comment by Anthony The King Elanga (U10026)
posted 3 hours, 28 minutes ago
It’s not pedantic, it’s massively important. NATO is made up of 28 European members, the geographical proximity of these nations to Russia - and the threat they posed - makes it incomparable to Russia having nukes in facking Cuba.
And there is no such thing as a neutral Ukraine as far as Putin is concerned. They are either a democracy, which makes them pro-Western, or they have a pro-Russian puppet president.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm sorry Darren but this isn't really correct. We've ended up in a situation where people seem unwilling or unable to understand or recognise that many (I'm not saying all) of the grievances Russia have been expressing for many years are actually valid, presumably out of fear for being called some kind of Russian-stooge (cry-baby Robb offering up a classic example a day or two ago; deleting my comment, blocking me and calling me a 'Russian-bot', giving me no chance to reply, and barely an hour after calling Putin a war criminal. It's pathetic and shameless). None of those grievances justify the act of aggression we're witnessing, which constitute war crimes.
But we should be taking the time to understand how we got here. Putin has shown often enough a willingness and desire for some kind of neutrality in Ukraine. People don't want to hear it, but much of the breakdown in diplomacy over the last several years has largely come from the US, and - whisper it quietly - Zelenskyy.
Leading scholars & officials have been warning of the dangers around this for years. I linked above to an Anatol Lieven interview, and a Chomsky one. I'd encourage people to read them. From the Chomsky one, definitely read the citation to Jack F. Matlock's essay: http://www.defenddemocracy.press/acura-viewpoint-jack-f-matlock-jr-todays-crisis-over-ukraine/
What seems to me to be apparent the more and more I read, is that this was all very avoidable, but sadly very predictable given the paths and choices taken by those in power.
Again, none of this is in anyway intended as a defence of the invasion.
comment by Vidicschin (U3584)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by ...TUX... (U22398)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Vidicschin (U3584)
posted 7 minutes ago
You once called me bipolar and now you call me ignorant yet you know less than me?
…..
I doubt anyone knows less than you.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Nice edit. I can't think why
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You are not showing much thought.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
That's because i'm thick. Clearly.
N nite.
BK, I’m sorry but I will never, ever believe that Putin has ever wanted neutrality in Ukraine. There’s nothing about what he’s said, his actions and what we know about him as a man that will convince me otherwise. I appreciate that NATO aren’t perfect regarding issues on Ukraine, but ultimately this has all come down to Putin’s plans coming to fruition after years of meddling in the old Soviet Republics, and causing political unrest in Western democracies. The man should be shot.
comment by ...TUX... (U22398)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by Vidicschin (U3584)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by ...TUX... (U22398)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Vidicschin (U3584)
posted 7 minutes ago
You once called me bipolar and now you call me ignorant yet you know less than me?
…..
I doubt anyone knows less than you.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Nice edit. I can't think why
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You are not showing much thought.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
That's because i'm thick. Clearly.
N nite.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Have you ever met Stretty. You and he are two of a kind.
Oh and just so you know, I am still working so no idea where you got the pensioner thing from.
comment by BerbaKing11 (U6256)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Anthony The King Elanga (U10026)
posted 3 hours, 28 minutes ago
It’s not pedantic, it’s massively important. NATO is made up of 28 European members, the geographical proximity of these nations to Russia - and the threat they posed - makes it incomparable to Russia having nukes in facking Cuba.
And there is no such thing as a neutral Ukraine as far as Putin is concerned. They are either a democracy, which makes them pro-Western, or they have a pro-Russian puppet president.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm sorry Darren but this isn't really correct. We've ended up in a situation where people seem unwilling or unable to understand or recognise that many (I'm not saying all) of the grievances Russia have been expressing for many years are actually valid, presumably out of fear for being called some kind of Russian-stooge (cry-baby Robb offering up a classic example a day or two ago; deleting my comment, blocking me and calling me a 'Russian-bot', giving me no chance to reply, and barely an hour after calling Putin a war criminal. It's pathetic and shameless). None of those grievances justify the act of aggression we're witnessing, which constitute war crimes.
But we should be taking the time to understand how we got here. Putin has shown often enough a willingness and desire for some kind of neutrality in Ukraine. People don't want to hear it, but much of the breakdown in diplomacy over the last several years has largely come from the US, and - whisper it quietly - Zelenskyy.
Leading scholars & officials have been warning of the dangers around this for years. I linked above to an Anatol Lieven interview, and a Chomsky one. I'd encourage people to read them. From the Chomsky one, definitely read the citation to Jack F. Matlock's essay: http://www.defenddemocracy.press/acura-viewpoint-jack-f-matlock-jr-todays-crisis-over-ukraine/
What seems to me to be apparent the more and more I read, is that this was all very avoidable, but sadly very predictable given the paths and choices taken by those in power.
