Thanks to Noah for his response to my reply to his original post about the morality of sending arms to Ukraine.
He takes issue with my characterisation of his post as being “wrong on every level” on the grounds that he was merely expressing reservations and raising doubts about the issue, not taking a firm stance. However, questions always have premises, hidden or not, and the framing and choice of a given question can be rhetorical in nature. If someone were to write an article with the question, “How much more weaponry should we supply?” then clearly we could infer their support for sending weaponry.
I’m not suggesting his position was so unambiguous, but I think it was reasonable to infer a position broadly critical of the West. Nonetheless, my reasoning didn’t depend upon that. My point is that the premises were wrong: freedom and self-determination weren’t given any weight. Similarly, in the highly-charged debate over abortion, if a person were to focus their argument on the hardship of the fœtus, those on the pro-abortion side would find that an erroneous or at best incomplete argument.
Also, I think the question was posed to the wrong audience. We might ask how much the Ukrainian people are willing to suffer, but my view is that it’s absolutely not for us to answer that question: it’s for the Ukrainians themselves to decide the value of their own freedom and what negotiating position they wish to take in any peace talks. I also disagree with Noah’s view that the West should pressure Ukraine to negotiate with a person who is, to quote Norm Macdonald’s memorable meiosis, “a real jerk”.
Noah goes on to clarify some of his other lines of argumentation where he believes I misstated his points. I’ll discuss where we differ. By relating the supply of weaponry to hardship in the manner that he has, it does play into the hands of aggressors, and there’s a moral component attached to that argumentation which wasn’t considered in his original post. I’m happy to see him address this point, although I think we’re miles apart on a key assumption, which I’ll quote:
Suppose, for the sake of argument, that a reasonable worst-case scenario is Russia killing every last Ukrainian. In that case, the argument for supplying arms would be overwhelming, as no outcome could be worse for ordinary Ukrainians than this.
It seems to me that Noah believes this to be an almost self-evident fact, but this is quite wrong. Annihilation is already a possible worst-case scenario, and has been a near-constant feature of international affairs for decades. Of course he’ll be aware of the doctrine of Mutually Assured Destruction (aptly, ‘M.A.D.’) which evolved in response to such threats. It’s necessary not to be intimidated, and to assure one’s enemy that the use of nuclear weapons (reasonably, any nuclear weapons) would lead to a proportionate response. In this war, the M.A.D. doctrine is very clearly in play, both enabling NATO to supply weapons to Ukraine and also preventing NATO establishing a no-fly zone, because annihilation of everyone in the world would be a very real and ‘reasonable worst-case scenario’ if Russia were to attack weapons convoys in Poland, or if NATO were to shoot down Russian planes.
But I think Noah was probably only talking about a foreseeably dreadful conclusion of purely conventional warfare. But on this, the calculus being made by Zelenskyy, the Ukrainian Government and apparently the people at large seems, contra Noah’s assumption, not too dissimilar. That is to say, in the words of General John Stark: “Live free or die: Death is not the worst of evils.”
There are plenty of Churchill quotes of a similar vein, but the underlying truth in all of them is that an army – and in total warfare also a people – must be willing to face destruction, almost as a necessary precondition of victory:
What is our aim?… Victory, victory at all costs, victory in spite of all terror; victory, however long and hard the road may be; for without victory, there is no survival.
Sun Tzu took this to an almost inhuman but ruthlessly brilliant extreme, and as a tactic deliberately situated his army on ‘death ground’ – where there was no possibility of retreat – in order to ‘inspire’ his men with fierce determination. We see the situation in the encircled Mariupol now, where in just the last 24 hours Russia demanded the surrender of Ukrainian forces – and which the defenders refused (although history doesn’t yet record whether they said “Nuts!”). Surely we know what that could mean for them? I don’t wish to put words into Noah’s mouth, but it seems that by his logic this was an immoral act, and they ought to have surrendered; we know that more civilians have died and will die as a result. Yet I am awed and humbled by their courage in the face of this unimaginable horror.
In passing, I’ll note that there’s a phrase doing the rounds at the moment: “The West is determined to fight with Russia to the last Ukrainian.” This line was originally coined to describe Saudi Arabia’s willingness to see the U.S. wage war with Iran “down to the last American soldier”, but it’s inapt here. I’m sure some people are trying to tell the Ukrainians what to do, but I wouldn’t dare. However, as I’ve said, if they want to fight – as they clearly do – then it’s our moral duty to help in any way we reasonably can. And I believe the Ukrainians do have the moral right to fight to the last Ukrainian soldier, and at the risk of greater civilian losses. But as a former U.K. Chief of Defence Intelligence is reported to have said in the last few days:
Frankly, I think they will hold out as long as we can supply them and for as long as their morale holds up, and those are two very easy things to say but really challenging to do.
Noah makes another point that I should address:
[I]f you take the view that freedom is ‘an absolute moral right’, then the West should be intervening in every conflict around the world where people believe they’re living under foreign occupation.
That’s something of a non sequitur. A moral right for one person doesn’t incur an ethical obligation on another, and a true ethical philosophy must weigh factors such as limitations on knowledge, judgement and resources. In simple terms, the police can’t investigate every crime, and free nations aren’t the omniscient, omnipotent and omnipresent police of the world. And there are many situations where gleefully handing out weapons to anyone with some kind of moral claim would be a recipe for utter disaster (like arming the Palestinians).
To Noah’s following points about the complicated nature of events in Ukraine from 2014 to the Russian invasion, where he casts some doubt on the moral claims of Ukraine, I’ll concede that Ukraine has had a very troubled recent history, and that the battle to wrest political control of Ukraine from Russia in 2014 looks somewhat murky (but no, not a CIA plot). However, following the 2014 revolution there have been elections (with the 2019 presidential election declared by observers to be free and fair), and I’d note that he omits to mention any historical details that don’t place pro-Russian interests in the best possible light, such as the attempted assassination by poison of the eventual winner of the 2004 election Viktor Yushchenko, election frauds, imprisonment of anti-Russian political figures, and so on over the years. It’s clear that both sides, through their various allies and factions, feel and act as though they’re playing a desperate game with lethal consequences for the loser, but as we both agree that doesn’t justify taking the non-democratic route of escalation to war.
Sadly, Putin doesn’t see that clear bright line, and I think he probably spends a lot of time brooding over how he was outplayed in 2014 in a rather dirty game of which he considers himself a practised expert, and in which he unaccountably feels cheated – showing a lack of self-awareness. Clearly he’s been allowing anger and bitterness to cloud his judgement, when emotional self-control is another thing he prides himself on. His state of mind must have further deteriorated on discovering even his prized FSB helped get him into a terrible pickle by just telling him what he wanted to hear about the Ukrainian people’s views of Russia. And while there’s been much talk of a recent psychological collapse, I think his state of mind is reflective more of a slow and progressive decline that began in 2003 with the ‘colour revolutions’. One can only hope that the people around him will see what a perilous game he’s playing, and that he’s not going to get any better at playing it.
As to whether we’re both ‘second-guessing’ the views of the Ukrainian people and their willingness to see this through on the battlefield, I’ll happily concede that no-one including the Ukrainians themselves can have full knowledge of the precise attitudes of every Ukrainian, but at the same time I don’t think I’m reading tea-leaves when I suggest the population supports (staunchly, I dare say) both the defence of their country and their democratically-elected government.
I’m reminded of conversations I’ve had in the past with Iranian dissidents, including ex-pats, who’ve been willing to condemn in the strongest terms the Iranian regime for all of its brutality and medieval thinking, while at the same time insisting that if anyone were to drop bombs on even just their nuclear facilities, everyone would take the regime’s side. I was taken aback the first time I heard that, but on reflection it should have been obvious that they simply loved their country, right or wrong. And in this case, similarly, internal political differences seem to have been temporarily swept aside.
Then again, I think we should – as a universally-applicable rule – be cautious about how much of what we see on the internet is truly representative of a nation, and always consider the source. Additionally, there will naturally be a certain amount of preference falsification in such an extremely polarising situation, meaning that any polling – which could be advanced propagandistically by both sides – should be taken with a large pinch of salt.
More broadly, there is an information war going on, which large sections of society in many parts of the world are engaged in whether they realise it or not, from politicians, journalists, social media users and people on the street. There’s practically no chance of any true objectivity, since ‘truth is the first casualty of war’.
Ian Rons is the IT Director of the Daily Sceptic.
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.
OT but I see from the news that the next booster is being rolled out to 4m or so older and vulnerable people. Watch out for the death count ‘with Covid’ over the next 60 days.
Not really too far OT.
It’ll be the triple dosed figures that see the most impact, as that is where they will hide the figures for quadruple jab deaths. Then the triple dose effectiveness figures will fall to join single and double dose figures in being significantly worse off than the unvaccinated. The mass meeja will proclaim that you better get your fourth dose as the third dose is no longer enough against BA.2 variant or whatever.
BINGO
Oh, snap, yes, you get 2 weeks of being counted as merely “boosted” after your “top up”. There’s going to be a lot of triple-dosed climate-catastrophe induced tragedies.
Yes for the frail elderly who survived the booster, well they may not be as lucky this time. If they are in a care home do you really think they sign an informed consent form? By the way did anyone sign a consent form for any of these experimental biologicals, that explained all the possible adverse events or death? No I didn’t think so.
Far too verbose and rambling.
Poor stuff.
Indeed. The internets is replete with unsourced op-eds on this subject. DS needs to offer an alternative to that, or else watch page views and engagement tail away.
It’s pretty obvious that the West has been supplying weapons to the Ukraine prior to the outbreak of war and providing training in their use so it’s unlikely that the West will be putting pressure on the Ukraine any time soon. Truth became a casualty long before a shot was fired.
…it’s unlikely that the West will be putting pressure on the Ukraine any time soon.
