be at peace.
If Putin takes a third or half the country, we will be left with a new Palestinian problem, but on a much vaster scale. Whereas if he is defeated, Ukraine will disappear very quickly as an issue.
“However, both the scale of the attack and the method makes it certain that Kyiv was an original war aim.“
In fact, the contrary is probably the case, although it depends how you use the terms involved.
It is transparently clear from the forces deployed that there was no intention by the Russians to take Kiev by storm against military opposition . The numbers deployed are an order of magnitude, at least, too small for any such intent.
You can certainly argue that there was an intelligence failure that the Russians acted on, which meant they did not expect to have to fight, and that’s quite plausible, but any such plan would have been backed by alternatives in case it did not work out for them.
Much more plausible that the intention was to occupy Kiev if resistance collapsed, but otherwise to act as a diversionary attack to keep reserves from the Donbass, as Ritter and others suggest.
“However, the chances that he can take over the whole country and impose a proxy government have almost certainly gone. “
No reason to suppose he had any such intentions, and many to believe the opposite. Putin’s concerns have always been to try to keep the Ukraine (Crimea aside, for obvious and imo very good reasons) united but neutral. That’s what his words and Russia’s actions over the past 8 years prior to being forced to act this year have indicated.
“A divided Ukraine can never be at peace.“
The past 8 years have demonstrated that a “united” Ukraine in the borders set by the Soviet Union and under the rule of western Ukrainian nationalist fanatics, can never be at peace. At least, not so long as the US regime seeks to use it as a weapon against Russia.
The Ukrainians will have to come to terms with their more powerful neighbour, as all nations do. It’s their choice how painful they make learning that realist lesson.
The initial forces including the elite parachute regiment were not sufficient to take Kyiv if they faced unified resistance. The fact that they were deployed like this tells us, they expected the government to collapse.
The later much larger 30k column of troops might have done the job, but it got trapped on the approach road in an area where boggy terrain made it difficult to deploy. They were like the Persians at Thermopylae – forced to fight on a narrow front.
There’s every reason to think that Putin expected Zelensky’s government to collapse. Putin hoped to get most of the country without a fight.
Putin has encouraged not just Crimea but also the Donbass republics to split from Ukraine.
His aim has always been to retain a proxy government in Kyiv, like the one he has in Belarus. Whether the country it rules gets called Ukraine or Russia is kind of irrelevant.
“The initial forces including the elite parachute regiment were not sufficient to take Kyiv if they faced unified resistance. The fact that they were deployed like this tells us, they expected the government to collapse.
The later much larger 30k column of troops might have done the job, but it got trapped on the approach road in an area where boggy terrain made it difficult to deploy. They were like the Persians at Thermopylae – forced to fight on a narrow front.”
Again, the overall numbers were not remotely enough – as I said, by orders of magnitude – to take a city the size of Kiev against any meaningful military resistance. That includes elite troop presence and bogged down columns.
“There’s every reason to think that Putin expected Zelensky’s government to collapse. Putin hoped to get most of the country without a fight.”
As I wrote, an intelligence failure of this kind is plausible. It simply reinforces the point that there was never an intention to take Kiev against meaningful opposition, so while they were positioned to take it if the ideal case materialised, the intention was far more likely to have been a diversion.
“Putin has encouraged not just Crimea but also the Donbass republics to split from Ukraine.”
This is outright false. The Russian government – based on its actions as much as its words – has bent over backwards to try to resolve the matter via autonomy within the Ukraine (the basis of the Minsk 2 accords).
And for good strategic reasons – the departure of the Donbass weakens pro-Russian political forces within the Ukraine.
Crimea as I said is a very different matter – should never have been part of the Ukraine.
Putin has renounced the Minsk accords and was never serious about them. The fact is that for Ukraine, it was the equivalent of the Munich Agreement. It could only ever have achieved a ceasefire, not a permanent peace.
The Russians in general (not just Putin) have accepted now that the Minsk accords were a harmful waste of time because it became evident that the Ukrainian side never intended, or never had the capability of living up to them. That’s only after, however, the Russian government, and Putin personally, invested considerable effort into trying to make them work.
As I noted, for good strategic reasons – it was better for Russia to have the pro-Russian Donbass populations inside the Ukraine countering the political influence of the nationalists.
The Minsk agreements were basically unobjectionable to reasonable folk. The Ukrainian nationalists have been murdering people to avoid having to give them pretty much what we give the Welsh and Scots.
Zelensky was even elected to implement them, because that’s what the Ukrainian people mostly wanted. But he was threatened by violent nationalists if he tried to do so, and changed his tune after getting into power.
Russia saw Minsk as a way to give the rebel republics sufficient power, that they would hold an effective veto over Ukrainian foreign policy, including whether to join the EU or NATO.
In this form it was never viable. Russia feigned interest when it suited for PR purposes.
I’m partial to the widely-reported theory that Russia only intended to bind Ukrainian troops, in and around Kyiv, while Russia created a cauldron around Donbas. It appears to have succeeded in spectacular fashion. And I suspect that generals will be studying the strategy for generations.
Ukraine’s best troops were and still are in the east. Just as Russia has been able to redeploy from Kyiv, so has Ukraine.
Also, what you surely cannot miss is the huge boost in morale Ukrainians have from defending Kyiv. Most armies aren’t defeated – they run away.
Why is this downticked? There are four factual statements here, all true.
Or is someone going to deny that Ukraine’s best troops are in the east? That Russia and Ukraine have been able to move troops east? That the removal of troops from around Kiev has boosted Ukrainian morale? That most armies withdraw?
Surely such facts are neutral.
What are the “facts” and how do you know they are facts? How many of Ukraine’s best troops are in the east and how do you know this is a fact?
How do you know that Russia has redeployed? How do you know that Kyiv was just a feint? How do you know that Russia isn’t targeting civilians?
Yes but the majority of the population of this site are not rational people.
I don’t see much boost in morale outside of Western media hype. The only morale boost I have seen is real Ukrainians overjoyed at the appearance of Russian soldiers who they praise as liberators.
So you missed the interview with the woman whose husband was killed while they raped her in front of her child?
You really have swallowed the Russian line.
It really is astonishing that the “sceptics” overwhelmingly side with Russia.
They swallow all the Russian propaganda whole, repeat the exact phrases they are taught and reject inconvenient facts.
Which inconvenient facts would those be then?
I haven’t seen any come from you or Fingal, just repeating what you have been fed isn’t factual.
Yet, you cast aspersions that those taking an opposing view to yours are “Russian propaganda” without the realisation that you are only echoing “Western propaganda” seems somewhat hypocritical, don’t you think?
And are you “sceptics” not repeating facts you have also been fed, but from a different source? Have you been on the ground for several months witnessing events on both sides?
The situation in Ukraine is complicated, but you lot take your Putin apologist support to an unreal level.
Well actually no, I am not a “Putin apologist” and no, I am not repeating facts from a different source. Merely gathering information from both sides of the fence trying to get a better understanding of what is going on.
Unfortunately it’s difficult due to the propaganda being spewed from both sides.
Not entirely being helped by people like you, throwing accusations about when you are clearly biased towards one side, but add nothing new to the conversation, only repeating parrot fashion what I have already heard from the propaganda machine.
In fairness, I’m not that interested in this border dispute, which has nothing to do with me or you. But the incredible amount of hype surrounding it.
The only thing that concerns me is the damage being done to ordinary people that have no say in their governments actions. No matter which side they are on.
For the record, I have been careful to look at both sides of this mess, and have come to the conclusion that many on here, in particular, are more selective of “their” facts than they believe they are. I responded to your comment because you appeared to be unreceptive and scathing, as many on here are, to ANY opinion other than the prevailing one, which seems to be that the Russian side has been grievously wronged.
Don’t worry. I shall not be commenting again. There is no discussion here, other than between like minds. The rest get downticked. That isn’t a problem, it simply means you are talking to one another in a vacuum.
Enjoy yourselves.
Very well, go back to a vacuum you are more comfortable with.
You clearly didn’t come here to have a discussion, but rather try and enforce your opinion on others.
I don’t give a damn about opinions, I’m trying to glean fact from fiction.
So far I’ve found dirty laundry in all the baskets, war like life isn’t fair, get over it. Or don’t, not my problem.
Yet you overwhelmingly support Putin’s invasion and repeat the stated Russian rationale verbatim.
Do I? Where?
Just because I can see their perspective, that automatically puts me in a position of support, does it?
For the last time, neither side in this conflict are correct, or “clean”.
Your blind support for the government of the Ukraine, is as bad as support for Putin as far as I’m concerned.
Conscripted troops and civilians are dying, for what?
I have Ukrainian friends who are vehemently opposed to Russia and others who are 100% supportive of Russia’s current action. One lady from Kiev has seen so much corruption since 2014 with her husband with may others in the Ukrainian postal service being unpaid for nine months in 2017 that she has for years yearned for Russia to ‘rescue’ Ukraine.
I don’t think we can say that either side is coming out of this smelling of roses and I tend to think from all the evidence available that Ukraine is actual the more corrupt and evil country.
The West should not be prolonging this war with weapons that will just result in the deaths of more Ukrainian citizens and Russian soldiers
This is fine, so long as you don’t argue that Ukraine was any less corrupt under Russian proxy leaders.
Ukraine has been on the up in recent years, despite having to fight a permanent low level war against Putin’s boys in the Donbass.
Interesting to see the correct description of the Donbass dispute.
A real rarity.
So what have you “looked at” and what did you see? How do you know what you “looked at” was what you think you saw? The only “fact” any of you know is that you know nothing about what is happening over there.
We know people are dying, many of them innocent. It was the same in Iraq and Afghanistan and Syria and Yugoslavia. It’s the same in Yemen. It’s always the same when major powers play their geopolitical games.
We know that there are Nazis who seem to have much control over the Ukrainian government, that’s a real concern. We know that the actions of NATO over the last 14 years or longer are part of the reason this mess is happening at all. That is made quite clear in the article above.
Russia has been grievously wronged. Since the collapse of the Soviet empire when they were promised that NATO would “not advance one inch towards Russia”. Now that is an actual “fact”. How would the US react if this was Russia advancing right up to the US border? Oh, we know how that worked out. Look up the Cuban missile crisis.
We know nothing about the reality on the ground over there, but we can easily see how the situation arose and need look no further than the US and NATO.
Yes this is an echo chamber for disagreeable people.
They disagree with ANYTHING that is the accepted reality, just on some sort of deranged principle.
Your comment is correct, they are a disgrace.
Sigh. And you just repeat what you’ve been fed.
Let’s not waste time with this kind of insult. You trust different sources, but I’m not seeing any good reason why, apart from the bland ‘MSM are all liars’ line.
I haven’t been fed anything, unlike you, I have the ability to see both sides of the narrative and make up my own mind, not blindly follow a set of instructions or prompts to tell me what to think.
Understand?
So what sources do you trust? Some examples of the information you believe and where it comes from would be great.
‘MSM are all liars’ line…
This is their religion….
Such as the fact that Russia was under no form of threat whatsoever from Ukraine.
Is that a fact or opinion?
So, by all accounts, Putin just got out of bed one morning and decided “I will have vodka for breakfast, then invade the Ukraine”
Because he is insane, drunk and evil?
Right, OK.
Is that accurate?
There you go. Precisely what I was talking about.
Exactly, you have proven yourself to be one sided in a two sided debate.
So why did Putin invade the Ukraine?
This is what I want to know, not who is the bigger despot.
Both sides are to blame for this conflict, and pretending otherwise is just following the herd.
You know what “Superunknown”?
I’ve just finished watching an episode of Monty Python. You lot make as much sense as they did, but they at least were usually amusing whilst not making sense. Cheers.
I’m glad you enjoyed it, so you didn’t understand Monty Python? Pretty straight forward humour, usually mocking the system, maybe that’s why you didn’t quite get it.
Actually the vast majority of Monty Python was rubbish.
People just said they liked it, because their peers said they did.
Not much different to the behaviour on this site.
Well that’s your opinion, not a fact is it?
What were you talking about? I still don’t understand other than you “looked at both sides” and now you apparently know what’s happening.
Well he actually decided some time ago and massed troops for months on the border. Or perhaps you consider this a MSM lie as well.
Did I say he didn’t? No.
So once again, your point is mute.
Surely nobody in their right mind could be this naive? Did you even bother to read the article? Here’s a link to videos from somebody who actually understands what is happening and who predicted it 7 years ago.
https://search.brave.com/videos?q=john%20mearshimer
You’ve explained it to him before – but it’s a troll and has no interest in entering a reasoned debate. Best ignore it – apart from flagging its comments!