Again, none of this is in anyway intended as a defence of the invasion.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
That's an interesting read but by gosh does he stretch some of his points thin. Equating NATO's actions in Eastern Europe with Kaiser's Germany attempting to make Mexico an ally during WWI? I mean cmon. The US and Russia aren't best buds but they're not at war, either.
While it's instructive and important to always look at both sides of an argument, as you point out, whatever provocation you can point to just not justify a violent invasion. It's ridiculous. And to be honest, these kind of articles do look a lot like Putin-sympathizing right now. He's doing something awful in Ukraine. Let's deal with that and try to learn the lessons from history after, once we have all the facts in hand and the consequences of said actions are clear.
comment by Bãles left boot (U22081)
posted 20 seconds ago
comment by BerbaKing11 (U6256)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Anthony The King Elanga (U10026)
posted 3 hours, 28 minutes ago
It’s not pedantic, it’s massively important. NATO is made up of 28 European members, the geographical proximity of these nations to Russia - and the threat they posed - makes it incomparable to Russia having nukes in facking Cuba.
And there is no such thing as a neutral Ukraine as far as Putin is concerned. They are either a democracy, which makes them pro-Western, or they have a pro-Russian puppet president.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm sorry Darren but this isn't really correct. We've ended up in a situation where people seem unwilling or unable to understand or recognise that many (I'm not saying all) of the grievances Russia have been expressing for many years are actually valid, presumably out of fear for being called some kind of Russian-stooge (cry-baby Robb offering up a classic example a day or two ago; deleting my comment, blocking me and calling me a 'Russian-bot', giving me no chance to reply, and barely an hour after calling Putin a war criminal. It's pathetic and shameless). None of those grievances justify the act of aggression we're witnessing, which constitute war crimes.
But we should be taking the time to understand how we got here. Putin has shown often enough a willingness and desire for some kind of neutrality in Ukraine. People don't want to hear it, but much of the breakdown in diplomacy over the last several years has largely come from the US, and - whisper it quietly - Zelenskyy.
Leading scholars & officials have been warning of the dangers around this for years. I linked above to an Anatol Lieven interview, and a Chomsky one. I'd encourage people to read them. From the Chomsky one, definitely read the citation to Jack F. Matlock's essay: http://www.defenddemocracy.press/acura-viewpoint-jack-f-matlock-jr-todays-crisis-over-ukraine/
What seems to me to be apparent the more and more I read, is that this was all very avoidable, but sadly very predictable given the paths and choices taken by those in power.
Again, none of this is in anyway intended as a defence of the invasion.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
That's an interesting read but by gosh does he stretch some of his points thin. Equating NATO's actions in Eastern Europe with Kaiser's Germany attempting to make Mexico an ally during WWI? I mean cmon. The US and Russia aren't best buds but they're not at war, either.
While it's instructive and important to always look at both sides of an argument, as you point out, whatever provocation you can point to just not justify a violent invasion. It's ridiculous. And to be honest, these kind of articles do look a lot like Putin-sympathizing right now. He's doing something awful in Ukraine. Let's deal with that and try to learn the lessons from history after, once we have all the facts in hand and the consequences of said actions are clear.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Some people are so desperate to always see two sides to a story that they give far too much oxygen to the less valid side and that helps people like Putin as normally reasonable people like Berbaking who are smart enough to get their points across well end up muddying the water when this is one of those rare occasions when the vast weight of agreement should be that Putin is the Bond villain style bad guy.
comment by Anthony The King Elanga (U10026)
posted 43 seconds ago
BK, I’m sorry but I will never, ever believe that Putin has ever wanted neutrality in Ukraine. There’s nothing about what he’s said, his actions and what we know about him as a man that will convince me otherwise. I appreciate that NATO aren’t perfect regarding issues on Ukraine, but ultimately this has all come down to Putin’s plans coming to fruition after years of meddling in the old Soviet Republics, and causing political unrest in Western democracies. The man should be shot.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You're regurgitating a lot of poorly supported anti-Russian talking points ("causing political unrest in Western democracies". Much of those narratives have long since collapsed, but have been ignored since their utility has largely been fulfilled already. I've literally cited work by leading scholars - and there are plenty of others - on the history of diplomatic tiit-for-tat. There's no reason to ignore it or invent our own theories (as fun as it may be!).
I'm not in favour of the death penalty, but there are plenty of world leaders who could be lined up in front of a firing squad long before Putin if wars & external interference are worthy of such outcomes. As before, this isn't a defence of Putin (he'd be getting shot eventually, too) - I'd greatly love for Russia to be governed by something vastly better - but whilst i understand the emotional reaction at the moment given the circumstances (we've had our Ukrainian friends staying at our house a few times the past week, with more than a few tears all round), I don't see it as an adequate substitute for learning the facts that have led to these dangerous times.
comment by Bãles left boot (U22081)
posted 11 minutes ago
----------------------------------------------------------------------
That's an interesting read but by gosh does he stretch some of his points thin. Equating NATO's actions in Eastern Europe with Kaiser's Germany attempting to make Mexico an ally during WWI? I mean cmon. The US and Russia aren't best buds but they're not at war, either.