Exactly.
Russia is the second largest arms exporter in the world.
Funnily enough, prior to the war Ukraine was no. 9.
An AK47 is no match for a Javelin anti-tank missile.
A Javelin is no match for a Kinzal.
That’s correct, so let’s not lead the Ukraine down the primrose path to destruction.
An ordinary missile would achieve the same effect for a great deal less money. I don’t think Putin will be launching many of these.
Well, that was a depressing read – not least “I believe the Ukrainians do have the moral right to fight to the last Ukrainian soldier, and at the risk of greater civilian losses.” These are human beings, not pawns.
– not least “I believe the Ukrainians do have the moral right to fight to the last Ukrainian soldier, and at the risk of greater civilian losses.
Yes you are in exalted company, Biden and Johnson also are both keen on fighting Russia down to the last Ukrainian.
Yes – Liz Truss’s denunciation of the idea of peace talks between the two belligerents as a Russian ploy was appalling and I only hope that many Ukrainians are aware of what she said.
‘Ploy’ is the wrong word. ‘Pointless’ would be better.
There are no credible grounds for a deal because Putin wants to hold onto his gains, notably the Sea of Azov coast. There’s not the slightest chance of a peace deal until he agrees to give that up.
As he’s still throwing everything into taking Mauripol, that does look massively unlikely….
Nonsense.
Biden gets confused between Iran and Ukraine, and Kamala Harris makes a speech which makes it clear that she thinks that Ukraine is in NATO. It is priceless, or depressing, depending one whether you are readier to laugh or cry.
Let’s not forget Nancy Pelosi’s recent press conference discussing the no-fly zone:
https://www.express.co.uk/news/world/1581414/nancy-pelosi-alcohol-press-conference-mocked-russia-ukraine-war-fly-zone
A truly shameful and excruciating effort.
Fuck knows what they are putting in the water on capitol hill. Have you seen her reading Bono’s “poetry”?
https://uk.news.yahoo.com/ukraine-nancy-pelosi-reads-bono-101453427.html
She seems to be permanently shit-faced.
Its probably gin then, vodka being a no, no.
The truly scary part is that the Vice Courtesan in Chief is:
1) The cackling brains of the outfit.
2) One reedy heartbeat away from the launch codes.
Zelensky has threatened that the fight will continue to the death of the last Ukrainian citizen, not just the last Ukrainian soldier. He must surely be extremely unpopular in the Ukraine. As for his appearing on Israeli screens wearing a cross and saying Ukrainians helped the Jews a lot during WW2, that was truly bizarre. It’s hard to see any reason for it other than as a distraction from what is really going on. Acting in a way that you know is insulting towards someone while asking them for a big favour doesn’t make sense if taken at face value.
“I believe the Ukrainians do have the moral right to fight to the last Ukrainian soldier, and at the risk of greater civilian losses.”
What a terrible sentence. The use of the term “moral right” makes it sound as though the author thinks it is the decent, even the noble, thing to do.
For whose sake? That of their children, or of the morally reprehensible people who have been behind this conflict from the beginning?
Dulce et decorum est pro Ukraine mori.
That is a distressingly apt observation.
Let’s find out what happened to the JFO Joint Forces Operation 60,00 trained killers, before we do anything else, if they have been annihilated in a unpopulated wilderness (as I suspect) or are presently being annihilated with no connection for new supplies, then it is pointless to give Ukraine ammunition, it will not reach the JFO in time to do any good, even if we thought it could do any good,
Putin clearly does not give a hoot about Kiev, it’s full of “population”, which creates bad propaganda, he is focussed 100% on the Donbass and Crimea, i.e his wins . I think he’s decided to kill off and destroy the Ukrainian army on the open steppes, not in the apartment blocks of Kiev or Kharkiv.He’s chuffed to find the JFO out in the fields. If so it’s the best plan, since nobody can complain when a soldier gets blown up, serves ’em right ,theyd’s do it to others, if they were not killed themselves.
You can always tell things are going wrong for Putin, when Snootski comes on the DS to beg the world to turn a blind eye.
Please will you stop using DS as a forum for these long and unstructured arguments between your staff/regular contributors. There are so many commentators on Substack discussing these issues – from both points of view- in far more coherent, articulate, insightful and well informed ways. This is an abuse of the DS soapbox and indicates a worrying lack of quality control which must undermine respect for your articles on other matters.
I don’t believe for a minute these articles would have been published had they not been submitted by people personally involved with DS – and they shouldn’t have been. They’re just not very good.
Yeah exactly. You guys won’t let Sam Bailey respond to the scurrilous attack made on her here, yet everyone in your office gets to strut around as if they are Field Marshall Montgomery. Truly, no one cares what your marketing guy thinks.
I stand with Sam Bailey!
Yep. She has published her own refutation on her blog. It is excellent.
Indeed.
Such trenchant analysis and compelling argumentation! It went downhill from there.
I used to moderate on a forum, and this would have been deemed an in-house discussion to be conducted on the private forum behind the scenes. It would have been deemed inappropriate to conduct this bizarre in-house back and forth on the forum itself, and using forum space, if you please.
This is to say nothing of the fact that, given the level of argumentation being offered, particularly from one side, we’d have been utterly embarrassed to air this on the main forum.
I think Ian rons is an egoist, and he’d ban me for saying so, were it not for the free speech union, we’ll teat him.
One either does or does not believe Zelensky’s story, that Ukraine is just a little timid Jewish kid wearing glasses waiting for a bus at Stamford Hill . While Putin is Attila the Hun, waiting for the same bus on his way to work at the slaughter house to kill as many lambs as he can with his bare hands, but the bus is late so Attila gives poor Ukraine a thumping to be going on with.
And Ian Rons obviously does believe that simplified hogwash. Of course if it were so simple, even I’d sell Ukraine an Uzi with a thirty-two-round magazine and tell him to riddle Attila with bullets, by all means.
I’d even give thbrace Ukraine my own UZI or kill Attila myself. And that is the level of dialog the main stream media has stooped to now, it’s out of control, the hand wringing has to cease before it brings on a war to end all wars, which is far more important than a quarrel at a bus queue at at Stamford Hill.
He’s apparently got a $35m pad in Miami.
Listening to Putin and Lavrov via translation they sound far more rational and logical than Biden, Harris, Pelosi, Johnson et al. Which is not a high bar of course.
This article is written as though Putin acts entirely alone with no advice from his government or military.
He doesn’t, not even the Chinese all bow to Xi, as N. Korea bows to Kim Jong-un. Even then Kim will take advice from his military, at the very least, as to the likely outcomes of a particular action.
As for the villain in this situation, there are many, not least the west, in particular the arrogant organisations of NATO (read USA), the EU and the UN.
This whole thing could have been stopped before it began by them listening to Putin and negotiating a neutrality condition for Ukraine. This seems the general consensus amongst informed observers.
Putin and his government are compelled to defend Russia’s borders from any threat, just as western leaders are theirs. The west is now clamouring for negotiations but Russian troops were positioned on the Ukraine border for weeks with no apparent attempt at a negotiated settlement. Probably because arrogant western fools didn’t believe Russia would dare attempt to defy them.
Bluff truly called.
There already was a low level war going on between Putin and Ukraine – in the Donbass.
How can you have neutrality in the middle of a war?
A low level war isn’t a full blown invasion. The Donbass conflict could have continued, it had nothing to do with the west, nor does the Ukraine for that matter. However it seems the west was confident of securing an ally on Russia’s border despite Donbass which they were prepared to sacrifice. Yet they are now wailing about the casualties from Russia invading Ukraine as a whole. Not a word about Donbass of course.
Had Russia rolled into just Donbass to protect the region (Russian speaking) they would have been condemned for invading a Ukrainian territory anyway, and still not a word of the ongoing conflict since 2014 would have been mentioned here.
As the saying goes, as well getting hung for a sheep as a lamb.
In short, neutrality of Ukraine could have been secured whilst the Donbass conflict continued. Ukrainian neutrality has nothing to do with internal affairs, it’s purely an international gesture to respect Russia’s desire to keep NATO at arms length.
But it is still a war, and it makes no sense to talk about neutrality while Ukraine and Russia are still fighting each other in the Donbass.
No peace was possible so long as Russia continued to occupy the Donbass and Crimea.
If Putin had opted for a more limited action – for example to expand the Donbass separatist region – he would have got away with it. There would have been an increase in sanctions, but nothing on the scale of what’s happened. And there would have been a clear exit strategy for the Russians.
This is very reminiscent of Saddam Hussein’s mistake in the Gulf War 1. He should have grabbed the Rumalia oilfield, which was disputed territory on the border. Instead he went for the whole state.
It’s extremely unusual since WW2 for one state to attempt to wipe another off the map. You’ve got Saddam, Gaddafi (in Chad) – and now Putin.
Agree. And it is stated that 14k people died so far in that conflict. Not so low level I would say.
Well, that’s over an 8 year period. But clearly it would be better if Putin had never provoked the rebellion in the first place.
Also, that’s both sides combined. You’d think it was only the rebels taking casualties the way it gets reported on this site.
The US and UK were allegedly arming Ukraine to fight that war.
The US also actively intervened in Ukraine to ensure anti Russian leaders were in place.
The West also allowed Zelensky to muse on the possibility of becoming nuclear armed at the Munich Security Conference. He was applauded. Imagine US reactions if a China allied Mexico did the same.
If any leader in the west cared about bloodshed then they would be pushing for negotiations.
To a detached observer, the west has in recent years been a highly aggressive war mongering alliance: think bombing of Serbia, Syria, Libya, Afghanistan, Iraq, Yemen and a myriad of drone strikes and threats to use drones. Not to mention economic war on countries such as Venezuela.