I actually don’t agree that Fingal is a troll. I think he makes the arguments he can for the position he believes in.
I can and do criticise his style and approach – he often ignores points that run counter to his own position and repeats previously refuted assertions, and he often responds to points that were not made, but in that he’s only human, and in the end like the covid panickers and the BLM race-baiters, he’s forced to argue from a fundamentally false position, so he is always going to struggle.
I might be wrong, obviously, and he might be an employee somewhere just doing what he can to disrupt and obfuscate, but I give him the benefit of the doubt. If I had to guess I’d say he is someone highly personally motivated to defend the Ukrainian nationalist position.
But speculations about motivation are always just that. Points can be refuted regardless, even if only for practice and intellectual exercise.
I actually don’t agree that Fingal is a troll. I think he makes the arguments he can for the position he believes in.
And there I must part company with you. He spends far too much time pushing the mainstream narratives to be anything other than a troll.
That’s fair enough. These assessments are inherently rebuttable, and reasonable men can disagree about them.
Okay.
And for people who push Russian propaganda ( i.e. the majority around here ) They have a very common script, don’t you think?
Do you have examples of the “Russian propaganda” and the “very common script”? We have one story above about the obviously factual report from “the woman who was raped while the her child watched the Russians murder her husband”. I was surprised the child wasn’t impaled on a pitchfork while it was all happening. That would have made it a really bad “factual” report. How can anyone print that as a fact if they weren’t there to witness it?
Do you remember the stories from the Iraq invasion of Kuwait? The sobbing, wide eyed, pretty young woman who told us how the brutal Iraqi soldiers threw the babies out of the incubators onto the floor and took the incubators back to Iraq? How horrified we all were. Only one problem, it never happened.
Nobody here has any idea what is really happening on the ground. There have been some videos released that were obviously staged, there were others that obviously weren’t. “The first casualty in war is truth”. Truer words were never spoken.
Agree. But if the purpose of the trolling is to take over threads and thwart honest debate then ”fingal’and ‘tree’ are quite effective given the numbers seeking to defeat them in honest but futile debate.
Oh, come on! Not everyone who pushes a mainstream narrative is a troll! By your definition most people are trolls, and that is just silly.
The hallmark of a troll is not that he holds a common position.
I agree! I may be in a minority here, but I guarantee you it’s one of the few places I would be.
FYI I joined this site out of curiosity to see another point of view on covid. And while there’s lots of trash here, some of the articles are genuinely interesting.
What I did not expect was the way this has morphed into so many other subjects, from Ukraine to climate change. Most people who were lockdown sceptics also turned out to be vaccine sceptics. And indeed, sceptics of almost any action that would actually inhibit the virus, except for fringe and crank treatments.
Now it’s become apparent that many of the same people support just about any conspiracy theory that’s going, such as secret world elites. (NB I have no idea about you personally.)
The destruction of faith in democratic governments and media is, IMO, one of the most dangerous forces in society. This way lies QAnon.
With Ukraine, it’s extraordinary to watch people defend the integrity of a known liar and anti-democratic autocrat – Putin – over the west.
Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me. Once trust is lost, it’s gone for good.
Having been so openly, intentionally and systematically lied to about covid, and having seen the way dissent was suppressed and, again systematically, excluded from the public square, one tends to be much more alert to these kinds of manipulations in other areas.
This was never a site devoted exclusively to lockdowns, or even covid. The owner, Toby Young, was very clear in covering other issues where scepticism was required in response to Official Truth tactics from those who can in practice control the mainstream message.
We’ve been swept up in three mass hysterias based upon elite manipulation of this kind in the past three years – covid and lockdown, the BLM dogma, and now the Ukraine nonsense. On a slightly longer term scale, you can add climate alarmism.
It’s not a coincidence that people who see through one tend to see through others, because the techniques and attitudes are very similar. They do tend to appeal to slightly different demographics, though, as can be seen from, the way the Ukraine hysteria has caught up much more of those on the political right, who were able to resist the others (based as they were in the ideological woke left, mostly) but are vulnerable to jingoism, militarism, and lingering Cold War delusions.
Well it was caller “Lockdown sceptics” until he decided to widen the market to a wider audience. BUT, it turned out to be exactly the same people, he’s appealed to.
Somewhat makes Fingal’s point.
Lurking around on DS must be the number one item on your job description. Go and get an honest job!
If you take a position arguing against lockdown and/or vaccines on science or events, I’m interested.
But if you oppose everything on the grounds of an alleged plot for world mastery, it’s outright conspiracy land and I couldn’t disagree more.
Covid has been bad news for Johnson, as it has for most leaders in most countries. Even the ones who looked good for a period (eg Xi) ended up with egg on their face.
Responses to covid have been similar across the world, including every kind of government, and even outright enemies.
So if you get drawn into claiming Johnson’s government has faked the whole covid story, you end up having to say everyone else did too. Very quickly you’re into global elite territory.
This terrifically undermines the credibility of all the (potentially reasonable) scientific arguments, as the judgement of the people making them is, to say the least, rendered suspect.
BTW I should think Toby looks at this site and thinks, what a bunch of lunatics I seem to have recruited.
“Responses to covid have been similar across the world, including every kind of government, and even outright enemies.”
I challenge this statement. I live in Texas where we hardly locked down at all – full lockdown less than five weeks and even then it was widely ignored. Many, myself included have never worm a mask other than to board an aircraft. A few miles away Louisiana had one of the harshest, longest US lock downs yet has higher death and case rates. All across the US, states that did almost nothing have similar or better outcomes than locked down states.
I don’t think Johnson or anyone else faked the Covid story, what they did was use it for their own philosophical ends. They, along with most governments, yearn for greater control of the population to help them retain power and an illness that was severe in its early iteration gave them an opening to achieving a level of control only previously dreamed of.
I’m talking at the national level, not small scale local variations.
We’ve got polar opposite governments like China and New Zealand, yet both going for zero covid.
The only common factor of any significance was the tendency for populist leaders to claim they could magic things awa (Bolsinaro, Trump, Erdogan) – although even they took at least some action.
NZ is not going for zero covid. The fact you don’t know this makes anything else you post likely just as unreliable.
They were for a long period while we faced more dangerous variants and vaccine roll-out was incomplete. Now they have switched tactics, which makes sense.
The fact that you don’t know this makes all of your posts uninteresting.
They did for a long while, until mass vaccination had been done.
The result for them was excellent, in terms of covid deaths.
Obviously it’s not compatible with the anti-vaxx line popular around here.
Actually Toby has got what he has worked for. This site has tirelessly fed nonsense to these people. The articles published have been overwhelmingly anti-vaxx and more recently, Russian leaning.
Basically anything anti-establishment, to build an audience.
The good news is that the numbers are dwindling.
That explains a lot. ‘Most people turned out to be vaccine sceptics’…well yes that’s because they were right to…I haven’t seen one bit of clear clinical evidence that that view is wrong for the vast majority of people and especially children. You obviously came to have a look but learned nothing it seems….
So it clears some stuff up doesn’t it? You basically believe what the Government and media tell you, and you don’t like any of us who question it…simples!
Try reading some of the clinical trial documents, or vaccine surveillance reports.
Most people make the mistake of acquiring their opinions from the people around them, which often includes the dishonest analysis in articles posted on this site.
LOL….I’ve read them all, as has pretty much everyone on here! Bless! The difference is I’ve understood them, and looked for verification…..get thee to the Guardian…..!!!
Well you will have seen the data and KNOW the efficacy.
I don’t see you are your peers pointing out the errors in the maths or any other argument.
The fact that you consider it “all lies” is just a conspiracy theory line.
“Well you will have seen the data and KNOW the efficacy”
Would that be the couple of weeks before you need another shot? Meanwhile your immune system basically stops working, not to mention natural immunity is far better. Not my words, but the evidence from Pfizer’s own research, but if you had bothered to read it then you would have already known that.
No you are just making stuff up, or repeating what someone else made up.
All this made up stuff, you mean? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7YOD9drZasM Video explaining part of the first batch of documents released, by court order, that Pfizer wanted to keep hidden for seventy-five years. https://phmpt.org/ Direct link to said Pfizer documents, some of which contain all the facts I have stated in my comment. And for your pleasure, a list of “conspiracy theorists” who have considerably more scientific knowledge on the subject, which makes your opinion worthless. Peter Aaby, MSc, DMScHead of Bandim Health Project, Guinea-Bissau, University of Southern Denmark, Copenhagen, Denmark Peter AbdelmalakAdjunct Professor, Mcmaster University Erich Acebedoo, MD Ebad Ahmadzadeh, PhD Ilze Aizsilniece, MD Paul E. Alexander, PhDFormer WHO-PAHO and US Health and Human Services (HHS) evidence-synthesis consultant/senior COVID Pandemic advisor Veleka Allen, PhD Sergio Alonso, DO Dunya Amash, MD David Ambaye, PhD Donna Ames, MDRetired Professor UCLA and retired Veterans Affairs Psychiatrist Nongnush Ammoury, PharmD, PhD Peppa Anthi, MD Robert Ardecky, PhD Patrick Armistead-jehle, PhD George Armstrong, MD Konstantinos Arvanitis, MD, PhD Branson Ashleigh, PhD Steven Athanail, MD Bryan Atkinson, MD Rajeshwar Awatramani, PhD Jaya Bahel, MD Sameer Baig, MD Samantha Bailey, MD Alan Bain, DO David Baker, PhD Cristina Barbera, DO Vladislav Bargman, MD Ana Baroni, MD, PhD Richard Bartlett, MD Jason Beam, PhDAdjunct Instructor, Tulane University School of Professional Advancement, Kinesiology Department Ralph Behrens, MD Patricia Bell, MD Massimo Belladonna, MD Paula Belloni, PhD Ludmila Bendova, MD Robert Benkendorf, MD Christine Stabell Benn, MD, PhD, DMScProfessor of Global Health, University of Southern Denmark, Copenhagen, Denmark Doug Benson, MD Natalia Berkovich, MD Wanderley Bernardo, MD, PhDProfessor at São Paulo University (USP), Medical School (FMUSP), Brazil Brian Bernhardt, MD Ira Bernstein, MDFamily and Community Medicine, University of Toronto Leslie Bernstein, PhD, MA, MFT, PsyD Aditi Bhargava, PhDProfessor Emerita Department of ObGyn and Reproductive Sciences University of California San Francisco Roberto Biagio, MD Dick Bijl, MSc, MD, PhD Marguerite Billbrough, MD Peter Billing, MD, FACS Lionel Bissoon, DO Joshaun Blackmon, MD Marsha Blakeslee, DORetired former tenured Professor of Physics (University of Ottawa) Researcher, Ontario Civil Liberties Association Calvin Blount, MD, MDVIP Mary Bluntzer, MD Sietske Boeles, MD, MRCPsych, MPH Luis Bonilla, BS, MS, MSc, MPH, MSD, GCB, PhD Elijah Bonnell, PhD Mark Borello, MD László G. Boros, MD Andrew Bostom, MD, MSAssociate Professor of Family Medicine (Research), The Warren Alpert Medical School of Brown University Jake Bostrom, MDScientific Advisor, SIDMAP, LLC and the Deutenomics Science Institute Mohamed Bouarfa, MD Mary Talley Bowden, MD Thomas Bowman, PhD Anooshirvan Bozorgmehr, DO Blanka Brabencová , MD Kurt Bravata, MD David Bravo, MD, MSC Rachel Brenn, PhD Julio Bretas, MD Andrea Breuer, MD Byram W. Bridle, PhDAssociate Professor of Viral Immunology, Department of Pathobiology, University of Guelph, Ontario Christopher Britt, DO Elisabeth Brockie, DO Bob Bronson, MD, DO, PhD Anthony J. Brookes, PhDProfessor of Genetics, University of Leicester, Leicester, United Kingdom Douglas Brooks, MD Carole H Browner, PhD, MPHDistinguished Research Professor, UCLA David Geffen School of Medicine Pablo Buono, MD Chris Burks, MD António Caiado, MD Carrie Cannon, MD Robert Cartwright, DO, ND Zana Carver, PhD Dianna Carvey, DO Thomas Causey, PhD Eladivid Cent, MD Lora Chamberlain, DO Daniel Chan, PhD Kerry Chandler, MD Lilian Chang, MD Theodota Chasapi, MD Shankara Chetty, MD Heather Church, PhD Robert J. Cihak, MDFormer President, Association of American Physicians and Surgeons, Inc. Kathy Clarke, MD Paul Cohen, MD Ryan Cole, MD, FCAP Joel Colley, MD Josephine Collins, PhD Linda Collins, MD, PhD Kelly Conaty, MD Herr Cong, PhD Christine Coniglio, PhD, ABD Maria Conwell, MD Deborah Cook, MD American Board of Pediatrics Cary Cook, PhD Rachel Corbett, MD Marco Cosentino, MD, PhD Stefan Coskun, MD Neil Creamer, PhD Tom Crisp, DO Don Cruise, MD Rafael Cruz Pagan, MD Maria Cunha, MD Cintia Cuperman, MD Hmel Da, MD Anthony DAgostino, MD, FACP Bjorn Dajoak, MD David d’Albany, PhD Joe Dana, PhD Edmond Dano, MD Elena Iulia Darie, MD Jason Dausman, MD Roberto Davila, PhD Jeffrey Davis, MD Valle De Beraca, MD Thomas de Brigard, MD Niek de Grap, MD Anton de Ruiter, PhD Sławomir Dębski, DO Daniel Decker, MD James DelloRusso, MD Thomas Denmark, MD Jenna Derr, MD John Dickerson, MD Mathew Divine, PhD Edward Dodge, MD Stephen Donahue, MD Peter Doshi, PhDAssociate Professor, Pharmaceutical Health Services Research, University of Maryland School of Pharmacy, Baltimore, Maryland, U.S.A. Henry Dowling, MD Pat U. Down, MD Susan Downs, MD, MPH, SM, MS Brian Dressen, PhD Valentin Drezaliu, MD Danielle Durant, PhD Hasan Ebrahim, MD Sarah Edmonds, PhD Felix Moyo Edonmi, MD John Edward, PhD Ryan Eggers, MD, MA Wesley Eichorn, DO Ronen Elefant, MD Kjetil Elvevold, MSc, PhD Hans Erdbrink, MD Birte Ernestus-Holtkamp, DO Yuriy Estrin , MD William Fanning, MD Mara Felder, DO Ryan Felix, DO John Ferrera, PhD Katherine Fierlbeck, PhDProfessor and Chair, Department of Political Science, Dalhousie University Ivan Figueroa, MD Olga Filipova, MD Candice Fitinur, MD Chris Fitzgerald, MD Crystal Flaman, DO Edward Fogarty, MD Sylvia FogelPsychiatrist, Mass General Brigham Instructor, Harvard Medical School Charles Forsyth, MD, MBBS, FFHom Konstantinos Fountzoulas, MD, MSC, FEBOT, FRCS Cathy Fournier, PhD Lauren Fox , MD Katy French, MD Michael Friel, MD Edgar Fronch, MD, PhD Karla Furlong, MD Lynn Fynn, MD Monica Gadidov, MD Steven Galkin, DO Carrie Ganek, MD Martina Garda, PhD Hugh Garse, MD Carol Garza , PhD Brad Geck, PhD Esther Geradeau, MD Richard Gerhauser, MD, MPH, MS, FACPM Sadaf Gilani, MD Jason Gilde, MD George Gillson, MD, PhD Mark Ginkel, MD, FACC Alina Ginzburg, MD Ronald Glas, MD Gregory Glatz, DO Marcos Gobbo, MD Jay Godchaux, MD Jules Gomes, PhD (Cantab) Nathan Goodyear, MD Peter C. Gøtzsche, Professor, DrMedSci, MD, MScDirector, Institute for Scientific Freedom, Copenhagen, Denmark Jazmin Graff, MD Janice E. Graham, PhD, FRSC, FCAHSDivision of Infectious Diseases, University research Professor, Dalhousie University Till Grave, MD, DO, PhD Wiebke Greggersen, MD Barney Gregson, MD Aaron Grierson, PhD Arthur Grinstead, MD Gert Grobler, MD, MBChB Holly Groh, MD Ann Grootegoed, DO Matthew Grunkemeyer, MD Fco Javier Guerrero, MD Josh Guetzkow , PhD Ernesto Gutierrez, MD Bassam Haddad, MD Joe Hagrate, MD, PhD Tina Hahn, MD Jack Hakoun, MD Dip. Sport Med (CASM) Ondrej Halgas, PhDBiomedical Researcher, University of Toronto Anthony Hall, PhD Mary Hall, MD Noelle Hance, MD Claus Hancke, MD, FACAM Sean Hamilton, MD Scott Hankinson, MD April Harding, PhD Leigh Hart, MD Mary Hauser, PhD John Hauser, PhD Richard Haycock, PhD Nan Hayworth, MD David Healy, MD, FRCPsychProfessor of Psychiatry, McMaster University, Ontario, Canada Marty Hearyman, MD Kris Held, MD Abigail Hemken, MD Lee Henderson, MD, FCAP Carl Heneghan, DPhil Alexandra Henrion Caude, PhD Pacho Hermano, Bapharm, MD Helma Hesse, MSc, MD, PhD Lowry Hickenbott, MD, PhD Thomas Hiekmann, MD James Hill, MD, JD Peter Himmel, MD Tony Hinton, MD, MB, ChB, FRCS Timothy Hipskind, MD Martin Hirte, MD Ernest Hoeckel, MD Susan Hoffman, MD Paul Hollier, MD John Holloway, DO Irwin Horwitz, PhD Mohamed Habib Houman, MD Jennifer Howard Smith, PhD Dugler Howitzer, MD April Hurley, MD Mohd Izwan Hussin, MD Matthew Imfeld, MD Stella Immanuel, MD Ivan Iroarte, MD, MS Gus Jakobs, MD, PhD, MBA Steve Jalsevac, MD Mollie James, DO Irene James, MD, PhD Jackson Jameson, MD Shibrah Jamil, MD Michelle Janse van Rensburg, PhD Robert Jantz, MD Kokot Jebavý, PhD Hugh Jedik, MD, PhD Tom Jefferson, MD MRCGP FFPHMSenior Associate Tutor, University of Oxford Connie Jimenez, PhD Surirose Johnson, MD Thomas Johnstone, PhD Sanja Jovanovic, MSc, MD Vinay Julapalli, MD, FACC Thomas Kachel, MD Jan Kapusnak, DO James Kayni, PhD Lisa Keep, MD, MPH Ulrich Keil, MD, PhD, FRCP Professor Emeritus, University of Muenster, Muenster, Germany Mark Kellen, MD Lisa Kellogg, DO Heather Kennedy, MD Michael Kent, MD Elton Kerr, MD, FRSM Mark Key, MD Aaron Kheriaty, MDProfessor of Psychiatry, UCI School of Medicine Director, Medical Ethics Program, UCI Health Eugene Killeavy, MD, FACC Sun Kim, MD Hyeksoo Kim, MD Joe King, PhD James Kirkbride, MD, PhD Donna Klay, MD Mikhail Konev, PhD Sue Konutz, MD Jacqueline Koski, DO, MPH Epameinondas Kostopoulos, MD, PhD Lawrence Kovac, DO, DVM Daniel Kraft, MD, MPH Barry Krakow, MD Festus Krebs III, MD Linda Krishna, MD Karmela Krleza-Jeric, MD, PhD Joseph A. Ladapo, MD, PhDAssociate Professor of Medicine, Division of General Internal Medicine and Health Services Research, David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA Merrill LaLonde, DO James LaMotte , PhD, OD Paula Landgraf, MD Stephen Latham, PhDDean, Professor and Socio-Ecological Resilience Specialist, School of Ecological Mission, Missional University Steven LaTulippe, MD Tess Lawrie, MBBCh, PhD CEO of The Evidence-Based Medicine Consultancy Ltd and EbMCsquared CiC Tsvetelina Lazarova, PhD N. Christine Le, MD Irith Lebovich, MD Justin LeeAssociate Editor, Arc Digital Patricia Lee , MD Lionel Lee, DO Paul Lee, MDAssociate Professor of Ophthalmology, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai Victor Leiserson, PhD Laurel R Lemasters, MD Trudo Lemmens, PhD Scholl Chair in Health Law and Policy, University of Toronto Ben Leo, MD Donald W. Light, PhDProfessor of Comparative Health Policy and Psychiatry, Rowan University School of Osteopathic Medicine, Glassboro, New Jersey, U.S.A. Katarina Lindley, DO, FACOFP Janci Lindsay, PhD Director Toxicology and Molecular Biology, Toxicology Support Services, LLC. Glenn Lipton, MD John Lock, MD Ethan Loeb, MD, MPH&TM George Lohmann, MD, FACS, FAANS Theresa Long, MD, MPH, FS Vanya Loroch, PhD Steven Lucking, MD Adam Lund, PhD Laura Lupini, PhD Celina Lyons, MD Celso M. Santos, MD, MPA, MPH Belle Mac, PhD Agnes MacDonald, PhD Douglas Mackenzie, MD, FACS Denise Mackler, MD Jeffrey Maher, MD Mersiha Mahmić-Kaknjo, MD, PhD Miltiades Makridis, BA, MSc, PhD Dennis Malandro, PhD Jimmy Malaver, MD Thomas Maler, PhD John Malkiewitz, MD Aggelos Margetis, MD Gia Marotta, MD Richard Marschall, PhD Robert Marsh, DO Leisha Martin, PhD Mignonne Mary, MD Sandra Massry, MD, IBCLC Edward Matalka, PhD Amanda Mayeaux, PhD Alicia Mcauliffe-fogarty, PhD Tami Meraglia, MD Meredith McBride, MD Debra McCollam, PhD Peter McCullough, MD, MPH, FACP, FACC, FCCP, FAHA, FNKF, FNLA, FCRSA David McGrath, MD Kevin Sidney McGuinness, MD, SMD, PhD Athena McLean, PhDProfessor Emerita, Medical Anthropology, Central MI University Kendra McMullin, PhD, PharmD Nathi Mdladla, MD Bonnie MallardProfessor of Immunogenetics, University of Guelph Paul Medhurst, PhD, NPP Maarten Meerdonk, PhD Rantje Meierkord, MD Christoph Melcher, PhD Babak Memari, PhD Alberto Mendez, MD Brooks Mick, MD Kimberly Milhoan, MD, FASA Ana Mihalcea, MD,PhD Margaret Millar, MD David Miller, MD David MenkesAssociate Professor, University of Auckland Barbara Mintzes, BA, MSc, PhDAssociate Professor, School of Pharmacy, The University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia James Solomon Mith, MD Igor Moji, MD Elizama Montalvo, MD Richard Moore II, DO Leslie Moore, MD Perwin Morisawa, MD Jeffrey Morris, PhDAssociate Professor of Biology, University of Alabama at Birmingham David Morris, MD, MRCP(UK), DipSIM Richard Moskowitz, MD Vasili Mousafiris, MD Marketa Muzikiva, PhD Lana Myers, DO Meryl Nass MD Yasser Nassef, MD, PhD Gil Nata, PhD Eileen Natuzzi, MD, MPH Tatiana Neves, DO Sandy Ng, PhD Rachel Nicoll, PhD Tania Nordli, MD, CCFP, FCFP dip ABAM Assistant Clinical Professor Dept of Family Medicine University of Alberta Julian Northey, PhDAdjunct Professor, Ontario Tech University Lisa Odabashian, DO Deanna Ohms, DO Aihesha Oldham, MD Emma Oliva, PhD Nancy Olivieri, MD, MA, FRCPCProfessor, Pediatrics & Medicine, University Health Network Senior Scientist, Toronto General Hospital Research Institute (TGHRI) Cancer Clinical Research Unit (CCRU), Princess Margaret Cancer Centre Vincent Onyekwelu, MD, MWACP (Lab.Med), FMCPath Hanna Ormanczyk, PhD Scott Orr, MD Jose Ortiz, MD Yoshihiro Ota, PhD Tim Paape, PhD Ion Păcate, MD Janusz Pachucki, MD, PhD Jill Padawer, PhD Ray Page, DO, PhD, FACOI, FASCO Michael Palmer, MD Joseph Palmeri, MD Davit Palyan, MD Nehal Parikh, DO Robert Park, MD Sunyoung Park, MD, PhD Peter Parry , MD, PhDAssociate Professor, Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, University of Queensland; Visiting Senior Lecturer, Flinders University Arunkumar Patel MD, MPH, MRCPH (UK) Christopher Pawlak, PhD Kurt Pelda, PhD Pulse Peaton, MD, KMPH Matthew Pendleton, PhD Amy Penn, MD Sandor Peresztegi, PhD Michelle Perro, MD Gayln Perry, MD Sue Peters, PhD Robert Pfalzgraf, MD Christian Pfeffer, MD George Phillips, MD, PhD Tonya Phillips, MD Mark Piker, MD Dimitri Plikas, DO Richard Plumb, MD Lukasz Porosa, PhD Brandon Porter, MD, PhD Paulo Porto de Melo, MD Scholar in Surgical Leadership, Harvard Medical School Gene Posca, MD Stephanus Potgieter,… Read more »
Preciseley, I have seen the data and know the efficacy is negligible. Even ‘vaccine’ pushers admit it doesn’t stop you catching Covid and doesn’t stop you spreading Covid. Any effect is short lived requiring frequent ‘boosters’ with the narrative evolving to ‘it will make your symptoms mild’. Why, oh why would anyone risk taking an unproven medication for such questionable benefits?