While it's instructive and important to always look at both sides of an argument, as you point out, whatever provocation you can point to just not justify a violent invasion. It's ridiculous. And to be honest, these kind of articles do look a lot like Putin-sympathizing right now. He's doing something awful in Ukraine. Let's deal with that and try to learn the lessons from history after, once we have all the facts in hand and the consequences of said actions are clear.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I couldn't have gone to more lengths to stress the *critical distinction* between understanding some of the diplomatic backdrop and condemning and opposing the invasion of Ukraine. I've said it multiple times on this thread and elsewhere that the invasion is an act of aggression and that Putin is clearly guilty of war crimes. I'm not sure how much clearer I can be.
The reason we should learn some of the backdrop is summarised pretty neatly by Chomsky in one of the other articles I shared. I'll quote the passage here:
"It’s easy to understand why those suffering from the crime [the invasion of Ukraine] may regard it as an unacceptable indulgence to inquire into why it happened and whether it could have been avoided. Understandable, but mistaken. If we want to respond to the tragedy in ways that will help the victims, and avert still worse catastrophes that loom ahead, it is wise, and necessary, to learn as much as we can about what went wrong and how the course could have been corrected. Heroic gestures may be satisfying. They are not helpful."
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/mar/02/russian-propaganda-anti-imperialist-left-vladimir-putin
Dedicated to Berbaking. Good ol’ Berbs lost me when he dismissed the idea of Russian troll farms exist and said that Russia hasn’t interfered in western politics.
I shall leave him for you guys to deal with โ๐ป
comment by BerbaKing11 (U6256)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by Bãles left boot (U22081)
posted 11 minutes ago
----------------------------------------------------------------------
That's an interesting read but by gosh does he stretch some of his points thin. Equating NATO's actions in Eastern Europe with Kaiser's Germany attempting to make Mexico an ally during WWI? I mean cmon. The US and Russia aren't best buds but they're not at war, either.
While it's instructive and important to always look at both sides of an argument, as you point out, whatever provocation you can point to just not justify a violent invasion. It's ridiculous. And to be honest, these kind of articles do look a lot like Putin-sympathizing right now. He's doing something awful in Ukraine. Let's deal with that and try to learn the lessons from history after, once we have all the facts in hand and the consequences of said actions are clear.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I couldn't have gone to more lengths to stress the *critical distinction* between understanding some of the diplomatic backdrop and condemning and opposing the invasion of Ukraine. I've said it multiple times on this thread and elsewhere that the invasion is an act of aggression and that Putin is clearly guilty of war crimes. I'm not sure how much clearer I can be.
The reason we should learn some of the backdrop is summarised pretty neatly by Chomsky in one of the other articles I shared. I'll quote the passage here:
"It’s easy to understand why those suffering from the crime [the invasion of Ukraine] may regard it as an unacceptable indulgence to inquire into why it happened and whether it could have been avoided. Understandable, but mistaken. If we want to respond to the tragedy in ways that will help the victims, and avert still worse catastrophes that loom ahead, it is wise, and necessary, to learn as much as we can about what went wrong and how the course could have been corrected. Heroic gestures may be satisfying. They are not helpful."
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You don't have to be any clearer. I'm not accusing you of anything, just pointing out that the timing is awful for this kind of commentary. With something as complicated as this you learn after something happened, not during.
Yes ex-diplomats can write nice pieces about what they did decades ago to feel clever but Putin is writing history now. He's changing the narrative and informing the discussion about what we can do in future.
And yes, frig me but I disagree with Chomsky there. Helping the victims right now very much means doing practical, heroic things. Innocent people are dying. Picking apart the politics and trying to get inside the mind of Putin is for when you've stopped those things happening and try to prevent the next Putin.
We didn't end WWII with think pieces in the Times or sitting Hitler down with Freud for a long chat.
comment by Robbb Kanchelskis ๐บ๐ฆ๐บ๐ฆ๐บ๐ฆ (Please stop the floods
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Some people are so desperate to always see two sides to a story that they give far too much oxygen to the less valid side and that helps people like Putin as normally reasonable people like Berbaking who are smart enough to get their points across well end up muddying the water when this is one of those rare occasions when the vast weight of agreement should be that Putin is the Bond villain style bad guy.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Multiple times in the last few days I've described Putin as a war criminal. I've expressed the immense concern I personally feel given my links to Estonia - my partner of 10 years is from Estonia (and we plan to move over there in a couple years). She's terrified for her family - my family too, now - at the prospect of escalation. She's attended two demos with our Ukrainian friends in Bristol. We both purchased a load of supplies for kids to drop off at the local village hall, headed for Ukraine.