The US is now explicitly seeking to overthrow the constitutional government of Russia too. The Democrats also fabricated the whole story that Trump was elected because of Russia and Lynsey Graham openly muses on the possibility of Assisi action. This is not the behaviour of a country that supports the rights of others.
Much of the world sees us as the bad guys. They may be right.
“How can you have neutrality in the middle of a war?”
The Swiss managed for 500 years.
The Swiss state was not invaded.
I was addressing your comment “How can you have neutrality in the middle of a war?” The UK hasn’t been invaded, yet the last thing I see is neutrality. You can’t even watch an FA Cup quarter final without some declaration that football stands by the Ukraine.
Well, I was replying to RedHotScot who feels that Ukraine could have avoided war by going neutral.
But Ukraine and Russia have already been at war for years so neutrality is not possible.
Any number of states claim to be neutral on wars while still supplying weapons – such as Russia itself, the second largest arms supplier in the world.
Only they did so by invoking their version of neutrality; Swiss mercenaries during this period were highly sought after by other non neutrals…how did they develop that talent for military acumen throughout this period of “neutrality”?
The amount of stolen gold, other precious metals, paintings and other prized valuables that still, allegedly, reside in the vaults of Swiss banks would tend to scupper the “neutral” stance…utterly.
Very well said, RS. Russia has been turned into Putin, and that name has been made a synonym for evil by people who know nothing of the complexities of Russia’s internal or external affairs.
I suspect it will be Lavrov who brokers a solution. Let’s hope there is one, despite the death cultists of the West.
This needs to stop now. Calm discussion must take place. Re-negotiations are always possible. I want as many live Ukrainians as possible.
It’s important to keep emphasising that this is Putin’s fault, not the Russian people’s.
“This seems the general consensus amongst informed observers.”
What a weasel phrase; we have just spent more than two years listening to all sorts of “informed observers” claiming “vaccines” worked – that opinion was thoroughly shot to pieces throughout and I reckon you were one of those who slated such “informed observers”.
Very odd that you now put such faith in the consensus of “informed observers”.
You’re conflating ‘informed observers’ with ‘health experts’ and their decidedly uniformed lackeys.
*uninformed
I think when you state a position such as this, that Ukraine has the right to do whatever it sees fit (their desire and continuous push to seek NATO membership was just one example of this) to defend itself, then how does this reflect back on ourselves.
They are risking nuclear face off. Haven’t we the right to prevent that? I mean, once you take a position, such as you have, are we entitled to do everything we can to prevent such a mutually destructive event?
I see no easy out here. It’s as if Putin finally imploding and going for the jugular has removed any hope of a more balanced end to it all.
Russia has used hypersonic missiles – I believe that represents an escalation towards the nuclear threshold. Russia sees NATO as an existential threat and is — based on many previous statements – prepared to use nuclear weapons. Would that our corrupt idiotic leaders woke up to this and started talking.
One thing I’ve never thought Putin to be is an idiot. And he’d have to be an idiot to think this.
I can’t think of one single NATO member that has ever looked to attack the Russian homeland, let alone all 30.
Missiles in a Ukrainian location – say, around Kharkov – gives NATO three minutes flying time to Moscow.
That is an existential threat, and Moscow has said this on numerous occasions.
Firstly, Russia is an existential threat to its neighbours.
Secondly, to repeat, NATO is incapable of agreeing to attack Russia, whether with missiles or any other mechanism.
Thirdly, Russia’s missiles are already horribly close to Europe, if not the US. And in Putin, you have a who might actually use them.
I see it didn’t take long for the 77th/HMG propagandist to join the party.
I guess you prefer an echo chamber.
At the risk of inviting you to talk rubbish, what exactly is does this 77th/HMG thing mean?
The echo chamber is out there in the mainstream media.
And I’ll assume the ignorance is false.
There are soooo many different views across the media. But just one on this website, apart from me.
(OK, there are a couple of others too.)
Corporate media here seems universally to see this as a morality play. Not so pluralist except sometimes GB News.
One has to look very hard for other sources. Indian news networks are one option.
In my entire life I have never been so ashamed of my country. We and the US have created this war.
I totally disagree, this war is Putin’s. He had many other options which would have worked out much better for him (never mind the rest of us).
Putin has been laying the ground for war for a long time. Because the reaction to Crimea and the Donbass was so mild, he thought he could get away with more.
The one positive thing we can take from the events of the last few weeks is that autocrats everywhere will think twice about following in Putin’s footsteps.
It’s not working out for him.
When was the last time Russia invaded another country, not on its border?
How many invasions/conflicts has the west (NATO – USA) been involved in during the 21st Century?
None to protect its own borders, all have been remote wars fought on the basis of ‘the war against terror’ or non existent WMD’s.
We have occupied, bombed and terrorised numerous countries killing millions of innocent people.
Yet somehow you imagine Russia is a threat to world peace?
The only reason the rhetoric is being whipped up over nuclear weapons is because up until now, no country the west has confronted in this century had nuclear weapons. We just steam roller over the little guys.
And the first time we bump into a country with nuclear capabilities, suddenly they’re the nuclear threat to us.
Sorry, I don’t buy any of it.
NATO is not the same thing as the US.
The majority of western interventions in the last few decades have been under UN auspices – ie they were approved by Russia, or at least not blocked by Russia.
Russia has never obtained UN support for any of its wars.
The western interventions were never about acquiring territory for the western states involved, unlike Russia in Ukraine.
Russia has fought wars outside its neighbours eg Syria.
Russia has a lot of neighbours. Apart from China, none of them are remotely a threat to its security.
America shares the lions part of support for NATO therefore when it says jump, NATO jumps. Don’t display how naïve you are in public.
Perhaps we should take lessons from Russia in UN declarations of war on behalf of NATO members, and keep our nose out of other peoples business.
Putin has repeatedly stated that he want’s Ukraine to remain a sovereign state with no interference from Russia other than supporting Russian speaking regions to protect their language and culture.
In other words, he’s not interested in occupying Ukraine.
Russia has supplied arms to countries outside its borders e.g. Syria, and the west provided arms to the Mujahideen in Afghanistan.
Russia also answered the call of the international community to fight ISIS in the Middle east, including Syria.
Don’t be such a sap. Russia isn’t interested in any threat Ukraine might present to it. Russia is concerned about the threat NATO, the UN and the EU represents to it, and they were actively negotiating with Ukraine on membership of all those organisations.
Why do you imagine Putin is invading one of the poorest countries in Europe? It’s not him that wants the country, it’s the west.
Russia promised to respect Ukrainian sovereignty in the Budapest Memorandum. This was a lie.
He’s said many things about Ukraine, such as that Ukrainians and Russians are ‘one people’ and the countries are ‘indivisible’. The same kind of language China uses for Taiwan.
What is the point in arguing that Putin has no designs on Ukrainian territory when he already seized Crimea and the Donbass? This is not tenable!
By the way, Ukraine was on the rise economically, although if it slips back into Russian corruption that’s all over.
Well spotted.
Russia sees NATO as an existential threat
Yes. And Trisha Greenalgh sees people without face coverings as an existential threat and in her case, it’s actually even true, while Putin probably doesn’t believe in his own propaganda. Short of a nuclear attack of the USA on Russia, the NATO doesn’t have the military means to be an existential threat to Russia and it certainly doesn’t have them on its eastern borders where an absolutely glorious NATO presence of less than 5000 soldiers is supposed to provide a deterrent. Just how is anybody’s guess.
Putin could roll over this sort-of force in the Baltic states and there’s nothing the NATO could do about it short of committing nuclear suicide. And this would need to be the USA and not the NATO. All rethoric to the contrary notwithstanding, I don’t believe a US president would ever do that.
“while Putin probably doesn’t believe in his own propaganda. Short of a nuclear attack of the USA on Russia, the NATO doesn’t have the military means to be an existential threat to Russia“
This is just ignorance on your part, and a seeming inability to put yourself on the other party’s position.
From the Russian perspective (and the Chinese I think largely agree on this) the US’s (and NATO’s) history over the past three decades of aggressive wars and of subversion leading to regime change in “colour revolutions” represents a clear pattern of isolation and advance that indicates an intention ultimately to “regime change” them.
And, frankly, they are probably correct in that, as far as some elements at least in the US regime and deep state are concerned.
Certainly the comedic representation in the US sphere mainstream media of nations just spontaneously deciding they want to overthrow their leaders and join the “free world” just for the sheer goodness (and wealth) of it, is pretty implausible. Especially when you see the money and dirty tricks thrown at promoting these spontaneous outpourings of nobility.
As to practicality, it is false to assume that a nuclear or military deterrent is the end of the story. Such deterrents are open to being bypassed or technologically defeated, and no competent national leader would assume that no threat exists merely because they currently have a deterrent.
Putin is well aware of the scale of the US’s superiority in wealth and military resources, and clearly recognises the inherent threat in development of ABM systems by the US. These points were made clearly by him in 2016:
“It was precisely this balance of power that guarantees the safety of humanity from major global conflict, over the past 70 years. It was a blessing rooted in a “mutual threat” but this mutual threat is what guaranteed mutual peace on a global scale. How they could so easily tear it down, I simply don’t know.
Sure, “the United States are not developing weapons for the purposes of an offensive operation”… At least not that which is in the public eye, although we know for certain that this is occurring. I’m not about to get into asking that right now – we’re perfectly aware that it is happening. “okay you’re not developing it!” But the facts are; there is an anti-missile defense system being developed in the United States. Sure, today it is not in working order and we’re not yet sure if it will ever be implemented.
However, theoretically, it is created in order to be implemented. Again, hypothetically – understand that there will be a moment in time where our nuclear potential will be completely neutralised. Our current capability I mean can be completely neutralised by this anti-missile defense system. It this is the case then that means the balance of power in the world will be completely upset. This means that one of the powers will feel a complete sense of security. Which in turn means it can do what ever it likes not only in regional conflicts – but, now. We are talking about its unmatched might in global conflict.