Best you stop before you completely embarrass………..too late.
Would that be the trial documents produced by the most corrupt company on the planet but now they are being released, actually do show the level of data manipulation and fraud that has occurred, and we’re only into about 2% of the pages so far?
The vaccines don’t work, never did, never will. Anyone who has taken them has participated in the biggest medical scam and experiment in history. Good luck, you’re going to need it.
Are you able to explain why the death/infection rate fell so radically after vaccination?
It didn’t, just the testing criteria changed. Out with PCR, which picked up genetic traces of a virus that may have been there for months or years, and doesn’t prove infection. Replaced with a protein detecting swab test, essentially the same as a pregnancy test, which still isn’t ideal due to not being accurate.
Hence deaths within 28 days fell off, much the same trick they pulled with lockdowns, implenting them when the data was already showing a decline, thus giving the false impression that they were working.
That, and natural immunity reaching higher levels, and the bulk of the vulnerable having already died off in the previous infection cycle.
Oddly, many countries with either low or no vaccination didn’t fare any worse, explain that one.
You’re on a website that is basically an echo chamber for your own view.
I am not a supporter of this government.
So called MSM is vastly more trustworthy than random blokes on the internet and manifest paid Russian propagandists, who are given reverential treatment on this website.
It’s more than an echo chamber, it is a place where the majority learn what their opinions are. They accept unsupported views as facts in moments and repeat them without thought.
Even this thread shows a new breed of military strategy experts, who “know” what Putin’s plans were. Simply because someone had an opinion and it has been repeated a few times. In their heads it is now FACT.
…ah bless, so young so un-self aware…you’re making me miss my sixth-formers…..
Of course they are…it’s the same old, same old…My information is wrong for blah blah blah reasons, while yours is all right..
I’m amazed you’re actually against Russia..you’d fit right in, believing everything the Government and MSM spout…are you sure you don’t secretly admire them…?
The bias of MSM is usually obvious (Telegraph is right wing, Guardian left etc). The bias of random blokes on the internet is not.
Your analysis is correct, but do take issue with the phrase “vaccine sceptic”, as it uses the word sceptic. An actual sceptic may be suspicious and ask questions or check facts to verify what they are being told. This is rational, but not in play on this site.
On this site a “sceptic” is actually an “blind opponent” to every issue.
If governments, officials, experts or the dreaded MSM tell them something, they immediately reject it and adopt the opposite approach.
They reject real information and believe whatever necessary to back their opposite view.
The regular repetition of key learned phrases and “we’ve been lied to” are key pointers that no thinking is going on.
While all this Russian invasion support is shocking, it doesn’t matter because they can’t influence anything, the anti-vaxx nonsense was dangerous. If they could influence someone to their opinion, they could cause damage.
Fingal and tree sitting at adjacent desks greasing each other up.
Exactly.
LOL…I think one of them might even be the famous Adam Hill from the Telegraph……
I’ll listen to scientific or practical arguments about covid response, even if I might not agree with them.
But the conspiracy stuff is outright bonkers.
What conspiracy stuff? Didn’t that pretty much all come true over the last year? Did I miss one that got through?
I hate to break it to you, but “faith in democratic governments” was at an all-time low long before this pandemic hit, as was belief in the so-called free press. Whether you like it or not, it’s fast approaching that way again.
“With Ukraine, it’s extraordinary to watch people defend the integrity of a known liar and anti-democratic autocrat – Putin – over the west.”
Now try replacing Ukraine and Putin with any Western country and leader of your choice, do a little research, then think about it.
Has it ever occurred to you that other cultures don’t think the same as you? Just because you have been raised in a Western culture doesn’t make it automatically right, just the same as someone raised in an Eastern culture can automatically claim they are right.
If you don’t like democracies, good luck with what you get instead. I assume you don’t live in one?
I don’t live in a democracy and neither do you. You can believe in your own delusion if you wish, but don’t drag me into it.
Do you live in the UK?
Why?
Do you believe the UK is democratic?
If so, then please explain why for the past two years it has been run more like a communist/fascist dictatorship.
Free speech suppressed, martial law imposed, medical negligence, autonomy curtailed, endless propaganda and the only “alternative” wanted more of the same, but harder.
If your response is “because of the pandemic” then who decided that? Was it put to a democratic vote? Was it discussed and implemented with sound scientific reasoning?
The answer to all three is NO.
Even if we consider before the pandemic, what has any party done that has been of benefit to its citizens?
They get into power, with false promises, then do whatever they want, usually stealing large sums of money from the public and lining their own pockets, and those of their chums.
Meanwhile, taking backhanders from “government sponsors” otherwise known as corporate interests or NGO’s and doing their bidding, instead of following the interests of the public who “voted” them into office.
Then we get onto the ministers, or rather jobs for the boys, who are given top jobs in departments they know nothing about, who then dictate to the public what will, and won’t be done, with no public debate or consultation. More often than not, intruding on people’s lives and forcing them to do something that they shouldn’t have the power to implement in the first place.
Then there is the fact that none of these people are held accountable when something goes wrong, which happens far too often, and in any other job they would be shown the door.
Is that how democracy works?
I’m pretty sure it isn’t supposed to work like that, a representative of your views/wishes is elected through voting, this individual is then meant to represent your interests on your behalf, just the same as other representatives from other regions with different interests. This in turn is supposed to lead to debates, if any are in fact needed, followed by a vote to decide the best possible outcome for all those affected.
Government’s only job should be to serve the interests of the people who put them there, and even then only in the relatively narrow field of public services, nothing more, nothing less. Public servants, not tinpot dictators.
I disagree with most of what you say. But even then you have to acknowledge the difference between the UK and, say, Putin who simply poisons and assassinates his political opponents. The overwhelming weight of criticism of this website is on the democratic west, while Putin gets let off the hook.
There is fundamentally no difference whatsoever between Putin and the “democratic West”.
They all wield far too much power, that they shouldn’t have, over nations that deserve better.
As for “assassinating political opponents” do you mean in the literal sense like Putin, or the metaphorical sense like the west does, via the press and propaganda campaigns?
Trump and Corbyn spring to mind for the latter.
So you disagree with my point of wanting a peaceful resolution, and the fact it should never have turned to conflict in the first place?
Or is it the fact I can call out the West, just as easily as the East, for transgressions against the common wellbeing of man?
Or maybe, you don’t like the way I just ruined the fairytale of democracy for you? Sorry, but it’s true.
One is much better than the other!
The key thing is that in the west, you have something called an opposition. Putin has torn up the constitution to give himself permanent power.
It’s no fairytale, but better than a Putin nightmare.
Please, if you think so, move. Go where you think you’ll be happy.
Are you aware that the Russian’s have a different global and political outlook, one which differs from yours?
You come across as the kind of person who would label Native American’s as savages, because they used to scalp their enemies, you don’t seem to understand the world doesn’t start and end with Western values.
Well as long as you are happy living in blissful ignorance, I do hope you enjoy paying your extra tax for despot de Pfeffel’s lies and corruption, because the next few generations certainly won’t.
And please do keep deluding yourself that there is an opposition which will fix everything, because the world needs dreamers like you, makes their job easier to shaft you.
You would fit in very nicely with the Chinese, they like their subjects easy to manipulate, plus you wouldn’t have all this bothersome freedom of speech to contend with, or facts and opinions that conflict with your narrow minded world view
To repeat, that’s the precise reason I joined this site – to see other viewpoints.
One of Russia’s viewpoints which I understand, is an an assumed right to exercise control over all their neighbours, such that they are not allowed run their own foreign policy and economic relations.
What I understand is that they are wrong – and so should you.
Wrong, again! Clearly you don’t understand, this link should help –
https://carnegieendowment.org/2019/02/20/russia-s-global-ambitions-in-perspective-pub-78067
Your ignorance of other cultures, and blatant disregard of opinions that don’t match your own, even when your opinion counts for nought against facts, shines a light on your nature, that of a self entitled bigot, an imperialist who would like nothing more than world dominance under your set of values.
Exactly what you profess to despise, take your self-righteousness and use it elsewhere, it doesn’t wash with me.
In addition –
“assumed right to exercise control over all their neighbours, such that they are not allowed run their own foreign policy and economic relations”
Sounds like the EU or US policy to me, prove me wrong.
Starmer. Opposition. Thanks for the oxymoron.
As opposed to slowly killing journalists like Julian Assange. British justice at it’s finest.
Surely it is the actions of governments and media that have destroyed faith in them?
In this I have just scratched the surface of why we should never trust our current governments or the media. Until Covid came along I believed that apart from a few bad eggs and some questionable ideology, most in charge were genuinely trying do do what is best.
The evidence of the last two years has proven that the opposite is true. The number of senior government officials who genuinely want to improve society is extremely small. Most are self serving and driven by greed – they care nothing for you and I.
Of course they turned out to be sceptical of this ‘vaccine’. If they had not bought into the COVID narrative, i.e., if they are fully cognisant of the fact that the virus is not particularly remarkable and that it has a statistically insignificant IFR, then naturally they are going to be sceptical of a novel and experimental substance alleged to protect them from a virus they already believe is utterly unremarkable. The transition into scepticism of this ‘vaccine’ is utterly natural; you cannot separate the two issues.
It is an indictment of your ignorance that you would separate the two issues and not see the natural transition.
This begs the question since you are dealing with people who do not grant your assumption that a) the virus needs ‘inhibiting’ in any dramatic sense, and b) that the actions to ‘inhibit’ the virus are effective or justified.
It is good practice to familiarise yourself with your opponent’s position before a critique. As it stands you have merely begged the question in favour of your position, a position which sceptics obviously dispute.
That’s rhetorical only.
You’re jumping around all over the place. Many if not most on this forum are significantly more sophisticated than Q advocates/adherents, so your attempt to lump all ‘conspiracy theorists’ together is manifestly absurd and dishonest.
Aunt Sally. Once again you set up a caricature. I’ve not seen one individual on this forum claim Putin is not autocratic and deceitful.
When you see nuance and subtlety, do you get a headache?
That’s one definition of a troll.
Is would appear a “Troll” is someone, who offers a different opinion to the invasion supporters and offers inconvenient opposing information.
Troll? It seems to me, reading the to and fro arguments among you on here, that there is a distasteful willingness among “sceptics” to agree that Russian behaviour is OK because the Ukrainians have, in your estimation, been nasty to the pro Russian separatists. You go to great lengths explaining how nice and tolerant Putin has been for years, without apparently considering the possibility that he’s an amoral master of propaganda, and you might be, just as I might equally be, mistaken. How are your facts more verifiable than any I might believe? And no, as I said yesterday, while it’s clear the whole situation is complicated, I do not believe the Bucha massacre was a put up job.
I don’t expect to persuade any of you otherwise, but your belief that everything you consider truth is correct, is no more justifiable than the reverse.
For the record, I was a pandemic sceptic from March 2020, but that does not make me, having lived throughout the Cold War years, more or less likely to believe Russian propaganda. And perhaps soneone could explain why the Oliver Stone documentary is considered gospel. The man has just as much of an agenda as anyone else.
Absolutely. There should be no significant overlap between, say, questioning the practical benefits of lockdown, and supporting Putin.
There are zero benefits of lockdown, only negative outcomes. Nobody is supporting Putin. They are pointing out that shit is happening mainly because of the actions of the US in particular using NATO as the tool to do their dirty work. The US will support Ukraine right down to the last Ukrainian or anyone else going over there to “defend freedom”.
You truly are void of any intellectual thought, aren’t you?
By your logic, people that enjoy the music of Mozart can’t also enjoy the paintings of Rembrandt, yet more proof of your narrow mindedness.
Did you actually read the article? I doubt it. Even the author points out the stupidity of western policy towards Russia. The Ukrainians haven’t been “nasty” to the pro Russian separatists. They have been murdering them for 14 years. 14,000 of them is the conservative estimate. The Minsk Agreement was created to resolve the issue. All of the terms of it have been completely ignored by Ukraine. The resulting Russian actions were predicted 7 years ago by John Mearsheimer, a geopolitical analyst who understands how the world works. Unlike the vast majority of virtue signalers and keyboard warriors on the internet.