Sharing the work of distinguished scholars of international repute on this issue is not "helping Putin".
Presenting Official Enemies as 'Bond style villains' is an embarrassing but often used tactic in Western discourse. It's convenient to view Official Enemies as 'madmen', 'super evil', 'irrational' figures, because it absolves us from actually bothering to do any research or seek any understanding of what's going on.
Frankly you should be ashamed of yourself for your remarks about me the other day. Absolutely pathetic. If you have any modicum of decency, you'd apologise. I get that emotions are high right now, but it's not my fault if you're unable to distinguish between *understanding* events and *justifying* (which I have not done) them.
comment by Robbb Kanchelskis ๐บ๐ฆ๐บ๐ฆ๐บ๐ฆ (Please stop the floods Mother Nature ๐) (U22716)
posted 5 minutes ago
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/mar/02/russian-propaganda-anti-imperialist-left-vladimir-putin
Dedicated to Berbaking. Good ol’ Berbs lost me when he dismissed the idea of Russian troll farms exist and said that Russia hasn’t interfered in western politics.
I shall leave him for you guys to deal with โ๐ป
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Without even opening the link, I know this is another hit piece by that muppet Monbiot. This is his his MO: punch left to show everyone that he is "one of the sensibles".
He's been roundly exposed & rebutted for doing this again and again, most notably by Jonathan Cook. Do try to keep up:
https://www.jonathan-cook.net/blog/tag/george-monbiot/
comment by Bãles left boot (U22081)
And yes, frig me but I disagree with Chomsky there. Helping the victims right now very much means doing practical, heroic things. Innocent people are dying. Picking apart the politics and trying to get inside the mind of Putin is for when you've stopped those things happening and try to prevent the next Putin.
We didn't end WWII with think pieces in the Times or sitting Hitler down with Freud for a long chat.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
He outlines practical diplomatic steps (acknowledging none of them are good at this point) - his argument isn't "do nothing but a think piece".
Nobody is trying to "get inside the mind of Putin", except it seems numerous posters here speculating about his motives without recourse to the diplomatic history. I've no idea what he's thinking - I don't know his mind any better than anyone else - but we do have a history of both statements/actions/diplomacy that we can review. There's really no reason to avoid looking at it. We're all just people trying to make sense of events, at the end of the day.
I get some of what you are saying in that last post Berba.
It is hard to see Putin as anything other than a super villain. And that was well before recent events tipped it well over the edge.
comment by Vidicschin (U3584)
posted 21 seconds ago
I get some of what you are saying in that last post Berba.
It is hard to see Putin as anything other than a super villain. And that was well before recent events tipped it well over the edge.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
He's been presented as a kind of Super Villain in Western discourse for a long long time, so I certainly understand why people might form views that align with that caricature.
comment by BerbaKing11 (U6256)
posted 7 seconds ago
comment by Bãles left boot (U22081)
And yes, frig me but I disagree with Chomsky there. Helping the victims right now very much means doing practical, heroic things. Innocent people are dying. Picking apart the politics and trying to get inside the mind of Putin is for when you've stopped those things happening and try to prevent the next Putin.
We didn't end WWII with think pieces in the Times or sitting Hitler down with Freud for a long chat.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
He outlines practical diplomatic steps (acknowledging none of them are good at this point) - his argument isn't "do nothing but a think piece".
Nobody is trying to "get inside the mind of Putin", except it seems numerous posters here speculating about his motives without recourse to the diplomatic history. I've no idea what he's thinking - I don't know his mind any better than anyone else - but we do have a history of both statements/actions/diplomacy that we can review. There's really no reason to avoid looking at it. We're all just people trying to make sense of events, at the end of the day.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Fair enough, though I would point out that providing reasons for why Putin chose this cause of action is very much trying to get inside his head.
Also, yes learning from history is well and good. But driving the discussion of understanding why X happened when X is still very much happening doesn't make sense to me. What if Putin doesn't stop at Ukraine or goes nuclear? All this intellectualism will be redundant.
comment by BerbaKing11 (U6256)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by Vidicschin (U3584)
posted 21 seconds ago
I get some of what you are saying in that last post Berba.
It is hard to see Putin as anything other than a super villain. And that was well before recent events tipped it well over the edge.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
He's been presented as a kind of Super Villain in Western discourse for a long long time, so I certainly understand why people might form views that align with that caricature.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It has nothing to do with how he has been presented. It is to do with his actions.
comment by Vidicschin (U3584)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by BerbaKing11 (U6256)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by Vidicschin (U3584)
posted 21 seconds ago
I get some of what you are saying in that last post Berba.