This is the only food for thought, don’t let me come off like I am accusing you of something. But International Relations is much like mathematics – there is nothing personal about it. Therefore we will respond accordingly – but how?
We can match you in your actions and build an equally great multi-million dollar anti-missile defense system or taking into account our economic and financial capability in the current day – we can respond asymmetrically. So that it is clear to all that “yes there is an anti-missile defense system in Europe – but as it relates to Russia it is entirely pointless. Because we have a weapon that can nullify it. This is the path that we are going to take. It works our cheaper for us. But in no way is this aggression against the United States. I fully mirror your behavior when you say that your anti-missile defense system “is not targeted against us” – then our new weapon is “not targeted against you” either!“
PUTIN’S WARNING TO THE WESTON THE DANGERS OF WARJUNE 17, 2016
http://www.worldfuturefund.org/Reports/putinspeech2016.html
You might think this perceived threat is unrealistic. I disagree. But it is not really what either of us think that really matters on this, but what the Russians think.
China’s attitude is always coloured by the fact that one day, it’s probably going to invade Taiwan.
China’s view is that Taiwan is part of China, and its position on that is strong.
Taiwan is where the forces of the defeated former Chinese government retreated to, and from whence they claimed to be the government of all of China (recognised as such by all of the US sphere powers until it became expedient to kowtow to the mainland Chinese in order to use them against the Soviets) and the only reason Taiwan was not occupied by the communists was because the US intervened.
China will probably not invade Taiwan unless there are moves to make its separation permanent.
But certainly, China expects Taiwan to be used against it as the Ukraine is against Russia, when it suits the US deep state to do so, and that’s one reason Russia and China (natural rivals) are being pushed together by US policy.
I’m fully aware of Taiwan’s history.
Taiwan has 23 mill people who are overwhelmingly pro independence.
Taiwan is de facto independent right now, and any limitations on its sovereignty are due to Chinese pressure of one sort or another.
It would require the biggest forced change of nationality since WW2.
All missiles are hypersonic. The Russian one is just larger than the usual anti aircraft and anti ship missiles and can carry a bigger warhead, by the sounds of it, up to tactical, battlefield nuclear.
It’s no threat to the west unless we send in our own military.
Personally, I figure the claimed use of the hypersonic missile is a false flag. It’s an expensive piece of kit and it’s only advantage is that its speed means it can outrun anti aircraft missiles. So why bother using one when the Russians have artillery in the region able to target an area with much more ordnance at a fraction of the cost with no chance of interception by any type of missile?
Umm – it’s Russia who says they used them…
In truth, Kinzhal was always going to be showcased/combat tested at some point in this operation.
It’s a pointless weapon to use in this war, but I agree it was a PR thing, or possibly a test.
Hypersonic weapons upset the nuclear balance because they reduce reaction time for defenders.
It’s equivalent to moving Russia’s missiles closer to Europe.
Of course, one of Putin’s spurious reasons for this war, is an objection to the potential of NATO missiles coming closer to his border…
Not so much hypersonic, more hypocritical.
The whole point for Russia of developing faster missile technology was as an asymmetric counter to the US dropping the ABM treaty – see the speech by Putin quoted in my reply to RW above:
https://dailysceptic.org/2022/03/21/the-west-should-not-pressure-ukraine-to-negotiate-with-putin/#comment-759470
Indeed, none of this is news, except to people who believe that history began about three weeks ago. Putin has been warning about this for decades. It’s only surprising that it’s taken him so long to act on it.
Russia needed to rebuild its strength following the collapse of the 1990s. Probably could not act before now. The Russians are careful strategists, and do not want to be drawn into untenable situations.
“Spurious”?
It’s not hypocritical to put your own nation first. For an example, see your jingoistic tone here. I wouldn’t call you a hypocrite for it, just… useful.
Where am I jingoistic? I’ve said virtually nothing about British intentions.
I’m not in favour of directly fighting Russia, much as they deserve it.
“Sadly, Putin doesn’t see that clear bright line, and I think he probably spends a lot of time brooding over how he was outplayed in 2014 in a rather dirty game of which he considers himself a practised expert, and in which he unaccountably feels cheated – showing a lack of self-awareness. Clearly he’s been allowing anger and bitterness to cloud his judgement, when emotional self-control is another thing he prides himself on. His state of mind must have further deteriorated on discovering even his prized FSB helped get him into a terrible pickle by just telling him what he wanted to hear about the Ukrainian people’s views of Russia. And while there’s been much talk of a recent psychological collapse, I think his state of mind is reflective more of a slow and progressive decline that began in 2003 with the ‘colour revolutions’. One can only hope that the people around him will see what a perilous game he’s playing, and that he’s not going to get any better at playing it.“
What’s sad is that you seem completely unaware of the degree to which these frankly silly speculations about the enemy leader’s rationality are the result of direct propaganda manipulation, just as the fear so many felt of covid was the result of similar manipulation.
I’ve been watching US sphere wars for many decades, and I cannot recall a war in the past three decades in which the enemy leader du jour was not viewed in exactly this way – pathologised as “unstable”, “mad”, “megalomaniac” etc, usually based upon pure speculation together with outright dishonest misrepresentations of the context and of their supposed objectives.
As a general rule it’s safest to assume that a powerful and successful leader is sane, however much you might dislike his actions. (One of the few exceptions would be where they exhibit clear symptoms of actual senility, as with Biden and Pelosi recently – but these are figureheads rather than leaders anyway.)
In this case, it’s pretty clear that the Russians have never intended to militarily occupy the Ukraine. The force levels they went in with were completely inadequate for the job, and while it also appears they misread the response of the Ukrainians, there’s no way they would have gone in without a backup plan for that eventuality. Their objectives appear to be to secure the separatist regions, and halt the murderous artillery barrages that were a daily feature of life for civilians in those areas, to remove the power of the ultranationalist fanatics (“denazification”), exclude NATO influence and impose a neutral Ukraine, and to remove the growing military threat of Ukrainian forces, one way or the other.
To achieve those goals they don’t need to occupy the whole of the Ukraine, they just need to achieve military victories over the armed forces of the Ukraine and systematically wipe out concentrations of nationalist extremists, until a Ukraine ruler eventually comes to terms with them. The outcome for the Ukraine will be worse, the longer they put off coming to terms. But better, of course, for the US elites seeking to use them to harm Russia.
There’s nothing “irrational” about any of this. We know the US and its puppets were not interested in negotiation and were proceeding to train and arm Ukrainian forces in the ongoing de facto NATO-isation of the country, for as long as they were allowed to get away with it. The situation, and the cost of eventually taking action, was only going to get worse for Russia, never better, with delay. Putin said he considered a more limited operation to just push the Ukrainian killers back from the separatist regions, but rejected that because it would merely recreate the same situation further west.
Putin chose to grasp the nettle now, knowing that delay was going to make it sting harder. That’s a legitimate and rational course of action for a national leader in his position to take, and the only question is can Russia prevail against the forces deployed against it by the world’s most powerful superpower and its satellites, or not? The only issue for the Ukraine is how heavy a price it pays for serving the purposes of the US elites.
And if you want to get a feel for what drives these propaganda-led falsehoods that sweep the US sphere on issues where particular elite groups want to achieve something, it’s always about money, because that’s the tool they use to get the job done, filtered through their established political and media tools, and the compliant security deep state:
https://scotthorton.org/interviews/3-4-22-peter-van-buren-on-the-war-in-ukraine-and-the-origins-of-russiagate/
The drivers of opinion and policy in Washington:
Scott Horton: “…. I interviewed the great Ben Freeman, real nuts and bolts and bean counting expert on foreign lobbies and their influence in Washington DC, and of course that means he specialises first and foremost in the Israel Lobby and the Saudi Lobby, but he did this huge study about the Ukraine Lobby and said they put more money in by far than anyone has ever seen. They put the Israel Lobby and the Saudi Lobby to shame. Now as he said, they’re way ahead in the race anyway, they’ve got very deep grooves already in DC, the Ukraine Lobby is new at this. But they’re just dumping hundreds of millions of dollars in…to propagandise, to focus directly on the most important Senators and Congressmen and their staff, the thinktanks, and the media. And it’s just – they got K Street, they got professional lobbyists, you mentioned the babies in incubators – that was the Hill and Knowlton public relations firm on Madison Avenue in New York City that came up with that.”
Give Mark a column.
Agreed. He’s a beast.
Exactly. I thought the same. It is astonishingly stupid and, bizarrely, lacks any real scepticism. Part of being sceptical is having the wherewithal to question narratives, Government/establishment tropes, and to be sceptical of what you think you know. How Rons thinks he can establish these hackneyed speculations is beyond me.
It’s amateur night in Dixie.
Sorry, one can no longer say (or perhaps even whistle) D****. For further details contact Ms D Parton, Nashville, TN.
Completely agree and very well said. This constant psychoanalysis of Putin is embarrassing, as are notions that he is somehow acting alone and against the wishes of his complex, multifaceted and culturally diverse federation. No attempt to understand the way that Russian politics works and of course afraid to contextualise; it’s all very lazy analysis (here in the West)
Completely agree and very well said.
Ditto – and agree with the rest of your post, too.
There are all kinds of arrogance, but pontificating about the mental state of people you have never met is something else. It’s right up there.
To achieve these goals he needed to do precisely nothing, because a pre-existing border dispute (ie the Donbass & Crimea) already meant NATO membership could not go ahead.
That’s what you say, but not only does that only address one of the prerequisites for peace, but you wilfully ignore the facts on the ground of ongoing de facto NATO-isation, because they don’t suit your preferred narrative.