Putin explained what he intended right at the beginning only no one was listening believing the hysterical screeching from MSM how Putin wanted to reinstate the USSR. Apparently the Russian move on Kiev was to distract the Ukrainian army and to have them concentrate their forces there, whereby the Russians quickly moved to the East which was their original goal.
Apparently?
Your explanation sounds like justification after the event.
He is correct, Russia did claim their goals centered in the West and South of Ukraine, not in subsuming the whole country. So far the evidence does validate their claims – we don’t know whether this will continue to hold true or not.
They attacked from all sides at once. Ironically, the area where they made least progress was the east, along the frontlines with the breakaway republics.
So if was a feint, it was costly, it failed, it helped Ukrainian unity, and it killed many thousands of people for no benefit.
Stop pretending you know anything about military tactics, playing Fortnite and Call of Duty doesn’t count.
Flawed logic and pure speculation throughout.
Putin has long argued that Ukraine is not a real state, and that Zelenksy’s government lacks widespread support. This is not a matter of speculation.
It’s strange how people who want to criticise the west/MSM get drawn into a need to justify every single aspect of Putin’s behaviour. You can continue to believe Putin is justified but still recognise the Kyiv attack for what it clearly was – a military blunder.
“You can continue to believe Putin is justified but still recognise the Kyiv attack for what it clearly was – a military blunder.“
Why would anyone accept your wishful thinking as fact?
There are good reasons to suppose the decision to attack the Ukraine might prove to have been a disastrous one for Russia, but equally it might turn out well. The jury has barely begun to sit on that.
We also need to consider the path not taken. What would the consequences have been for Russia if they had not attacked?
The Russian leadership was duty-bound to consider this; and the indications are that they did so, carefully and deliberately.
“We also need to consider the path not taken. What would the consequences have been for Russia if they had not attacked?“
Absolutely.
Though if it ends as our rulers hope, with collapse and regime change in Russia and a return to pliable 1990s chaos, then it would be hard to paint it as anything but a disaster for Russia, no matter what the alternatives might have been.
Yes. Russia has to win; absolutely has to win. I believe this is understood at many levels.
What is your definition of “win”?
Are you hoping for this “win”?
That is easy.
There would have been no consequences for Russia, other than it would not have been subject to sanctions and a lot less of its troops would be dead.
What do you think would have happened?
What indications?
Back in the Falklands war, the Argentines claimed to have sunk the Ark Royal 4 times. Needless to say, all 4 were untrue.
When you’re an autocrat with total control over your media, you can get away with this kind of flannel. If Putin had been running Britain in 1940, he would have called Dunkirk a brilliant diversionary action.
However I agree that the war could still turn Putin’s way. He has a massive military advantage in kit, albeit the troops are flaky.
But look at what has already been lost and can’t be reversed on the battlefield. He has revived NATO from potential collapse. He has (probably) recruited Finland and Sweden as members. The economy is set to shrink by over 10% this year. Longer term, he has lost his main customers for his only important export. And he turned Ukraine from Russian friendly into Russian hating.
Acquiring a few burnt out towns in eastern Ukraine is hardly compensation.
Meanwhile ignoring the simply dozens of videos all over the net showing people talking about Ukrainian atrocities…just like the Covid fiasco, I can wait for this to unfold in its own time as well….
Even if they were as bad as each other, Russian atrocities are bound to greatly exceed Ukrainian atrocities for the simple fact that this war is being fought on Ukrainian territory.
The Russians are playing the same tune as in other wars, which is that their opponents are actually shooting and bombing themselves, while the Russians just try to help.
Funny how this only happens in Russia’s wars.
Ahh videos of unknown people making unsubstantiated accusations.
You believe this stuff absolutely, but reject a broadcaster’s reports outright…
I’m glad you brought up the Falkland’s war.
That war started due to the junta in charge of Argentina at the time, after a long string of coups and failed juntas before them, the Argentines got a tad fed up with all this, so the President decided to go off and invade the islands, nice bit of distraction from the problems back home.
So, fed full of propaganda, they send off a bunch of conscripts to liberate the islands from the dastardly British, not for one moment thinking they could or would retaliate.
Unfortunately they did, and not with conscripts, but well-trained marines and naval forces.
Why do I bring this up?
The parallels of the Western leader’s reaction to the conflict in the Ukraine, and the government of Argentina at the time are stark.
They need a distraction, after two years of effectively running their countries like juntas and spoon-feeding their population with propaganda, which has cost the taxpayer billions, they have realised that backlash is imminent.
Oh, look, a war! We can all rally around and point the finger at the bad man. Just don’t mention the fact it has been ongoing for eight years, or the fact they have been stoking the flames all along.
Funny how you can determine what propaganda is when it’s anti-Western, but can’t see it when it has been used on you. I’ll wager a penny to a pound that if you and “Tree” were Argentinian at the time, you would have been partying in the street when Port Stanley fell, just like all the other Argentines did.
I’m going to state the obvious. Putin started the war and Putin choose the timing. And for that matter, it was Putin who needed a distraction from falling popularity.
Obviously wrong, when did this all start? Eight years ago? Try again.
Putin started that war too.
…he’s also shown the impotence of ‘the West’….
he’s shown the rest of the world, the large majority, how the West treats another super-power with unprecedented sanctions, and that the West will not only freeze your money, but actually illegally steal it.
He’s shown that the West only cares about ‘certain’ conflicts, and couldn’t give a damn about the death and starvation of millions of others, are are happy to keep sanctions that cause them further pain and death…. He’s shown the ‘west’ will actually back openly anti-Semitic Nazis when it serves their purpose.
I’m sure if I had time I could think of others….
Check out Putin’s Nazis, the Wagner Group.
I accept that Putin’s actions are justified but like you, I believe his foray into Kyiv was a blunder. He has since sacked his intelligence team and placed the head in prison.
Did they misinform him out of an error of judgement, or were they Atlanticists performing an act of treason?
It was strategic manoeuvre not a blunder.
How and why? Because you say so?
Strategic manoeuvre my foot!
You really do need to keep up with things and Scott Ritter might well help you out here.
You need to watch the videos by Scott Ritter – he explains Russia’s military strategy, a better insight than your obvious narrow vision of events.
I have seen some.
I have seen some.
But clearly nothing registered.
“The only chance for peace is Putins defeat and removal from office.” Are you a spokeman for the cabal’s CIA?
This is like a bully saying to his victim, if you let me take possession of your property and take ownership of all your assets (oil, coal, gas, wheat etc), I will let you live in peace as a pauper. But if you resist, we will launch an economic blitzkreig against you, strongarm other nations into supporting us, fund and arm your enemies and get our media to portray you as Hitler until you and your country are ground into dust.
But perhaps you want the cabal to ideologically and economically enslave Russia the same way as it has enslaved the US and its European vassal states?
How can anyone spout such transparent rubbish. There are no parallels between the two situations.
The civil war in what is now Israel led to the flight of around 700k Palestinians. Their descendants now number close to 6m. and they still live around the borders of Israel. Needless to say, their grudge remains vivid as ever.
In Ukraine, Putin will potentially displace 10-20x the original Palestinian number. Their grudge will also be permanent.
The only way to stop this happening is to stop Putin.
Will he? I think those are figments of your imagination.
You could try selling fruit and veg for a living, you might just have a bit more more luck. On second thoughts you’d fake that up too.
A paid troll will always spout what he is paid to spout.
‘Like other autocrat-led invasions, the military objective is largely in the mind of one man. ‘
As a psychiatrist you are supposed to keep sessions with your patients confidential. Watch out, he may sue for malpractice.
“NATO proxy patriotic resistance” – there, fixed it for you.
A very good, but rather frustrating piece. Loads of good information and analysis, combined with due caution about drawing conclusions from limited information, but still finishes with an air of excessive tolerance for the wilder nonsenses of the neocon, pro-war, anti-Russian side.
Here’s one of the reasons why a sterner rejection of the US neocon/Ukrainian nationalist position is urgently needed:
Some Of The Weapons Delivered To Ukraine Will Be Used Against Us
And here is the global political context, that emphasises the difference between today and the Cold War era. Back then, “we” were the “good guys”. Today, “we” are in the grip of the global “bad guys”. Our priority should be changing that by overturning the power of the woke globalist elites on our own societies, rather than falling for their manipulations, that co-opt our efforts and tax payments to their purposes:
Le Pen odds, Face ID, war crimes & political fallout in Ukraine, w/Robert Barnes
Robert Barnes: “the political class in Europe and the West cares more about this sort of globalist type project and their own utopian vision than they do loyalty to their own people“.
A very good discussion of the core global issue of the day, which in one form or another underlies almost every major political and strategic dispute and controversy, including the various mass hysterias (covid, BLM, climate alarmism etc), including the Ukraine war – elites versus populists, globalists versus patriots.
This refers back to Prof Glenn Diesen’s observation, that I’ve posted here previously, about Russia as an ally in a “world split along a national-patriotism versus cosmopolitan-globalism divide“.
Robert Barnes: “the political class in Europe and the West cares more about this sort of globalist type project and their own utopian vision than they do loyalty to their own people“.
Yes – I was struck by his clear thinking and incisiveness on this subject in particular.
Barnes expresses himself vividly and with an air that might disconcert some, but there’s no doubt about the solid observation and reasoning.
Also, imo, as I noted the other day, his observations about the profoundly antiwar essence of (populist, at least) conservatism were very apt:
“the anti-American cause hijacked the antiwar cause during the Cold War”
and
“J.D.Vance got to be a test case. Let’s see in a contested Republican Senate primary, where he’s going up against one candidate who had already won state-wide office before, another candidate who’s self-funded and can completely out-fund him, what does taking a position on the war do? Does it collapse his support? And the Wall St Journal did one of these fake journalistic pieces where they go and talk to their six pals in the state and they pretend it’s a “random sample” in the state of Ohio, and they’re like; “oh, J.D.Vance, this is going to be real unpopular, taking the side of Putin, taking the side of Russia, bapapapa…” Well, what do we get two months later? J.D.Vance has surged to within a statistical tie of first.
Trump watches all of this. Trump decides to endorse J.D.Vance. And now J.D.Vance is the favourite to win in the Republican Senate primary. And how did he get there? By choosing the antiwar, don’t get involved, don’t intervene, this is all nonsense with the no fly zone, we shouldn’t even be doing some of these sanctions, they don’t make any sense, they’re not in our interest…all of the populist antiwar positions. That’s how he jumped and tripled his support to where he got Trump’s support.
And it’s not a coincidence that within days of Trump endorsing J.D.Vance, after being on all sides of this war publicly – which is classic Trump – all of a sudden he issues that statement, that written statement that says “there should be peace now, there should be diplomatic resolution now, this war never would have happened if I would have been in power” – I personally believe that’s the case”
This is where I tend to see the problem, with the forces that hijack political conservatism to push jingoist military aggression and subversive intervention – in the modern US sphere that appears to mainly be the neocon ideologues, the military-industrial types, and various manipulative identity and foreign actor lobbies (Ukraine, Israel, Saudi Arabia etc).
Yes…what could go wrong when you send weapons to a country plagued by far-right Nazis….
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MaC8l16AHxM
CNN what happens to the weapons sent to Ukraine…the US doesn’t really know.
This is an interesting and well-written article, but I am afraid collapses under the same internal contradictions and inconsistencies of all the other attempts to at least partially excuse the Kremlin regime and instead blame the West / US / NATO for the invasion of Ukraine.
A key illustration of this phenomenon is the following passage:
Russia..underwent a crash course in market economics under the guidance of Harvard trained advisors. The result was not the reform, renewal and reinvigoration of Russia’s economy and society along Western capitalist lines. Instead, a vast mafia state was created. State utilities were sold off via corrupt patronage networks. Vast fortunes were made for a handful of super-rich oligarchs. Large parts of the industrial sector were devastated. Wages collapsed.
To imply that providing information about non-state free market principles and practices to a former Communist country leads to the creation of a ‘mafia state’ is self-evidently contradictory nonsense.
In general these ‘realist school’ attempts to (again at least partially) absolve the Russian state of moral responsibility, indeed replace its free-will with puppet-like external control by eg the US and NATO are quasi-racist in their character.
Another example is the ‘you shouldn’t poke a bear’ meme, thus metaphorically labelling Russia and its people as an irrational, instinct-driven and particularly aggressive animal.