It is hard to see Putin as anything other than a super villain. And that was well before recent events tipped it well over the edge.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
He's been presented as a kind of Super Villain in Western discourse for a long long time, so I certainly understand why people might form views that align with that caricature.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It has nothing to do with how he has been presented. It is to do with his actions.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
There's good comparative media analysis on exactly this. When our leaders rain bombs on people, or support clients that do, the depictions are starkly different. You shouldn't need me to cite the works to be able to spot that. If Putin is a 'super villain' as a result of his wars, then he's in good company.
Just because the US/UK has been the villain in the past doesn't mean Putin isn't now.
comment by BerbaKing11 (U6256)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by Vidicschin (U3584)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by BerbaKing11 (U6256)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by Vidicschin (U3584)
posted 21 seconds ago
I get some of what you are saying in that last post Berba.
It is hard to see Putin as anything other than a super villain. And that was well before recent events tipped it well over the edge.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
He's been presented as a kind of Super Villain in Western discourse for a long long time, so I certainly understand why people might form views that align with that caricature.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It has nothing to do with how he has been presented. It is to do with his actions.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
There's good comparative media analysis on exactly this. When our leaders rain bombs on people, or support clients that do, the depictions are starkly different. You shouldn't need me to cite the works to be able to spot that. If Putin is a 'super villain' as a result of his wars, then he's in good company.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Good is the wrong word.
comment by Bãles left boot (U22081)
posted 7 minutes ago
comment by BerbaKing11 (U6256)
posted 7 seconds ago
comment by Bãles left boot (U22081)
And yes, frig me but I disagree with Chomsky there. Helping the victims right now very much means doing practical, heroic things. Innocent people are dying. Picking apart the politics and trying to get inside the mind of Putin is for when you've stopped those things happening and try to prevent the next Putin.
We didn't end WWII with think pieces in the Times or sitting Hitler down with Freud for a long chat.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
He outlines practical diplomatic steps (acknowledging none of them are good at this point) - his argument isn't "do nothing but a think piece".
Nobody is trying to "get inside the mind of Putin", except it seems numerous posters here speculating about his motives without recourse to the diplomatic history. I've no idea what he's thinking - I don't know his mind any better than anyone else - but we do have a history of both statements/actions/diplomacy that we can review. There's really no reason to avoid looking at it. We're all just people trying to make sense of events, at the end of the day.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Fair enough, though I would point out that providing reasons for why Putin chose this cause of action is very much trying to get inside his head.
Also, yes learning from history is well and good. But driving the discussion of understanding why X happened when X is still very much happening doesn't make sense to me. What if Putin doesn't stop at Ukraine or goes nuclear? All this intellectualism will be redundant.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I don't know why Putin chose this course of action at this particular time. In fact, I'm greatly surprised that he did, truth be told. I feel somewhat daft repeatedly assuring my partner that it was "highly unlikely" there'd actually be an invasion. My fortunes with the lottery are no better, you'll be unsurprised to learn!
I'm not citing anyone who is 'providing reasons', only explaining the background. Much of that background is highly relevant, potentially, in coming to a negotiated settlement. We're not talking ancient history here. We're talking breakdowns in diplomacy that run right up until present events. That's the reason to learn it - it may in fact be incredibly helpful. It doesn't seem that the diplomatic stalemates can't be revisited, though they'd have to be done with noses held firmly closed since the invasion. I'm not asking that people take time to review some of this as some kind of intellectual hobby (though it's as valid as any other hobby I suppose).
If this goes beyond Ukraine... All bets are off really. I've no idea where we go from there. At the risk of tempting fate, I really don't see that happening. The Ukraine crisis has been simmering for a long time in a way that is distinct from other neighbouring countries as far as I can tell.
comment by Vidicschin (U3584)
posted 5 minutes ago
comment by BerbaKing11 (U6256)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by Vidicschin (U3584)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by BerbaKing11 (U6256)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by Vidicschin (U3584)
posted 21 seconds ago
I get some of what you are saying in that last post Berba.
It is hard to see Putin as anything other than a super villain. And that was well before recent events tipped it well over the edge.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
He's been presented as a kind of Super Villain in Western discourse for a long long time, so I certainly understand why people might form views that align with that caricature.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It has nothing to do with how he has been presented. It is to do with his actions.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
There's good comparative media analysis on exactly this. When our leaders rain bombs on people, or support clients that do, the depictions are starkly different. You shouldn't need me to cite the works to be able to spot that. If Putin is a 'super villain' as a result of his wars, then he's in good company.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Good is the wrong word.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
A fair qualification!
I actually think he’s mad enough to sacrifice his nation.
He knows that firing nuclear weapons would do that as the retaliation would be the destruction of his homeland.