There was no peace before the present invasion – just a smaller war. And that wasn’t about NATO.
NATO is the bullshit excuse for the current invasion.
NATO is incapable of deciding to invade Russia, because it would require the democratic vote of 30 countries who aren’t the slightest bit interested in the idea.
“NATO is the bullshit excuse for the current invasion.”
You said neo-Nazis were the bullshit excuse for the current invasion a few days ago. Despite both issues being highlighted by Russia for years.
“democratic vote of 30 countries”
The idea that each country in NATO has equal influence when making decisions is ludicrous.
Yes, Putin has been preparing the Russian people to buy this invasion for years.
The idea that the US can decide for the other 29 members whether to go to war or not is ludicrous – let alone all at the same time.
Only Article 5 carries an obligation on members, and that can only be invoked in a war of defence.
Spare me the propaganda.
The war on Iraq was illegal, but it happened because the US wanted it to happen.
Gulf War 1 was a UN operation.
Gulf War 2 involved a long legal argument about whether it was UN authorised or not. In my view, it was not, but there was at least some ambiguity about it.
None of Russia’s wars had UN backing.
The US openly stated Iraq was going to happen with or without UN backing anyway.
They will happily act outside of “international law” if it’s in their interest to do so.
Didn’t America go into Afghanistan, ostensibly to pursue Bin Ladin, without any international agreement?
Article 5 has only been invoked once – and this was that moment. It was a response to the attack on the Twin Towers.
They didn’t seek UN approval because war had effectively already been declared.
By the way, it would have probably been a very successful operation, but for the tremendous mistake of Gulf War 2.
Who was war declared by?
Bin Ladin?
An individual with no position in any parliament?
So, with no legal precedent the US invaded Afghanistan to catch one guy and thereby caused an unnecessary war in the country.
Absolute bull…….
Bin Laden acted with the knowledge, approval and support of the Taliban government.
For example, note the Taliban assassination of Massood just hours before 9/11. The Northern Alliance held the last bit of territory from which it would be credible for the US to launch an assault.
The Taliban’s mistake was not to give time for the Northern Alliance to fold up.
No Northern Alliance, no invasion of Afghanistan.
9/11 was a deep state operation, a false flag to justify the continuing regime change wars we have had to endure since then
Do not try to justify the actions of a country that murders its own citizens on TV, and broadcasts this horror around the world as a justification for asset stripping the middle east and destroying people and cultures.
Incidentally Klaus Schwab was sitting in a Manhattan restaurant that morning to watch the action from a grandstand seat.
Nothing is more boring, and more irrelevant after all these years, than a 9/11 conspiracy theory.
Real people died horribly.
You are a callous individual.
Why do you defend the actions of these liars and brutal mass murderers.
Conspiracy theories? They are coming true this year, aren’t they!
Do some f…ing research.
https://www.ae911truth.org/evidence/evidence-overview
There is nothing more repulsive than the conspiracy theorists who have, for example, accused New York firefighters of being complicit in the very event that consumed so many of their colleagues’ lives. I have no respect for this – none.
Straw man argument – very poor!
Did I say anything about firefighters?
Look at the weblink I put up.
It is valid serious research and does not mention your squalid little digression.
I find it repulsive that people are still unable to acknowledge the criminality of the CIA/US/UK/NATO enterprise.
I have done very extensive research on 9/11, enough to know that most of the conspiracy theories require complicity from firefighters because of what happened in WTC7.
I am terrifically uninterested in seeing the same crap all over again, all these years later.
Not one single whistleblower has ever emerged. And I mean someone actually admitting direct personal involvement, not some vanity project like Sibel Edmonds.
Look at the scientific evidence. Those buildings collapsed in freefall. How can a steel framed building do that? The temperature under the rubble was immensely high for weeks. This was chemical destruction. It took months to wire those buildings up for demolition, and then pull them onscreen to a traumatised audience.
How sick can you get?
Why would someone admit to this?
Because people admit to everything in the end, whether through senility or otherwise, and 9/11 requires complicity by low level participants.
WTC7 is a problem because a) justifying it as a target requires implausible theories b) no one could have predicted it would get hit by debris from the Towers, but that is essential to explain its collapse c) why wasn’t it targeted in the first place? d) it took about 7 hours to come down, which creates problems for a controlled demolition narrative e) the firefighters in there said it would collapse and that’s why they evacuated.
There is no explanation for the firefighters’ behaviour that doesn’t involve their complicity.
All the popular conspiracy theories include WTC7 as part of their evidence.
Therefore, all the conspiracy theories involve a disgusting insult to the integrity of the firefighters, the very group who suffered most.
Yes they did say that and I take it to be true. Nevertheless (because of Blair) they did look for UN approval.
Gulf War 1 was fought under UN auspices. Unfortunately, the UN insisted that the war aim was only to remove Saddam from Kuwait, not remove Saddam altogether.
For that reason, although victory over Saddam in GW1 was total, they withdrew without taking Baghdad or deposing Saddam. The underlying problem was not solved.
As I approve of the UN, I approved the decision not to depose Saddam, despite the consequences.
You approve of an unelected body of bureaucrats whose remit has migrated from providing aid to impoverished countries to sanctioning war on countries?
I approve of the ideals of the UN.
But no one could say the reality has fulfilled the ideal.
There are many reasons for the disappointment, but the perennial Russian and Chinese vetoes would be high on the list.
Which country is the most powerful member of the UN. Oh yea, America. Which country is the most powerful member of NATO. Oh yea, America.
When America says jump, both ask how high.
To point out the obvious, Russia has a veto at the UN. And it uses it.
NATO action is only compulsory under Article 5, which I’m sure you know only applies to defence.
Your faith in the powers of international law in this sphere is touching – particularly in an atmosphere of shameful vilification of an entire people and its culture.
It’s more than vilification. It’s open incitement to hatred and contempt.
International law only works if everyone agrees to follow it. Putin doesn’t.
There has never been a Russian military action approved by the UN..
Does the US follow international law? Check out its attitude to the International Criminal Court and the Rome Statute.
The US has an imperfect record in many ways. Nevertheless, Putin’s attempt to seize an entire sovereign state is truly exceptional. Only Saddam and Gaddafi have tried this since WW2.
Why didn’t Russia veto the Iraq war you claimed was run by the UN?
It served Russia no purpose.
Gulf War 1 was a UN action, there’s no doubt about that (under Resolution 678). The attackers adhered to UN rules to an amazing degree, So when they had Saddam on the ropes, they turned round and left him in power, because the UN authorisation only allowed for kicking him out of Kuwait.
In 1991 Russia was in the throes of the break up of the Soviet Union and an extreme economic crisis. They tried very hard to broker a peace deal, but Saddam was convinced no one would attack him so he refused to back down.
This was the start of a period when the usual Russian veto on UN actions didn’t always apply. I think it can be said that the US failed to handle that great opportunity in the best way.
What on earth do you think is going on here? Ukraine is desperate for NATO troops to roll into the country to take on Russia, and had Ukraine been a NATO country, it would have irrespective of the wishes of some of its members because NATO is duty bound to protect its membership.
The EU was fast tracking membership for Ukraine, despite its corruption, conflict in Donbass and neo-Nazi influences on its military. That membership would have set it up for NATO membership.
As a member of NATO it would have access to all the militarisation it wanted, including nuclear defence, although not directly in charge of it.
However, Ukraine is not above setting fires in the brush then blaming others i.e. Russia which is probably why NATO isn’t interested in its membership, yet.
Of course, if Ukraine was a member of NATO, NATO would have reacted.
That’s precisely why Putin has never invaded a NATO country.
But NATO would never attack Russia, unless first attacked.
EU membership is not synonymous with NATO membership and not everyone is.
NATO will never attack Russia, until it does.
Walking away from the ABM treaty and creeping Mystery Meat Missiles closer and closer to Russia’s borders is like cocking your fist and sidling towards another chap while murmuring “Oh, don’t worry, I’d never punch you first. Now, put your hands down and lift your chin a bit.”
Once again, such an attack is a) against NATO’s constitution, so you’d need a new orgnaisation and b) requires a vote in all the parliaments of all the members.
You just can’t hold that out as a serious possibility. It’s about as likely as a Russian invasion of Australia.
How many countries has Russia attacked that weren’t on it’s border in the 21st Century Vs how many the west has attacked that weren’t on their borders?
Russia has much more limited ability to fight a remote war, and also more limited interests. It has never played any role in UN actions.
The US has been drawn into the role of ‘world policeman’ since WW2. Because it has by far the greatest ability to project force remotely, it has ended up fighting the lion’s share of UN wars.
That’s way too long a history to get into here and there’s much to criticise. The only thing I would say is, ‘be careful what you wish for’. The sharp decline in US willingness to fight wars (which has already happened) has not led to a decrease in wars or an improvement world security.
In fact, it’s the opposite. Putin’s attempt to grab an entire sovereign state would, if left unchallenged, lead directly to multiple wars of aggression round the globe and the rise of the strongman autocrat.
Excellent analysis Mark and, to answer your question about whether or not Russia can prevail – the answer appears to centre around the issue of a no-fly zone. There’s an interesting discussion about this on yesterday’s edition (Monday 21st March) of UKColumn News starting at around the 38.50′ mark:
https://www.ukcolumn.org/ukcolumn-news/uk-column-news-21st-march-2022
DS appearing to be against the saving of lives.
Zelensky delivered a rather bitter speech in which he revealed that the West had said to him (in private) that Ukraine would even join NATO, but refuse to say this publicly. In which case, what si this war about?
Biden and Bozo willing to fight Russia at distance to the last drop of Ukrainian blood.
“DS appearing to be against the saving of lives.”