The simple reality is that the Russian state is 100% responsible for its decision to invade Ukraine (and indeed threaten to annihilate the whole human race through nuclear armageddon if any external state or alliance dares to directly intervene).
Regardless of the responsibilities involved we should be working towards a ceasefire and settlement there (and in all other current armed conflicts) as soon as possible;
Indeed at a more fundamental level we should be seeking to completely abolish the horrific (and potentially humanicidal) practice of mass murder and destruction known as war.
The multi-party liberal democracy model is at least heading in the right direction, neo-fascist and expansionist tyrannies such as Russia (also its principal ally China) the exact opposite one:
Its war-excusing and war-perpetuating propaganda over Ukraine (and in general) should be called out and rejected wherever it appears.
I didn’t see that was the implication. They pointed out what happened (re the ‘advisors’) and then what the outcome was. That the sudden collapse of a decades-old system can lead to a Wild West situation can hardly have escaped the West’s attention, yet it stood by and watched it happen.
They pointed out what happened (re the ‘advisors’) and what the outcome was.
A) If these Harvard advisors were providing information about the structures and practices of non-state run companies operating under a strict legal framework (ie the model in the US and general democratic West) they couldn’t possibly have been advocating the corrupt selling off of national assets to gang-like and violence based oligarchies, still under the overall control of the Kremlin.
B) Whatever they were advising, all the state and non-state actors in Russia (eg Kremlin and individual oligarchs) are 100% responsible for any mafia-like actions they engage in
Just as the Putin government is 100% responsible for its Ukrainian invasion.
That is the meaning of human free-will and moral responsibility.
“Just as the Putin government is 100% responsible for its Ukrainian invasion.
That is the meaning of human free-will and moral responsibility.”
In exactly the same sense as if you anticipate an attack and kill me, you are “100% responsible for killing me”.
The important issue, of course, is whether it was murder or manslaughter or self defence, and those important issues require context.
We are indeed completely responsible for all of our actions, including killing others.
The issue then becomes one of degrees of moral culpability (I believe in the spiritual Golden Rule of cause no deliberate harm).
So, for example, if someone attacks us and we push them away causing them to strike their head and die, no intent to harm or necessary guilt involved (though we would probably still feel great sadness)
If, however, we overcome an attacker then seek to hurt them / end up killing them by way of revenge that is a clear and very serious breech of the moral code (which we answer to via our consciences).
Each instance has to looked at in its own right, but always from the perspective of 100% responsibility for our own actions.
We are in agreement then as to the basic issue of 100% responsibility.
We are also in agreement, it appears, that once that has been established what is important is what the motivations and context were.
All that remains is for you to apply that insight in the international relations sphere, to Russia’s choice to use force against the Ukraine. (The domestic analogy is implicit as soon as you start to use terms like moral responsibility in the international relations sphere).
The important issue is not whether or not Russia is “responsible” for the invasion, the important issues are motivation, context etc. And that’s the point of discussions about the threats perceived by Russia, the “poking the bear” issue, the history of the region,…
[“Poking the bear”, contrary to your apparent thinking about it, is not a reference to trivial annoyances triggering reflex animal responses. At least as it is used by realists, it is a reference to the fact that if you threaten a state it will respond, rationally, to those real or perceived threats. More generally, the important aspect of it is that you can’t offload your own responsibility for provocation merely by insisting that the target of those provocations is wholly responsible for its response – again, context, motivation etc.]
Please note that I am posting this as a reply to you, because I do not respond to those who don’t seem to be amenable to reason. I applaud your attempts to reason with them, and hope that they bear fruit at some point in their lives.
The simplicities of a “100%” world view; in which baddies are entirely to blame, nobody else has any responsibility at all, and hostility and hatred are sprayed from a scatter-gun; are dangerous anywhere.
They are catastrophic on the world stage.
There is no understanding without context; all acts of “human free-will” take place within specific contexts. “Moral responsibility” cannot even begin to be assessed without the widest possible appreciation of context, in every sense of the word.
That’s not the issue. Russia does have some legitimate grievances. But now that Putin has taken such a drastic and destructive course of action, the niceties of debate about Ukrainian treatment of Russian speakers etc is no longer important. (Not least because Putin intends to repress Ukrainian among a far larger group of people.)
He has left Ukraine and the west with no choice.
That is apart from the grievances that Russia thinks are legitimate.
Most of Russia doesn’t think. They simply believe what they are told by Putin.
Please note that I am posting this as a reply to you, because I do not respond to those who don’t seem to be amenable to reason.
My own belief is that all human beings are not only amenable to reason, but their eternal souls fundamentally rest on it (and the concomitant morality)
I applaud your attempts to reason with them, and hope that they bear fruit at some point in their lives.
I also am grateful to anyone who take the time to address my points, even if it is to disagree with them. I am also open at all times to being persuaded that I am wrong over any issue.
The simplicities of a “100%” world view
The 100% referred solely to responsibility for our own actions.
in which baddies
There are no such thing as ‘baddies’ (or indeed ‘goodies’), we are all eternal souls on a journey to self-perfection through overcoming our negative human tendencies (eg towards sectarianism, hatred and violence).
are entirely to blame,
We are not meant to judge each other but rather try and control our own thoughts and behaviour. Condemning idea and actions is not the same thing as attacking or blaming the individuals involved.
nobody else has any responsibility at all, and hostility and hatred are sprayed from a scatter-gun; are dangerous anywhere.
They are catastrophic on the world stage.
Please see the above and all my other posts on this subject.
There is no understanding without context; all acts of “human free-will” take place within specific contexts.
The concept of ‘context’ here is just another way of trying to reduce our possession of free-will and push responsibility for our actions on to others.
“Moral responsibility” cannot even begin to be assessed without the widest possible appreciation of context, in every sense of the word.
I believe in the absolute, context free morality of the spiritual Golden Rule, ie cause no deliberate harm / try and do as much good as possible.
Which doesn’t include carrying out mass murder and destruction in Ukraine (or indeed Russia).
Are you saying Russia was in danger of imminent attack?
If so, by who?
Are you saying the west should have intervened as the connected Russian figures plundered the state resources for themselves and became mafia bosses?
Of course, I’ve no way of proving it, but, as the article points out, rubbing a nation’s face in the dirt is rarely a way to win friends and influence people. Slighting Russia and its history seems to have bought the West a rerun of the Russian Problem. A friendlier and more welcoming gesture might have paid dividends. Unfortunately, we will never know.
“To imply that providing information about non-state free market principles and practices to a former Communist country leads to the creation of a ‘mafia state’ is self-evidently contradictory nonsense.”
This is a rather silly oversimplification, that amounts to a straw man.
If you are completely ignorant of the history of Russia in the 1990s then just say so and either accept what those better informed than you (such as the authors of the atl piece here) tell you about it, or educate yourself.
“The multi-party liberal democracy model is at least heading in the right direction“
This seems to me a remarkably complacent, naive even, reading of the development of US culture and that of its satellite states. The opposite seems to me to be the truth, based on my own reading of how we have gone in the past few decades, and where we seem to be heading.
This is a rather silly oversimplification, that amounts to a straw man.
If you are completely ignorant of the history of Russia in the 1990s then just say so and either accept what those better informed than you (such as the authors of the atl piece here) tell you about it, or educate yourself.
Thank you for that detailed and persuasive refutation of my points, and also filling me in on all the blank spaces in my knowledge of Russia in the 1990s.
“The multi-party liberal democracy model is at least heading in the right direction“
This seems to me a remarkably complacent, naive even, reading of the development of US culture and that of its satellite states. The opposite seems to me to be the truth, based on my own reading of how we have gone in the past few decades, and where we seem to be heading.
Liberal democracy is flawed but at least includes the concept of change through persuasion and voting rather than force, and the idea that large numbers of human beings can live together peacefully with large degrees of freedom of thought and speech.
Militaristic and ultra-nationalist tyrannies such as Russia and China rest on state-down intimidation, violence and mass control at all times.
The presumably desirable goal of a peaceful and war-free world would involve the dismantling of the inherently conflict-inducing nation-state system (UN membership requires the possession of armed forces) to be replaced with local-government type administrations.
Democracy at least provides a route map in that direction, we will never get there via the theory and practice of totalitarianism.
Apart from anything else a conversation like this in Russia or China would almost certainly lead to the arrest and internment of many contributors, and the whole website to be closed down.
,
Indeed people currently living under the Putin regime are threatened with up to 15 years imprisonment of they dare to challenge the invasion of Ukraine.
“Thank you for that detailed and persuasive refutation of my points“
I pointed out the flaw, which is all that was needed. What you do with it is up to you.
“also filling me in on all the blank spaces in my knowledge of Russia in the 1990s.“
Again, I merely pointed out your evident ignorance in this particular area. Correcting it, should you deem it necessary or useful, is up to you.
As for the rest, it might or might not be the case that democracy is “the worst form of government apart from all the others we’ve tried”. That’s an interesting academic discussion but what I’ve observed in the US sphere nations over the past few decades is a disastrous cultural decline combined with a profound cultural and political dishonesty that is imo a far more urgent issue for us to address than any external issues.
That’s an interesting academic discussion but what I’ve observed in the US sphere nations over the past few decades is a disastrous cultural decline combined with a profound cultural and political dishonesty that is imo a far more urgent issue for us to address than any external issues.
Yes. If we do not address this, we are in no position to address anything else.
“I pointed out the flaw, which is all that was needed. What you do with it is up to you.”
Trying to refute someone’s arguments based on their alleged lack of knowledge of the topic, but without any specific content to back this up seems to me to be a bit pointless.
But in any case because as you know I believe in free-will at all times I don’t rest challenges to policies or behaviour (eg the Russian invasion of Ukraine) on historical events, each decision stands on its own merits.
In other words pointing to what happened in Russia in the 1990s does not provide a justification or excuse for what is happening in Kyiv or Mariupol today.
Re “what I’ve observed in the US sphere nations over the past few decades is a disastrous cultural decline combined with a profound cultural and political dishonesty that is imo a far more urgent issue for us to address than any external issues.”
I totally agree that there have been disastrous cultural and ideological developments in the democratic West in the last few decades (I would actually point to the 19th century output of Charles Darwin as the main source of the decline, but perhaps that’s for another discussion!).
In particular the widespread loss of spiritual belief combined with the replacement of organised religions like Christianity (inherently flawed but at least maintains the idea of individual responsibility and the existence of an eternal soul) with the environmentally-based worship of ‘Mother Nature’ and its apocalyptic pseudo-scientific ‘Climate Change’ control tool.
Indeed it was the same eco-health movement’s inherently tyrannical tendencies which led to the quite shockingly illiberal coronavirus-excused measures (lockdowns etc) being embraced by majorities of populations, including in the UK.
But far from moving forward in this sort of technocratic totalitarian direction (the one especially espoused by China) we should use the recent experience of tyranny and the removal of basic freedoms to recognise what a huge blessing the theory and practice of liberal democracy really is.
Then use that as as stepping stone towards a universally prosperous, peaceful and egalitarian world, where the whole idea of nation-states and their (to greater or lesser extents) violence-based control is a distant memory.
Ah the dream of universal world order with no violence. Someone wrote a song about that I remember. Or maybe a book, BNW.
Personally I don’t want either a ‘soma’/biotech controlled nirvana, or a jack boot in the face world order.
I like the idea of a human, imperfect world with a much decision making about our existence delegated to as small a group as possible, ideally the individual although I do realise some issues are best dealt with on a communal basis but they should be the exception rather than the rule.
Creative tension is good for the human soul, its when it turns destructive that there is trouble. Man ( and I deliberately use that word) is an aggressive animal, unless he is chemically castrated that is unlikely to change.
I am arguing for the exact opposite of a Brave New World style universal totalitarian government enforcing its diktats through the rape-like violence of enforced psychotropic drug taking.
Far from advocating the merging of individual nations into a world-wide totalitarian super-state, I called for the abolition of the inherently violent nation-state (or, indeed world state and every state in between) structure in its entirety.
The idea that human beings require these completely artificial entities to guarantee their material needs plus protect them from both internal and external threats is simply based on very deeply instilled state propaganda.
Please ignore my first reply to peyrole, I accidentally pressed send while I was working on it. Here is the finished version:
I am arguing for the exact opposite of a Brave New World style universal totalitarian government enforcing its diktats through the rape-like violence of enforced psychotropic drug taking.
There is no need or role for ultimately violence based states and governments of any kind, the only time that coercion is acceptable is when somebody is presenting an immediate threat and needs to be restrained (using as little force as possible).