A cornered mad man is a dangerous mad man.
comment by BerbaKing11 (U6256)
posted 1 hour, 46 minutes ago
I'm not citing anyone who is 'providing reasons', only explaining the background. Much of that background is highly relevant, potentially, in coming to a negotiated settlement. We're not talking ancient history here. We're talking breakdowns in diplomacy that run right up until present events. That's the reason to learn it - it may in fact be incredibly helpful. It doesn't seem that the diplomatic stalemates can't be revisited, though they'd have to be done with noses held firmly closed since the invasion. I'm not asking that people take time to review some of this as some kind of intellectual hobby (though it's as valid as any other hobby I suppose).
If this goes beyond Ukraine... All bets are off really. I've no idea where we go from there. At the risk of tempting fate, I really don't see that happening. The Ukraine crisis has been simmering for a long time in a way that is distinct from other neighbouring countries as far as I can tell.
---
My bad, I missed the publication date on John Matlock's article, you're quite right. Though my point remains - those kind of articles right now are in poor taste. Before and after a bloody war, fine. And while I'm sure you're right they'll need people educated in the history of the situation to properly negotiate a settlement, we're a ways off that for now. We need to negotiate a ceasefire first. And really, this whole debate is going down the line of 'if you just tried to understand them..' while ignoring the agreements that Russia made to not invade Ukraine and have just ignored. Lots of people understand the situation well and say it's a disgrace what's happened. It's just as ignorant to keep pumping the line that 'you don't understand' when they say Putin is evil as it is to want his head on a stick or whatever.
That's the thing, right. Who knows what's going to happen? It seems unlikely but there's a chance Ukraine wins this. In which case not much has to change. They fought off the Aggressor and won. They'll get help rebuilding and go on to better things no doubt. They lose quickly, and Europe will be running scared Putin will take a run at other former USSR nations. Or it drags out and they flatten the country while the world switches channels..
Any one of those theoretical scenarios should drastically change how we react, what kind of settlement you negotiate, or if you even can. I have to say, though, quoting Chomsky as a source to espouse the virtues of intellectualism is like asking Trump if hairspray is any good.
Sign in if you want to comment
Anyone anxious?
Page 11 of 15
11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15
posted on 3/3/22
comment by Anthony The King Elanga (U10026)
posted 3 hours, 28 minutes ago
It’s not pedantic, it’s massively important. NATO is made up of 28 European members, the geographical proximity of these nations to Russia - and the threat they posed - makes it incomparable to Russia having nukes in facking Cuba.
And there is no such thing as a neutral Ukraine as far as Putin is concerned. They are either a democracy, which makes them pro-Western, or they have a pro-Russian puppet president.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm sorry Darren but this isn't really correct. We've ended up in a situation where people seem unwilling or unable to understand or recognise that many (I'm not saying all) of the grievances Russia have been expressing for many years are actually valid, presumably out of fear for being called some kind of Russian-stooge (cry-baby Robb offering up a classic example a day or two ago; deleting my comment, blocking me and calling me a 'Russian-bot', giving me no chance to reply, and barely an hour after calling Putin a war criminal. It's pathetic and shameless). None of those grievances justify the act of aggression we're witnessing, which constitute war crimes.
But we should be taking the time to understand how we got here. Putin has shown often enough a willingness and desire for some kind of neutrality in Ukraine. People don't want to hear it, but much of the breakdown in diplomacy over the last several years has largely come from the US, and - whisper it quietly - Zelenskyy.
Leading scholars & officials have been warning of the dangers around this for years. I linked above to an Anatol Lieven interview, and a Chomsky one. I'd encourage people to read them. From the Chomsky one, definitely read the citation to Jack F. Matlock's essay: http://www.defenddemocracy.press/acura-viewpoint-jack-f-matlock-jr-todays-crisis-over-ukraine/
What seems to me to be apparent the more and more I read, is that this was all very avoidable, but sadly very predictable given the paths and choices taken by those in power.
Again, none of this is in anyway intended as a defence of the invasion.
posted on 3/3/22
comment by Vidicschin (U3584)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by ...TUX... (U22398)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Vidicschin (U3584)
posted 7 minutes ago
You once called me bipolar and now you call me ignorant yet you know less than me?
…..
I doubt anyone knows less than you.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Nice edit. I can't think why
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You are not showing much thought.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
That's because i'm thick. Clearly.
N nite.
posted on 3/3/22
BK, I’m sorry but I will never, ever believe that Putin has ever wanted neutrality in Ukraine. There’s nothing about what he’s said, his actions and what we know about him as a man that will convince me otherwise. I appreciate that NATO aren’t perfect regarding issues on Ukraine, but ultimately this has all come down to Putin’s plans coming to fruition after years of meddling in the old Soviet Republics, and causing political unrest in Western democracies. The man should be shot.
posted on 3/3/22
comment by ...TUX... (U22398)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by Vidicschin (U3584)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by ...TUX... (U22398)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Vidicschin (U3584)
posted 7 minutes ago
You once called me bipolar and now you call me ignorant yet you know less than me?
…..
I doubt anyone knows less than you.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Nice edit. I can't think why
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You are not showing much thought.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
That's because i'm thick. Clearly.