In fairness, though key members of the ownership and management (Toby Young and Ian Rons, at least) clearly have quite strong personal commitments to the Official Truth line on the Ukraine, so far DS has not as far as I’ve seen taken a formal editorial position on the Ukraine issue, and has published articles arguing both sides. Which is imo as it should be for an honestly “Sceptic” publication.
As I’ve noted before, I’ve no doubt they’ve received lots of pressure from friends (and “friends”) telling them how disgraceful it is that so many of their commenters are dissenters from the Official Truth on this, how “dangerous” it is to their “credibility” etc, and how they themselves will no longer be visiting or contributing to the site if it goes on. That’s just how these things work, in my experience.
So far, so good.
This has just turned into a parlour game now. Who cares what random person X thinks, or random person Y responds. Everyone’s acting like they actually have a role to play, or their opinion actually matters. Sure, when it was COVID, you were in the game, you took the jab or not. But this is not COVID. Your fancy talk and your grasp of some straws of history is neither here nor there. But sure, carry on, as if you’re in charge of something.
We are all to some extent “in the game” if, for example, global food prices skyrocket and remain high for as long as the war continues, which could be months, pushing more and more people into poverty in the U.K. and possibly starvation in other parts of the world.
Obviously if the situation escalates into WWIII and the possibility of nuclear war we’re all very much in the “game”, or in the case of a lot of people, very quickly and permanently out of the “game”.
We were on course for something calamitous before Ukraine anyway.
And the gutless, corrupt Western leaders are in lockstep to achieve this.
At least the current situation has made them lift their heads from the trough momentarily.
No surprise that all they have to offer is the same propaganda playbook used over the last two years on their own citizens.
Off-topic, except insofar as this underscores the problem of using the term “the west”: Yvan Colonna has died. There could be big trouble for France in Corsica now.
Ian Rons states about the situation in Mariupol “Yet I am awed and humbled by their courage in the face of this unimaginable horror.”
Does he not realise that the Ukrainians fighting in that city are the neo-Nazi Azov brigade who are not letting civilians leave and are using them as human shields?
The only way to reduce innocent civilian casualties to a minimum is a quick Russian victory, no foreign arming of the Ukrainians and surrender by Zelensky to all of Russia’s reasonable demands.
I do wonder what the position of people like Rons, praising the “heroism” of the fanatics hiding behind the civilian population in Mariupol, was to the similarly fanatical islamist head-choppers “heroically” fighting to the death in towns full of civilians in Syria.
It was pretty clear that Mariupol would have joined the rest of the separatists in Donetsk Oblast in 2014, had they not been brutally repressed by armed men from the nationalist forces and funded by the oligarchs.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Mariupol_(2014)
Putin’s approach to Chechnya: smash the rebels.
Putin’s approach to the Donbass: feed them military equipment and manpower.
There never would have been a rebellion in the Donbass, except for Putin’s encouragement.
NATO’s approach to the Ukraine: feed them military equipment and manpower.
There never would have been a rebellion in Ukraine, except for NATO’s encouragement.
EuroMaidan came as a surprise for both Russia and the west, as is clear from leaked reports well as pubic statements.
In particular, it’s surprising that Yanukovitch lost his nerve so quickly. Putin’s playboy in Belarus, for example, has survived much stronger protests.
do they really want to fight? Not that clear, tbh. A country of 44+ million inviting foreign volunteer fighters to fight in Ukraine. Surely, the country should have enough men to mobilise to outnumber 200K russian troops.
At least some Ukrainians made a show of wanting to fight by, for example, filling molatov cocktails, but I’ve yet to see any reports of them being used. Was it all for show?
No doubt Ukrainian soldiers are putting up a brave and effective resistance, but how many civilians genuinely want to die under a load of rubble rather than live under a brutal foreign occupation?
“Surely, the country should have enough men to mobilise to outnumber 200K russian troops.”
They aren’t short of manpower, that’s all just propaganda for the mugs.
From Wikipedia (for simplicity):
Strength
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2022_Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine
Even if it still exists, what can the JFO army do now, stranded as it is in East Ukraine and dominated from the air? What can it do but hang on to be starved and eventually killed off in a prolonged war of attrition once summer comes or try to withdraw (tail between legs ) to Kiev, leaving the Donbass and Crimea unmolested for Russia to control, you know, the latter sounds a lot like Mission Accomplished. And the former sounds a lot like Cowardly Ukrainian Army was defeated.If I were Putin, I think I could spin a good narrative from either of those outcomes.Only time will tell.
I think the origin of the “y will fight until the last z” lies in the second world-war, specifically Die Engländer kämpfen bis zum letzten Franzosen, Britain’s going to fight until the last Frenchman.
Thanks RW, happy to be corrected.
“if anyone were to drop bombs on even just their nuclear facilities, everyone would take the regime’s side”
I doubt if many on the left in the west would take their country’s side if a similar disaster were to occur. Think how many refused to express sympathy and anger after 9/11 or 7/7.
False flags.
It stuns me that so few people can see these events for what they are. If the covid scam failed to wake people up, TPTB will achieve anything they want.
“However, as I’ve said, if they want to fight – as they clearly do – then it’s our moral duty to help in any way we reasonably can.”
Not sure whence Rons sees this supposed moral duty as having arisen, but I’ll wager he doesn’t apply it to every weaker nation in the world under attack by more powerful states. Only the ones where he attributes fault to the larger power.
Well guess what, people disagree about the attribution of fault in these cases.
But fault regardless is not in general sufficient, in itself, to create a moral obligation on another nation to intervene.
Ukranians have the right to fight for the government the U.S. state department chooses
So how else is this mess going to end?
We’re living through a global revolution, ten years of organised chaos – The Great Reset.
Ukraine, formally known is Khazaria, is led by a pervert who’s acting career has prepared him for his John Conner performances, while his tan inexplicably improves in minus degree temperatures.
We’re undergoing a global depopulation programme – that didn’t stop with Partygate, it moved on to a new phase – war of mutual destruction.
And that leads me on to Russia. The right wing of the west have been largely suckered into believing Putin’s a good guy, that he’s on our side. Many think his adviser Aleksandr Dugin is a hero, not realising that when he speaks Russian he’s scheming the downfall of the west.
And of course NATO and the EU have created a springboard for this conflict to begin, with them breaking down the buffer zone. It all plays into the narrative.
Aside from this, we’ve got the constant almost every day crisis that is morphing our lives without our approval.
Just the latest from the last few days:
The P&O Ferry sackings will lead to a cancellation of their licence – the cruise industry will crumble.
Ferguson’s old bird flu trick is back which will lend to the deliberate decrease in meat on our plates.
No more driving on Sundays to ‘save oil’ and a potential increase in days per week working from home.
Fourth jab is due…
Organised chaos = The Fourth Industrial Revolution
Furthermore to the above points, Zelensky here, once again claiming to be standing in a -5 Ukraine on a night time, topping up his tan (no green screen involved /sarc).
https://youtu.be/O3Hrik3muq0
I have no intention of addressing yet another poorly researched, woefully naive and somewhat anti-sceptical op-ed. I made my objections last week in detail to IR’s way of thinking, or rather not thinking, and this latest example continues down the same blinkered path. Yeah, I think we get by now that he has never taken an interest in these things before, or bothered studying the background to the current conflict, but he works here and he’s got a right to his ATL ten penneth
I will say, out of general interest, that RT and Sputnik are still available via patient use of Tor Browser (it can take several refreshes of the Tor Circuit for it lock onto RT and bypass the Error 403 codes and DDOS protection). RT is running a twice daily new feed plus other interesting articles – particularly a series on the Donbass conflict from 2014 featuring BBC and Ch4 archive footage that acknowledged the ongoing slaughter. The current contentious issue is an email allegedly warning that Ukrainian forces were preparing a Blitz offensive of the Donbass republics to start 25th Feb. This has been backed up by RT reports on new fortified military installations having been built in the last year of so, plus instruction manuals produced by the National Endowment for Democracy (NED) giving (among other things) the level of US reward money to be paid per Russian death/destroyed military apparatus. Take it or leave it – but don’t ignore it.
For a laugh this Canadian survey apparently from BASE made on March 9th (I grabbed it from David Scott, Northern Exposure) is worth a glance.
“For a laugh this Canadian survey apparently from BASE made on March 9th (I grabbed it from David Scott, Northern Exposure) is worth a glance.”
A gullibility test, basically.
I outlined the key role played by the UK’s weekly GI (the Gullibility Index) in government policy making in the previous article on back door no-jab-no-job. Once it rises above 80%, anything is possible – as we have seen over the last 2 years. And, of course, the UK is not the only country that now place heavy reliance on such tools.
Except regrettably you did reply despite your explicit statement that you wouldn’t. And what a lot of vacuous, opinionated, trolling,fact-free nonsense you stated. Yawn!
I didn’t say I wouldn’t reply, I said I wouldn’t address the content of the latest IR diatribe – so I didn’t. I’m pleased you enjoyed it nonetheless.
“I’m reminded of conversations I’ve had in the past with Iranian dissidents, including ex-pats, who’ve been willing to condemn in the strongest terms the Iranian regime for all of its brutality and medieval thinking, while at the same time insisting that if anyone were to drop bombs on even just their nuclear facilities, everyone would take the regime’s side. I was taken aback the first time I heard that, but on reflection it should have been obvious that they simply loved their country, right or wrong. And in this case, similarly, internal political differences seem to have been temporarily swept aside.”
This is an important point, but Rons needs to apply it more widely. The effects of sanctions tend to be similar, with the added impact that they target precisely those groups least loyal to the government.
Certainly the impact in Iraq, Iran and Syria of US sphere sanctions was to impoverish and destroy the outward looking middle classes most likely to have pro-western views.
Looking beyond the mug propaganda in our media, that seems to be the case in Russia, where the population seems to have broadly rallied around the leadership (the usual suspects aside), and the sanctions will have the usual direly counterproductive (from the pov of their ostensible goal) impact.