Humans naturally and easily fit into entirely (in principle) non-violent and cooperative structures such as families, schools, universities, companies, unions, clubs, societies etc
Individual harmful behaviour such as theft, assault and murder can never be guaranteed away, but is hugely encouraged by the false claims of states to legitimised immorality – for example theft through enforced taxation and fines, long-term imprisonment or deprivation of liberty by way of punishment (rather than temporary restraint), the effective kidnapping of people into armed forces (conscription), and the use of mass murderous violence in war.
The whole concept and structure of the modern nation-state largely arose from gang-like struggles between ancient warlords resulting in banners being raised over conquered territories.
Far from providing security the continuing violent underpinnings of the nation-state, coupled with the inherent rivalry between them, represents the greatest existential danger humans labour under.
For example WWI, WWII, Ukraine, and the ongoing threat of WWIII plus nuclear armageddon.
Finally, and in case there is any confusion, I still fully accept that the multi party liberal democratic state model is far more progressive than tyrannies such as Russia and China.
The concept of western democracy is a sham. Anyone who knows anything of the US interventions starting with Mossadeq in Iran in 1953 understands this. The US has installed puppet regimes in dozens and dozens of countries. Either by bribery, blackmail, proxy war or direct invasion. The western allies have to some extent supported every one of these actions
These are the “militaristic tyrannies” you talk about. Have a look at the world map, check out the number and locations of US military bases. Compare that to Russian bases. The US is still illegally occupying a third of Syria. They armed and supported jihadists in that country the same way they are arming and supporting actual Nazis in Ukraine.
They have instigated regime changes everywhere, including Ukraine. They are totally responsible for the current situation in that country.
If Russia had fomented the same regime change in Mexico what do you think the response would be? You don’t need to answer. We have the Cuban Missile Crisis in the history books so we don’t have to spend too long on working it out for ourselves. They threatened nuclear war.
Last election in the US the best the two parties could come up with as candidates for apparently “leader of the free world” were a dementia addled career politician and a narcissistic ass hat. Really? In the UK the best they could come up with was Starmer and Bojo, Really?
These people aren’t “leaders”. They are overpaid administrators. We have the illusion of democracy. The last two years of tyrannical responses to covid have clarified that for a lot of people.
Another example is the ‘you shouldn’t poke a bear’ meme, thus metaphorically labelling Russia and its people as an irrational, instinct-driven and particularly aggressive animal.
Absolutely. It may well be that the various Western governments – particularly US administrations – could have managed Russian and Ukraine better. As democracies we indulge in self-criticism and that’s a good thing. But equally you could criticise Putin for not managing the West and Ukraine better.
He did not have to start this war. It is absurd to suggest that the country with the world’s largest nuclear arsenal and a conventional army ten times the size was in any kind of danger from Ukraine. It is also absurd to suggest that invasion was the only way to resolve the Donbas situation. He is responsible for the consequences – deaths, destruction and lives destroyed. By all means lets analyse how we got into this mess and how to avoid it in the future, but let’s be clear where the moral responsibility lies.
“But equally you could criticise Putin for not managing the West and Ukraine better.“
This is the usual “blame the victim” approach, based upon the delusional idea that the US and its satellite states are somehow not the overwhelmingly dominant major actor in the world today, and that Russia is somehow able to direct events on that kind of scale.
In reality, the US sphere is globally dominant still. No longer the sole hyperpower it was for a while after the collapse of the Soviet Union, but still by far the most powerful state in the world, and it dictates the global agenda in areas like the expansion of NATO, Middle Eastern warmongering, etc.
Russia perforce can only respond to the actions of the US, and it was in full retreat for a couple of decades after the collapse of the Soviet Union. The events that are painted as “Russian aggression” over the past few years are its attempts to halt that process.
That might be changing, and it might change dramatically as a result of the ongoing challenge to that power in the Ukraine, but it was the primary feature of the world in the period leading up to these events.
Russia perforce can only respond to the actions of the US
Less powerful countries frequently take the initiative in their relationship with more powerful countries. To take a few examples off the top of my head Iran had its revolution, Israel built its settlements, Saudi murdered Khashoggi, all contrary to the wishes of US government of the time. In some ways it is easier for the less powerful country as they don’t have so many other factors to manage. It is also easier for an authoritarian government as it can manipulate or ignore public opinion to a very large extent.
It is a very Western habit to castigate ourselves for everything that goes wrong in the world. It is a good thing, self-criticism is one of the things that makes democracy the least worst form of government, but it shouldn’t be an excuse for other governments to evade moral culpability.
You need a sharp dose of reality…https://theduran.com/zelenskys-secret-cia-nazi-ukrainian-government/
Re your linked article, the opening line is “Not publicized, but instead carefully hidden, is the systematic terrorizing, tracking down, and killing, of political opponents”.
Far from reality whenever I read introductory words like that I suspect a propagandist piece in which any concrete evidence (eg reasonably verifiable public records) is conveniently unavailable.
And indeed this seems to be biased opinion referring solely to other biased opinion plus anecdotal ‘evidence’.
In any case I am well aware that all ultimately force-based nation-states, including Ukraine, can and do engage in immoral activities.
However the multi-party liberal democratic model upheld there is still vastly more progressive and preferable to the neo-fascist tyrannical system currently holding sway in Russia.
And no matter what harmful activities the Zelensky regime may or may not have carried out, the Kremlin is still 100% responsible for its decision to invade Ukraine and carry out mass destruction and murder there.
Indeed, Ukraine presented no risk to Russia.
It is absurd to suggest otherwise.
‘To imply that providing information about non-state free market principles and practices to a former Communist country leads to the creation of a ‘mafia state’ is self-evidently contradictory nonsense.’
It didn’t imply, you inferred… incorrectly.
‘Imply’ is actually too soft a word for what was unambiguously stated;
That A (Harvard advice on non-state business practices) resulted in (ie caused) B (the creation of a ‘mafia state’).
Christ on a bike. Is that you Justin?
Thanks for a thoughtful and informative article.
Much more appreciated than the daily flim-flam from the MSM and the Broadcasting House Propaganda and Diversity Unit.
Sadly the conclusion seems to be that we are all now boxed into corners with little room for manoeuvre. The likelihood seems to be that we end up with Russia holding on to its land bridge to Crimea and parts of Eastern Ukraine. As we have seen with Crimea, the longer you hold on to a seized part of land, the more likely you are that people will, in the end, grudgingly accept it as the status quo. The alternative to this dismal stalemate ending seems to be an appalling dramatic, possibly nuclear, escalation of the hostilities.
Russia did not ‘seize’ Crimea againt the will of the people. It voted 90% to return to Russia which Kyiv rejected. So if anything, the people of Crimea were previously being held against their will.
Fair point but that is not how Ukraine views it and indeed one of Russia’s original points was to call for full recognition that Crimea is now fully Russian.
Strange that the Cossacks of the Crimea would have voted for federation with Russia when their ancestors were so badly brutalised by Stalin.
But then, the Poles, Hungarians, and Czechs all voted at the end of the war to install communist governments.
The morals of these stories is that it does not matter how you vote, but who counts those votes.
Indeed.. and of course none of these referenda were conducted in a benign climate, without coercion and fear.
The vote was illegal, and after the event.
Note how Putin/Russia responded to an attempted independence movement in Chechnya. He laid the country to waste.
Hypocrisy in the extreme!
Change the record.
What… don’t you like such inconvenient facts?
I can’t change the historical record. (Although Putin thinks he can…)
There aren’t many things you can do apparently.
At least be witty, if you can’t be informative.
Correct.
Get a room.
The conclusion is we should have kept our big, stupid noses out not least because it is costing British citizens money for no benefit and hurting us more than Russia.
Exactly my point.
Only becomes an issue when they want it to become an issue.
It’s a border dispute between two nations we have nothing to do with.
If the problem was bigger than that then where are the United Nations and their “peace keepers”?
Crimea was incorporated into Ukraine from Russia in 1954 by Kruschyov. This was done without consulting the population, and even under Soviet law at the time this transfer was of doubtful legality. At the time it was considered little more than an administrative exercise. The USSR collapsed, and the chickens eventually cam home to roost in 2014.
The biggest gap in our understanding is the refusal to revisit and acknowledge Russian concerns about the Maiden Coup of 2014, the arrival of Neocon Nuland and the CIA and the total ‘occupation’ of Ukraine under a puppet President by US deep state agitators, milking the country ( enter the Bidens) sponsoring extremist Neo Nazi groups, working against Russia and all Russian speakers in Ukraine?.
Perhaps that would have helped an ‘understanding’ of Russia’s eventual reaction to the developing deliberately constructed threat to its security, a reaction which has taken 8 years to reach breaking point?
And yet Ukraine elected a Russophone Jew as President in 2019 by an overwhelming majority and later that year a parliament with no far-right MPs (the far-right bloc received 2% of the votes).
That’s inconvenient information for most on here!
Not at all, just reinforced what I’ve been trying to tell you all along.
Rather inconvenient for your narrative though, that Russia wasn’t under any threat from the Ukraine.
Pro Western government “elected” right on Putin’s doorstep, we will ignore the shutting down of the opposition though, even if it was widely reported at the time.
Who would have thought, that they are just as corrupt as Putin?
Wasn’t he also elected overwhelmingly because he stood on a platform of entering into and supporting peace talks with Russia….?
You mean a pro West leader, who has been bending over backwards to appease their ambition?
Well I’m shocked!
Then all the tension between Russia and the West suddenly disappeared, oh, it got worse….
Do you think all Russian speaking Ukrainians support this war on them?
So says Putin. Did he instruct you on your opinion?
It could be argued that rather than pedicting the invasion Western comment precipitated it by dismissing talks about settling the percieved injustices inflicted by the Ukrainian government of the Donbass region, and encouraging a bellicose stance from Zelensky.
I see that Putin has denied the Azov’s martyrdom by not taking them on underneath Mariupol. Starvation is not so glorious.
Are you hoping 1000 people starve to death?
They have already been given opportunities to surrender, which still stand. If they choose to fast to death, then that is on them. Or maybe they are worried about being shot in the back by their “brothers in arms”.
What will happen to surrendering Ukrainians?
Your second statement will be a key concern. Look at what they did in Bucha.
Oh you have finally realised that many of the attrocities are committed by the Ukrainians including reprisals against their own.
That’s just your Russian propaganda talking.
Are you hoping they instead flatten the building and kill everyone inside?
That would be a nice win for the west wouldn’t it?
Unlike most around here, I would very much not wish that to happen.
But really, what do your really think Russians would do to surrendering Ukrainian troops?
Mariupol is pretty much wiped out by bombing and many thousands of civilians killed by their acts so far.
A very diplomatic approach by Putin. I am sure the Azov mob will be given the opportunity to surrender.
Nice and tidy.
Not bad from a bloke who is supposed to be crazy.
What happens to surrendering Ukrainians?
Is is it better than the treatment of Bucha civilians.
What happened in Bucha? Were you there?
Azov were. They filmed themselves shooting “collaborators”, put it on the internet, but had the sense to take the film down again when the Ukrainian government started blaming it on the Russians.
Not that the western media would have cared anyway.
Troll Alert – Fingal arsing about.
I think there’s a point to the arsing about. It’s deliberate. People expend emotional and intellectual energy dealing with it – to little effect.
An occasional, casual troll might just be an irritated individual; persistent ones are another matter. They’re not trying to convince people; they’re trying to irritate and occupy them.
There are arguments which are respectful and instructive; and those which have a veneer of politeness, but are simply a waste of time.
To the credit of many of our responders, they do the best that can be done with this; making useful additional points which we can read and appreciate.
But I wonder what might take place if our obsessive visitors weren’t here. We wouldn’t all agree; but we would perhaps delve deeper? A genuine conversation and exchange of views is being hijacked (not completely, but to a degree). That might well be the real purpose.
The West gave President Putin no option but to invade. The USA have been poking the bear incessantly, they broke the Minsk agreement and have pushed Zelenksky into a hardline approach. The West turned a blind eye to the shelling of the Dombass region killing approximately 14,000 people over a period of 8 years. Never in my lifetime would I have thought the West would support Nazis!! I’m horrified they are doing so and having done so I am looking at the USA UK and EU with a totally different outlook now.
It seems the journalist Gonzalo Lira may well have been kidnapped and murdered by the Azov Brigade yet no word from our MSM.
The ‘West’ attempted to negotiate an end to the war in Donbass started by Russia but both sides broke both Minks agreements. 14,000 is the total lost on both sides during the eight years of war, the great majority in the armed forces of the belligerents.
Did you get this opinion from a Russian leaflet?
You have all their propaganda strands covered.