N nite.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Have you ever met Stretty. You and he are two of a kind.
Oh and just so you know, I am still working so no idea where you got the pensioner thing from.
posted on 3/3/22
comment by BerbaKing11 (U6256)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Anthony The King Elanga (U10026)
posted 3 hours, 28 minutes ago
It’s not pedantic, it’s massively important. NATO is made up of 28 European members, the geographical proximity of these nations to Russia - and the threat they posed - makes it incomparable to Russia having nukes in facking Cuba.
And there is no such thing as a neutral Ukraine as far as Putin is concerned. They are either a democracy, which makes them pro-Western, or they have a pro-Russian puppet president.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm sorry Darren but this isn't really correct. We've ended up in a situation where people seem unwilling or unable to understand or recognise that many (I'm not saying all) of the grievances Russia have been expressing for many years are actually valid, presumably out of fear for being called some kind of Russian-stooge (cry-baby Robb offering up a classic example a day or two ago; deleting my comment, blocking me and calling me a 'Russian-bot', giving me no chance to reply, and barely an hour after calling Putin a war criminal. It's pathetic and shameless). None of those grievances justify the act of aggression we're witnessing, which constitute war crimes.
But we should be taking the time to understand how we got here. Putin has shown often enough a willingness and desire for some kind of neutrality in Ukraine. People don't want to hear it, but much of the breakdown in diplomacy over the last several years has largely come from the US, and - whisper it quietly - Zelenskyy.
Leading scholars & officials have been warning of the dangers around this for years. I linked above to an Anatol Lieven interview, and a Chomsky one. I'd encourage people to read them. From the Chomsky one, definitely read the citation to Jack F. Matlock's essay: http://www.defenddemocracy.press/acura-viewpoint-jack-f-matlock-jr-todays-crisis-over-ukraine/
What seems to me to be apparent the more and more I read, is that this was all very avoidable, but sadly very predictable given the paths and choices taken by those in power.
Again, none of this is in anyway intended as a defence of the invasion.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
That's an interesting read but by gosh does he stretch some of his points thin. Equating NATO's actions in Eastern Europe with Kaiser's Germany attempting to make Mexico an ally during WWI? I mean cmon. The US and Russia aren't best buds but they're not at war, either.
While it's instructive and important to always look at both sides of an argument, as you point out, whatever provocation you can point to just not justify a violent invasion. It's ridiculous. And to be honest, these kind of articles do look a lot like Putin-sympathizing right now. He's doing something awful in Ukraine. Let's deal with that and try to learn the lessons from history after, once we have all the facts in hand and the consequences of said actions are clear.
posted on 3/3/22
comment by Bãles left boot (U22081)
posted 20 seconds ago
comment by BerbaKing11 (U6256)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Anthony The King Elanga (U10026)
posted 3 hours, 28 minutes ago
It’s not pedantic, it’s massively important. NATO is made up of 28 European members, the geographical proximity of these nations to Russia - and the threat they posed - makes it incomparable to Russia having nukes in facking Cuba.
And there is no such thing as a neutral Ukraine as far as Putin is concerned. They are either a democracy, which makes them pro-Western, or they have a pro-Russian puppet president.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm sorry Darren but this isn't really correct. We've ended up in a situation where people seem unwilling or unable to understand or recognise that many (I'm not saying all) of the grievances Russia have been expressing for many years are actually valid, presumably out of fear for being called some kind of Russian-stooge (cry-baby Robb offering up a classic example a day or two ago; deleting my comment, blocking me and calling me a 'Russian-bot', giving me no chance to reply, and barely an hour after calling Putin a war criminal. It's pathetic and shameless). None of those grievances justify the act of aggression we're witnessing, which constitute war crimes.
But we should be taking the time to understand how we got here. Putin has shown often enough a willingness and desire for some kind of neutrality in Ukraine. People don't want to hear it, but much of the breakdown in diplomacy over the last several years has largely come from the US, and - whisper it quietly - Zelenskyy.
Leading scholars & officials have been warning of the dangers around this for years. I linked above to an Anatol Lieven interview, and a Chomsky one. I'd encourage people to read them. From the Chomsky one, definitely read the citation to Jack F. Matlock's essay: http://www.defenddemocracy.press/acura-viewpoint-jack-f-matlock-jr-todays-crisis-over-ukraine/
What seems to me to be apparent the more and more I read, is that this was all very avoidable, but sadly very predictable given the paths and choices taken by those in power.
Again, none of this is in anyway intended as a defence of the invasion.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
That's an interesting read but by gosh does he stretch some of his points thin. Equating NATO's actions in Eastern Europe with Kaiser's Germany attempting to make Mexico an ally during WWI? I mean cmon. The US and Russia aren't best buds but they're not at war, either.