Observers of Russian affairs have noted that these sanctions have cut off at the knees two of the main rival sources of power and influence to Putin within Russia – the oligarchs (who’ve had large parts of their wealth confiscated in US sphere countries and are probably spending most of their time and efforts atm desperately trying to protect what’s left) and the liberal “west-struck” metropolitan types in Russia itself, who are most exposed to the effects of sanctions.
I think the first thing of which we should take account is that, before the invasion, the Ukrainian people were living in a fake democracy.
If the ordinary Ukrainian desires to fight, possibly unto death, to restore, or preserve, the power of, his clandestine overlords, rather than allow their dominance of him to be replaced with that of Putin, or whoever is working Putin, that is entirely his choice.
I reject that we are under any sort of moral obligation to provide him with any weaponry pursuit of his choice requires.
I do, however, think there is something of a moral obligation to assist his understanding of the choice he is making, and most definitely a moral proscription against filling his head with nonsense about fighting for his liberty. (Probably, we should also mention that, by fleeing to a country with the first two letters in common, he would face the same predicament.)
“The illusion of freedom will continue as long as it’s profitable to continue the illusion. At the point where the illusion becomes too expensive to maintain, they will just take down the scenery, they will pull back the curtains, they will move the tables and chairs out of the way and you will see the brick wall at the back of the theatre.” – Frank Zappa
What about before the Maidan revolution?
Yanukovitch was such a Russian stooge he fled there, almost as soon as trouble broke out.
I am not a historian and so there is no chance I could afford you the definitive answer. However, do I think it at all likely that Ukraine was operating a genuine democracy? Certainly not!
Nevertheless, I don’t follow your line of enquiry. What difference do you see it as making?
Ukraine is not a fully formed democracy yet but it’s on an upward path. In the last election, the International Election Observer Mission (IEOM) said that that candidates campaigned freely, and that the electorate had a broad choice.
This is very far from the case in Russia.
Prior to the Maidan revolution, Putin exerted strong influence over Ukraine via the ‘hydrocarbon bribe’ (ie gas). Ukraine like many European countries was highly dependent on Russian gas and Putin used this to generate huge funds to corrupt the Ukraine elite.
Unfortunately this led to inadequate government and long term stagnation. This is precisely the reason that Ukraine wanted to move towards the EU – to reduce endemic corruption.
Once it looked like Ukraine might tip to the EU, Putin intervened and pressured then President Yanukovitch to go back on his EU intentions. This in turn provoked the Maidan revolution, followed by the usual conspiracy theories which go along with absolutely any geostrategic event these days.
Lots of people on this site are accusing Zelensky of being a western stooge based on nothing, while ignoring the obvious Russian bias of previous presidents. For example, Yanukovitch fled to his Russian paymasters.
Thank you for clarifying.
“on an upward path” – Maybe, but the calculation, when it comes to fighting unto death, depends upon how far along that path you’d be able to go, and how likely that would be.
“wanted to move towards the EU – to reduce endemic corruption” – It must have been bad, then!
As I said in my original comment, we do not have genuine democracy in the UK. I cannot rule out that the Ukrainians, by working within their system, might have managed to institute true democracy, whereas we, in the UK, have never succeeded by working within our system, but I do think it highly unlikely. Still, if arms are reaching the hands of ordinary Ukrainians, perhaps there is a chance.
“Remember September the 11th. A terrible day in 2001, when evil tried to turn your cities, independent territories in battlefields. When innocent people were attacked — attacked from air, yes. Just like nobody else expected it. You could not stop it.” – Volodymyr Zelenskyy
Let’s just straighten some things out.
The Maidan revolution was over EU membership, not NATO.
The previous president, Yanukovitch, was an obvious Russian proxy who fled there the moment things got rough.
Zelensky did not come to power immediately and there is no evidence whatsover that he is a western stooge.
How does it turn out that a website whose membership was determined by opposition to lockdown, also turn out to be Putin apologists most to a man?
Oh my, this site has been taken over by rabid pro-Putin mass-murdering supporters. I thought there used to be sane people on here in covid times?? Time to leave…
If you conflate accepting the reality that Russia was provoked into this with approving of it, then I agree that it’s best that you move on.
See you in the morning, of course.
No I don’t accept your ‘reality’. But my argument is not with you but the vacuous and arrogant response from Finlayson.
Exactly my view. We lose everything, including even hope, if we lose our objectivity. It’s an undeniable, if unpalatable, fact, that after the USSR lost the Cold War it was totally broken and humiliated. They wanted to become a Western, European nation. They created an entire political school of thought to help integration. They asked to join NATO and we told them to get lost and they asked to join the EU and we told them to get lost. We stripped their country of assets, lied to them about NATO expansion and caused a coup d’etat in Ukraine. Anyone who thinks we’re blameless and it’s all Moscow’s fault is at the Daily Mail “Putin bayonets babies” level of analysis and has no business commenting on geopolitics.
Yeah, what a lot of pointless nonsense.
You’ll see the point when you’re paying £200 a month gas.
I think the British people are well above trolls such as you. Yes it will be difficult to find the money to pay, but you know, despite the pain, I don’t think the view in Britain (unlike yours) is solely focused on their gas bills, but on mass-murder in Ukraine.
Another very naïve take on how this is going to develop. When food and energy prices skyrocket in the UK, and that is now both unavoidable and structural, the poorest will be hit hardest. The elderly will go without heat and food. No one is excusing Russian atrocities in Ukraine, and neither should we simply ignore those murdered in the East by Ukrainian forces just because the newspapers tell us they’re on the wrong side, as you have done. As I tried, patiently, to explain before, the answer was a neutral Ukraine. Now, hundreds of millions of people will see a massive and permanent deterioration in their lives.
I don’t think many would argue with your overall view of the consequences of Russian aggression in Ukraine. The issue is how to respond. Your views on appeasement have history.
“Your views on appeasement have history.“
Indeed they do. The last time I was called an appeaser was for opposing the Iraq War in 2003.
How did that turn out by the way?
And what is the west doing right now but appeasing Russia by not engaging in a war over Ukraine?
We have no legal obligation to protect Ukraine from anyone. Nor do we have any moral obligation to send in troops to a war that has nothing to do with us.
Negotiating with Russia when it was obvious they were preparing to invade Ukraine would have been a far better way of approaching the situation than waiting until it’s too late. Nor is that appeasement.
Stop being so childish.
While I don’t think Putin is anything like a Hitler, parallels between Ukraine and the Sudetenland are eerie.
In 1938, Britain had no treaty with Czechoslovakia (although France did) which was why Chamberlain described it as ‘a faraway country of which we know nothing’.
Hitler’s case for sovereignty over the Sudetenland was at least as strong as Putin’s over parts of Ukraine.
It was precisely these reasons, along with a strong desire not to repeat WW1, which led to appeasement. Obviously this turned out to be a really bad idea.
Handing over the Sudetenland destroyed Czechoslavkia’s defence capability, just as Putin is looking to destroy Ukraine’s defence capability.
Don’t worry about the elderly.
The next booster shot’s on the way.
Here we go again, the neo-Nazi troll accusing objective observers of being Russian trolls.
Russia couldn’t join either NATO or the EU because it was insufficiently democratic (and is not democratic at all today).
Putin wanted be a member of NATO while still having a free hand to practice old school ‘sphere of influence’, ‘might is right’ style foreign policy.
Where is the mass murder? Show us all the independently verified numbers, as distinct from propaganda.
If anyone’s interested, the correct policy that should have been pursued here, was to agree with Moscow that Ukraine should be a neutral buffer state and demilitarised. If this had happened, Brits would not be witnessing a 500% increase in their food and energy bills over the next couple of years. Luckily, we can blame Putin Is Hitler™ for all of this.
I know this may seem strange to you (presumably as a Russian troll), but Ukraine is an independent sovereign state and can make up its own mind based on its people’s views. Something you seem not to understand (not surprisingly).
This is breathtakingly naïve. I’m guessing you think the UK’s foreign policy is entirely independent of American influence, too?
By persistently calling people Russian trolls you hereby give us all permission to refer to you as a neo-Nazi Ukrainian troll, or just neo-Nazi for brevity.
Yeah right! That would really have worked.
Neutrality would not have satisfied Putin, and it would not have stopped at Ukraine.
Russia has no right to demand that its neighbours should disarmed. No other country in the world is arrogant enough to demand that.
Not one.
I’ll just add before going that I do wonder if there is a very real possibility of gas prices increasing by 1000% in Europe. Various European politicians are currently begging Gulf State leaders for gas, but this is LNG, which is significantly more expensive than pipeline gas. The increased demand will increase its already high price. They still have Russian pipeline gas until the contracts expire, and I don’t know when that might be. When it expires, it’s up to Moscow whether they renew them or sell the gas to China instead, presumably not in USD but inside the framework of their new financial system. The same goes for oil and wheat.
Make no mistake here, this is the most significant development in geopolitics since WWII and Bretton Woods. We have not even begun to estimate the damage caused by the West in its policies over Ukraine/Russia. Not even started.
Russian trolling is getting very tiresome!
‘However, as I’ve said, if they want to fight – as they clearly do – then it’s our moral duty to help in any way we reasonably can.’
No, it absolutely is NOT our MORAL duty.
Those of us who are sceptical and use our brains know full well that this war was triggered by the US puppet regime in Kyiv’s behaviour since 2014. If you don’t want to face up to that truth, you can stop calling yourself a sceptic and call yourself a prostitute to the USA global hegemony. That’s a position you can take to save the lives of your children if you wish, you wouldn’t be alone. But it wouldn’t be a moral position, it would be a selfish, self-serving one.