Whatever you do DON’T argue the point, always go for ad hominem.
Russia was not a party to the Minsk agreements.
Those agreements, consequently, cannot be any kind of pretext for military action
The first Minsk Protocol was signed by Ukraine, Russia, the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) and the pro-Russia separatist leaders in September 2014. Ukraine and the separatists agreed to an immediate 12-point ceasefire deal including withdrawal of heavy weapons and prisoner exchanges. But the agreement failed to stop the fighting, with frequent violations by both sides.
Five months later, after Ukraine lost territory to pro-Russia separatists, Minsk II was signed. Representatives of Russia and Ukraine, mediated by France and Germany, signed a 13-point agreement in February 2015. The second agreement also quickly broke down, with the OSCE reporting around 200 weekly violations in 2016-2020 and more than 1,000 since 2021, according to Novaya Gazeta.
Minsk 2 was not signed by Russia.
It was signed by Russia’s Ambassador to Ukraine, not by the Russian government. The agreement does not mention Russia.
This is important because Russia has used this fact to pose as a disinterested party.
Minsk 2 cannot, therefore, be used as a pretext for invasion by Russia.
Furthermore Minsk-2 supports mutually exclusive views of sovereignty over the Donbas border with Russia: either Ukraine is sovereign (Ukraine’s interpretation), or it is not (Russia’s interpretation).
So blustering claims that the Minsk agreements were ‘broken’, by either side, simply produce muffled titters from the back of the class.
I wouldn’t say gave no option, but certainly provided the groundwork and justification.
Please justify the facts you assert, with clear evidence.
What would have happened if Putin did not invade?
What was the compelling event to force invasion?
The Nazis and the west have always been one and the same. They just lie to everyone and make it all seem too unbelievable to even contemplate. Hitler was famously bankrolled and supplied by Wall Street and Rockefeller and the Bush family. He was also said to have direct links to the City Of London. Theres loads more meat on that bone to look into. James Corbett who is considered to be a reliable researcher did this show about this with links in the show notes:
Who Funded Hitler
https://www.corbettreport.com/who-funded-hitler-video/?msclkid=dc8f3304c19311ec805f7e35d53f511f
The most important alliance for Hitler was the one he made with Stalin.
Russia is a totalitarian plutocracy that cannot coexist with adjacent capitalist democracies (however flawed).
Because Russia’s behaviour is so capricious, its attitude towards agreements so unpredictable, the rest of Europe has no choice but to assume worst case assessments are correct.
Recent announcements from Finland, Sweden, exemplify that.
Capitalist democracies? You mean kleptocracies.
Democracy: the least worst form of government.
Grozny and Aleppo are mentioned, almost in passing, as an unfortunate side-effect of the Russian way of war. This, published on the day of the invasion, explains it much better. Kamil Galeev, Russian (hence typos/misspellings) MLitt in Early Modern History, St Andrews, MA in China Studies, Peking University.
https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1496711906412933121.html
He covers other related elements in threads I’ve been following for a while and which have consistently made the most sense of what is happening in Ukraine. The importance of warm water ports and cheaply extracted gas and oil on and in the Black Sea are fundamental to understanding the realpolitik.
One of Biden’s more impressive achievements is managing to lose the Cold War 40 years after it ended.
This invasion is directly linked to the weakness of the US Government and the POTUS in particular. Whether Russia wins or loses in Ukraine (it’s likely to do neither) America has already begun the rapid loss of its unique status, both as a military and financial power. We are watching the Fall of Rome II – with remarkably similar reasons for its failings.
‘‘Western’ values of human rights, free-trade, capitalist economics, liberal modes of politics and governance should be asserted as a ‘universal’ system of rule.’
After the last two years, I laughed out loud when I read that.
Well balance, instructive essay – thanks to its authors.
Another excellent one I have printed out for posterity.
Excellent article in that it doesn’t add anything particularly new, but in a relatively short space includes most of the issues in a comprehensible way.
Two recent media articles are I think instructive. One was recently in the Times which led with ‘Germany isolated from rest of the West’ talking about further significant arms help for Ukraine. In turns out of course that with the exception of minor gestures from Denmark and Czechia , the only countries continuing to provide significant help are the US and UK ( albeit with stuff the Ukraine forces will probably not use). France, Germany, Italy are not following suite.
The second one refers oddly to the Musk attempted takeover of Twitter. It turns out the most vocal opponent as shareholder of Twitter are the Saudis. It appears the Saudis prefer a ‘californian’ woke twitter than the model Musk advocates. The same Saudis that did not open the taps on oil production to reduce prices to make the oil sanctions on Russia work, but rather did deals with India and China that for the first time did not use the petrodollar as the currency.
Its said that the EU will stop all oil/gas imports from Russia after the French elections ( can’t harm the little emporor’s chances of reelection) which of course will help further to crater Germany’s marcantile economy and send millions across Europe into fuel poverty and/or an early grave.
I am wondering how long the ‘five eyes’ are going to hang on to their allies in the face of a long term sanction process that will harm those allies ( plus the UK) as much as Russia if not more. If the Saudi move is permanent, the days of the petrodollar are coming to an end along with the ‘world’s reserve currency’ support of the mighty USD.
Perhaps the holing below the water line of the west’s middle classes is nothing to do with the aims of the ‘great reset’………!
The UK press, and the Telegraph in particular, seem to have more articles about how rubbish Germany is than articles about Ukraine, and the rabidly racist comments that follow these articles are obscene.
I don’t believe for one minute that all of Europe is happy with the UK’s war-mongering stance…Greece were, rightly, horrified when Zelenskyy turned up to their Parliament with an Azov Nazi in tow…..
and more EU countries have not given weapons to Ukraine, than have….
Germany has a long standing foreign policy of not sending arms to conflict zones, as one would suppose, and maybe down the line they will be happy with that stance as they’ll be able to say they didn’t supply arms to far right, openly and unabashedly anti-Semitic Nazis….something our press seem to have forgotten about since the great Ukraine whitewash of 2022.
Excellent article…..I too have been bewildered by the diluting of a serious political incident into the stupidity of …he’s good and he’s bad…put up the bunting…
The main thing for me has been the lack of any willingness, on the part of the ‘leaders of the West’…to show any interest in serious diplomatic talks.
I don’t think Boris is even capable of it..and Biden?
This speaks volumes about the agenda…and it isn’t to help the ordinary Ukrainian.
My sentiments are much the same, very little talk of peace, but plenty of bluster about escalation. No regards for the people caught in the middle, despite the overtures of “Stand with Ukraine” and the meaningless flag waving.
Pathetic and sickening that they have turned this into such a blatant propaganda drive.
I see the warmongers are down voting peace again
The majority here seem to support Putin’ war with the mass murder and the few people who disagree are “war mongers” in your view. What’s your rationale?
A very helpful article thank you. I am so grateful to the Sceptic for providing such illuminating material.
I thought that was very interesting. It expanded my knowledge and confirmed a few suspicions I have about the West and Russia.
I laugh every time I see a Ukrainian flag flying here in the Uk. Are people really this stupid? I wonder if these same people will be flying the Ukrainian flag when they can no longer find food anywhere. Too bad they bought the lies, hook, line and sinker, and could not be bothered to question the narrative!
A good article which sums up well what I have been able to find out from various YouTube videos but it stops short of describing the rôle and influence of oligarchs who control Zelensky and the known nazi organisations in Ukraine. Also this:
“Why did the U.S. Government take an interest in jointly developing chemical/biological warfare facilities with Ukraine? Why did the current U.S. President’s son, Hunter Biden, gain a position with the Ukrainian energy firm Burisma, despite not knowing anything about energy policy?”
This is something we should be asking serious questions about especially as it follows hard on the heels of SARS-Cov-2 which was created in a laboratory in Wuhan funded through US government organisations led by Anthony Fauci who is heavily influenced by Bill Gates.
Could it be that our governments in the West have not only been arming and training nazis but giving them access to bio-weapon technology? I think we should be told. We should also be told about the words and deeds of one Victoria Nuland, US under-Secretary of State for Political Affairs in relation to Ukraine over the past decade.
It is distinctly possible, indeed probable, that the Russians are getting ready for a final battle in the East which will see the complete defeat of the Ukrainian army and the total annihilation of the Azov brigade and other nazi armed formations with no prisoners taken.
There is one final question: Where is Gonzalo Lira?
Russia instigated Humanitarian corridors in Syria because the Americans were bombing everything and everyone in sight. They are now using this same technique in Ukraine.
Having watched many videos on war strategy it seems to me that Russia is showing the West how to carry out war with the least hurt possible to innocent civilians and also trying to preserve as much infrastructure as possible.
Putin has pulled away from Kiev as there is no point in fighting an unnecessary battle when the Donbas needs full power to take back and clean up a very important Russian territory.
It seems to me that Russia is using strategy rather than the West’s smash and grab tactics. The West has lost the art of war. They have lost the art of diplomacy. They have lost the support of many countries around the world who are sick and tired of American destabilisation and destruction. Most people want to live in peace. Most Western Governments want war. We must ask ourselves why the need to control the World through force and hate.
I appreciate your political assesment which I’m fairly sure is valid, but as usual it is the innocents that suffer. Apart from the civilians killed or injured in Ukraine I include in that the young soldiers from Russia many of whom are effectively conscripts with little training, used as cannon fodder by Putin. It seems that there are some Ukrainians that prefer to be under Russian totaliarian control and many in Crimea seem to be in this group and some in the Dombas region. Much of the death and destruction caused could have been avoided if Ukraine agreed to give up some of this territory, although that should not isolate Ukkraine from all its sea ports and it would be reasonable for Ukraine to retain control of Odessa and land access to it. There is a large majority of Ukrainians who want to be free of Russian control and opperate as a free liberal democracy as they have been able to establish. These should be supported by the Western alliance, but not unconditionally. It would be better in view of the split alleigances in Ukraine if there was sensible negotiation where the people were able to decide where the division border line should be drawn and which side of it they want to be in. This should be possible and the new border strongly protected internationally, but the spectre of politics and national pride and face saving make it impossible, so many more people will die, until or if both sides come to their senses.
Thanks. I think this is a good article. Just three thoughts:
The overall conclusions feel very sound though.
A great deal of this discussion is entirely nugatory
Russia, via RIA Novosti, told the entire world why they invaded Ukraine:
‘Unlike, say, Georgia and the Baltic countries, Ukraine, as history has shown, is impossible as a nation state, and attempts to “build” one naturally lead to Nazism. Ukrainism is an artificial anti-Russian construction that does not have its own civilizational content, a subordinate element of an alien and alien civilization. Debanderization by itself will not be enough for denazification – the Bandera element is only a performer and a disguise for the European project of Nazi Ukraine, therefore the denazification of Ukraine is also its inevitable de-Europeanization.’
They explained the nature of that invasion:
‘The Bandera elites must be eliminated, their re-education is impossible.’
‘…liquidation of armed Nazi formations (which refers to any armed formations of Ukraine, including the Armed Forces of Ukraine), as well as the military, information, and educational infrastructure that ensures their activity;’
And its goals, endgame:
‘The “Catholic province” (Western Ukraine as part of five regions) is unlikely to become part of the pro-Russian territories. The line of alienation, however, will be found empirically. It will remain hostile to Russia, but forcibly neutral and demilitarized Ukraine with formally banned Nazism. The haters of Russia will go there. The threat of an immediate continuation of the military operation in case of non-compliance with the listed requirements will be the the guarantee of the preservation of this residual Ukraine in a neutral state.’
(Russian state owned) RIA Novosti 04 April 2022
A totalitarian plutocracy cannot coexist with an adjacent capitalist democracy (however flawed) so that capitalist democracy must be ‘de-Europeanised’
And once that capitalist democracy has been ‘de-Europeanised’, who is next in line for ‘de-Europeanisation’?
Moves afoot in Finland and Sweden indicate that any number of countries think their names may be on the ‘little list’
‘Don’t tell him your name, Pike!’
A totalitarian plutocracy cannot coexist with an adjacent capitalist democracy (however flawed) so that capitalist democracy must be ‘de-Europeanised’
‘The denazification of Ukraine is at the same time its decolonization, which the population of Ukraine will have to understand as it begins to free itself from the intoxication, temptation and dependence of the so-called European choice.’
(Russian state owned) RIA Novosti 04 April 2022
The invasion was all about compulsory de-Europeanisation.
No mention of NATO whatsoever!
“A classic political question – the stuff of many an undergraduate essay in the 1980s – was why the Soviet Union chose to invade Afghanistan in 1979″
The Russians were fed up with the drugs coming in from Afghanistan,