The MORALS in this situation involve embracing the $5bn the USA invested to overthrow a democratically elected government which was veering toward an economic deal with Moscow rather than the EU. That’s called anti-democracy, in case you didn’t realise it.
The MORALS involve war crimes investigations of 40 people murdered in Odessa during the Maidan, not to mention 13,000 dead in the Donbass, which voted for independence post-maidan, which is a DEMOCRATIC vote, even if you don’t like the outcome. Just like the vote in Crimea to rejoin Russia was a DEMOCRATIC vote, even if you hate the outcome.
The MORALS involve looking at the Ukraine deliberately cutting off a major water supply to the Crimea coming from Ukraine, done deliberately by the Kyiv government to inflict harm on the peoples of Crimea. You can argue the morals of that either way if you wish, but you can’t argue on what the outcome would be. How about I cut off your major water supply and see how you get on surviving without it? You’d manage no doubt, but your quality of life would have been deliberately destroyed by me. How do you feel about me doing that to you if you think that Kyiv’s actions were fine??
The sole MORAL duty we have is to demand that the USA, NATO either stop interfering in Ukraine or accept that the whole world can start interfering really, really belligerently in Central America, the Caribbean and all over the European continent. We’re talking about funding terrorists, killing Americans and UK citizens, overthrowing governments like Macron and mountebanks like Verhofstadt. We’re talking about assassinating Jens Stoltenberg and Jen Psaki, Nancy Pelosi and Liz Truss.
Now I don’t believe for one second that ‘we are the moral ones’, we have zero evidence to back that up. We in the UK are impotent low level concentration camp orderlies doing what the nazis in Washington tell us to do. We are actively supporting the death and destruction of the European economy because the USA psychopaths tell us to.
I believe my sole MORAL duty is to say ‘not in my name’ where UK warmongering is concerned. I DON’T see Ukraine as a bunch of moral people and I know full well that the only Ukraine I would support is one which kicks the USA and NATO warmongering death squad trainers out, institutes war crime tribunals against MAIDAN and Azov battallion murderers and which starts serious peace talks with the Donbass region of Russia, which has as much right to speak Russian as you and I have to speak English. You fancy Nicola Sturgeon imposing Gaelic on you? That’s what your morals are supporting in Ukraine….AND you’d turn a blind eye on 10,000 murders in London carried out by Scottish Republican Army nutcases….
You lose the argument as soon as you state that those of us who disagree with you do not “use our brains”.
You are a deranged conspiracy theorist. Try to reconnect with reality as a matter of urgency. Or emigrate to Russia (if you’re not already there).
Putin had been controlling Ukraine governments for years, via the hydrocarbon bribe. He corrupted the whole Ukrainian elite.
Yanukovitch was Russia’s choice, but he tried to play a double game by playing both sides – the EU and Russia.
EuroMaidan was about EU membership, not NATO.
Ukraine was Russia’s backyard, not America’s, and it’s inconceivable the US could have engineered a coup under their noses, even if they wanted to.
The west has tended to see progress towards democracy as inevitable. Putin does not.
Those of us who are sceptical and use our brains know full well that this war was triggered by the US puppet regime in Kyiv’s behaviour since 2014.
It seems to me that your define scepticism in terms of what you believe rather in terms of your approach to evidence.
The €5 bill the US donated was over a period of 20 years, not at the time of EuroMaidan. It was fully in the public domain and nobody said anything when it was announced years before.
When it looked like Yanukovitch might lean towards the EU, Putin intervened sharply with a huge bribe/threat to make him change his mind. It would have rewarded Yanukovitch, but not Ukraine.
This is what provoked the street protests and the rest is history.
Yet again, I agree with Ian. Scrolling through the predictable tsunami of negative reaction, the phrase “Russia’s reasonable demands” stood out.
Arguing with people who believe Russia has reasonable demands is a waste of time. Those people are not sceptics, they are appeasers and apologists for war criminals, enemies of freedom and democracy. People whose paranoia and pathetic desire to appear clever lead them to lie and belittle their home country and its allies, ironically abusing and undermining the source of the freedom of speech that this site defends.
Mr Rons is still under the delusion that Ukraine has a ‘democratically elected government’. Being blind to CIA interference in that country completely negates his ridiculous argument for giving even more weapons to the Ukrainian people.
2014 ‘Not a CIA plot’ just an open coup conducted by the Secretary of State. Talk about revisionism through rose tinted pseudo philosophical glasses. The US (who is ‘the West) want regime change – and they aint getting it – they do not care a rat’s arse about life or death of anyone other than Putin – yes Zelensky was elected under the campaign of bridging peace between west and east Ukraine – he even spoke Russian during the campaign… within a few months of being elected, The Nazis who are entrenched in their Govt banned Russian in much of west ukraine, Zelensky went to the Donbass to ask the Azov battalion (based there to bomb and kill ethnic Russians) to hand over their arms – they laughed at him and said fuck off (i have seen video footage of this)… he has two masters Nato and Nazis and one is very useful to the other. Wake the hell up.
There may be a lot of murky things about Ukraine (eg state support for clearly Nazi military units), but there is no moral equivalence to Russia.
ultimately the blame must always be with those who line up their forces on another’s border and invade. That goes for Germany in both world wars, the USA and UK in Iraq and Russia in Ukraine.
Yes, we should do what we can for Ukraine, but must be careful not to damage the whole world in the process.
It would be great to hear Ian Rons and Noah Carl in discussion. Any plans for a Daily Sceptic Podcast?
Je suis Ron
Negotiating for peace is the only option which anybody should be supporting. Supporting the Ukraine is only going to prolong the war & suffering of the populace, not the ones in power who have failed to keep their population safe.
Supporting Russia is equally going to prolong the war, suffering of the populace & the number of young Russians being sent to slaughter.
It might do a lot more than that. It could change who wins.
The Russians should have surrendered at Stalingrad. It was a hopeless situation, it would have saved many lives.
Was it a good idea to fight on?
The headline is misleading.
Seems very clear that the US is pressuring Zelensky not to negotiate. The State Department pretty much has boasted of that.
There are pictures on non corporate media sources of Ukrainians being tied to lamp posts and beaten.By Ukrainian forces not by Russians. Maybe these were people who did not want to fight. There are also stories of men being forcibly conscripted at the border. It is by no means clear what the collective mood may be.
The West has caused this war and Zelensky is a puppet of the US and does what they tell him to.
Get a room you two
The greatest fallacy of the whole debate here is on the failure to understand that Putin only invaded Ukraine on orders from the evil puppet masters who reside in the basement of Buckingham Palace and under Lake Geneva, and are the same old imperial monarchial pagan death cult elites of Greco-Roman days, just morphed into suits and different faces and places.
To believe that this war is anything more than the next phase towards the WEF great reset is fallacious. It currently serves the purpose of distracting from the FACTS of the genocidal policies of worldwide governments who are in lockstep with their murderous and insane agendas.
The war also justifies the continued deliberate economic sabotage and the introduction of famine as they continue to destroy the food supply systems etc. Also to move us from fossil fuels to nothing.
All bodes great evil for the common man everywhere. All they needed is for people to believe that this war is actually about evil Russia while they laugh and dine merrily together applauding themselves for being so effective at deceiving the public at large to participate in the hunger games.
Has there ever been a time when there were so many puppets? Sooty and Sweep were just the outriders, obviously.
There were always many, and you will find them in the fraternal societies. An old video popped up on my feed today. I had never heard of him before but it only served to confirm my viewpoint on the puppets and their masters who are religious and do serve Lucifer. Of course, these brahmins of the world are the upper class who consider us stupid which we are because we are willingly ignorant for the sake of convenience and security. Watch if you like:
(19) 00DEZZ – In memory of Bill Cooper. 1992 CNN Interview. – YouTube
(19) Bill Cooper, Mystery Babylon – All Episodes – – YouTube
Thanks Ian and Noah. The reciprocating articles are a great way to express a subject and, hopefully, cover many bases. I’ve found them all very interesting.
Long text a bit cloudy about the Ukraine-Russia war. I believe (or I want to) that the vast majority of us – mainly the Ukrainians and the Russians – don’t want the prolongation of the conflict. By sending weapons to Ukraine, the West/NATO is, in essence throwing petrol into the fire. Apart from the plan outlined by Prof Mearsheimer in 2015 I have not seen a credible PLAN put on the table by the West. Or is there one? It seems to me that a) Ukraine as a neutral country, b) some level of autonomy to the east republics, and c) a Russian recognised Crimea will be part of the final outcome, rain or shine. This was the Plan from Prof Mearsheimer in…2015. If put on the table to Putin – months or years ago – it would have, most likely, prevented this war (this would mean to retract from the Bucharest NATO meeting resolution of including Ukraine in NATO and to follow the Minsk agreements). Had such a plan been put on the table Putin would not have acceptable/credible grounds for an aggression. MY question: what’s the West/NATO’s plan moving forward?
What? The west should not pressure the Ukraine to negotiate with Putin. No no that’s right. Let’s keep this party going for, let’s say, forever. There isn’t enough misery In the world is that it? The best thing to happen is if zelensky and putin sit down and negotiate. That is it!
How wrong-headed must a person be to want to extend the suffering of ordinary Ukrainians?
Or perhaps ‘evil’ would be more appropriate?
https://rumble.com/vxax9v-full-interview-lara-logan-ukraine-nazis-cia-and-united-nations-flyover-cons.html
Today on the Flyover Conservatives Show Lara Logan ties together President Zelensky and Ukraine with Nazis, CIA, and the United Nations.
Lara Logan is a multi Emmy award winning journalist and war correspondent with CBS, 60-Minutes, and Fox Nation. She has traveled all over the world, in the most dangerous of places to bring truth to light.
If you want to know what is going on in Ukraine… THIS is the episode to watch and share!
To learn more, follow: LaraLogan.com