While it's instructive and important to always look at both sides of an argument, as you point out, whatever provocation you can point to just not justify a violent invasion. It's ridiculous. And to be honest, these kind of articles do look a lot like Putin-sympathizing right now. He's doing something awful in Ukraine. Let's deal with that and try to learn the lessons from history after, once we have all the facts in hand and the consequences of said actions are clear.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Some people are so desperate to always see two sides to a story that they give far too much oxygen to the less valid side and that helps people like Putin as normally reasonable people like Berbaking who are smart enough to get their points across well end up muddying the water when this is one of those rare occasions when the vast weight of agreement should be that Putin is the Bond villain style bad guy.
posted on 3/3/22
comment by Anthony The King Elanga (U10026)
posted 43 seconds ago
BK, I’m sorry but I will never, ever believe that Putin has ever wanted neutrality in Ukraine. There’s nothing about what he’s said, his actions and what we know about him as a man that will convince me otherwise. I appreciate that NATO aren’t perfect regarding issues on Ukraine, but ultimately this has all come down to Putin’s plans coming to fruition after years of meddling in the old Soviet Republics, and causing political unrest in Western democracies. The man should be shot.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You're regurgitating a lot of poorly supported anti-Russian talking points ("causing political unrest in Western democracies". Much of those narratives have long since collapsed, but have been ignored since their utility has largely been fulfilled already. I've literally cited work by leading scholars - and there are plenty of others - on the history of diplomatic tiit-for-tat. There's no reason to ignore it or invent our own theories (as fun as it may be!).
I'm not in favour of the death penalty, but there are plenty of world leaders who could be lined up in front of a firing squad long before Putin if wars & external interference are worthy of such outcomes. As before, this isn't a defence of Putin (he'd be getting shot eventually, too) - I'd greatly love for Russia to be governed by something vastly better - but whilst i understand the emotional reaction at the moment given the circumstances (we've had our Ukrainian friends staying at our house a few times the past week, with more than a few tears all round), I don't see it as an adequate substitute for learning the facts that have led to these dangerous times.
posted on 3/3/22
comment by Bãles left boot (U22081)
posted 11 minutes ago
----------------------------------------------------------------------
That's an interesting read but by gosh does he stretch some of his points thin. Equating NATO's actions in Eastern Europe with Kaiser's Germany attempting to make Mexico an ally during WWI? I mean cmon. The US and Russia aren't best buds but they're not at war, either.
While it's instructive and important to always look at both sides of an argument, as you point out, whatever provocation you can point to just not justify a violent invasion. It's ridiculous. And to be honest, these kind of articles do look a lot like Putin-sympathizing right now. He's doing something awful in Ukraine. Let's deal with that and try to learn the lessons from history after, once we have all the facts in hand and the consequences of said actions are clear.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I couldn't have gone to more lengths to stress the *critical distinction* between understanding some of the diplomatic backdrop and condemning and opposing the invasion of Ukraine. I've said it multiple times on this thread and elsewhere that the invasion is an act of aggression and that Putin is clearly guilty of war crimes. I'm not sure how much clearer I can be.
The reason we should learn some of the backdrop is summarised pretty neatly by Chomsky in one of the other articles I shared. I'll quote the passage here:
"It’s easy to understand why those suffering from the crime [the invasion of Ukraine] may regard it as an unacceptable indulgence to inquire into why it happened and whether it could have been avoided. Understandable, but mistaken. If we want to respond to the tragedy in ways that will help the victims, and avert still worse catastrophes that loom ahead, it is wise, and necessary, to learn as much as we can about what went wrong and how the course could have been corrected. Heroic gestures may be satisfying. They are not helpful."
posted on 3/3/22
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/mar/02/russian-propaganda-anti-imperialist-left-vladimir-putin
Dedicated to Berbaking. Good ol’ Berbs lost me when he dismissed the idea of Russian troll farms exist and said that Russia hasn’t interfered in western politics.
I shall leave him for you guys to deal with โ๐ป
posted on 3/3/22
*existing
posted on 3/3/22
comment by BerbaKing11 (U6256)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by Bãles left boot (U22081)
posted 11 minutes ago
----------------------------------------------------------------------
That's an interesting read but by gosh does he stretch some of his points thin. Equating NATO's actions in Eastern Europe with Kaiser's Germany attempting to make Mexico an ally during WWI? I mean cmon. The US and Russia aren't best buds but they're not at war, either.
While it's instructive and important to always look at both sides of an argument, as you point out, whatever provocation you can point to just not justify a violent invasion. It's ridiculous. And to be honest, these kind of articles do look a lot like Putin-sympathizing right now. He's doing something awful in Ukraine. Let's deal with that and try to learn the lessons from history after, once we have all the facts in hand and the consequences of said actions are clear.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I couldn't have gone to more lengths to stress the *critical distinction* between understanding some of the diplomatic backdrop and condemning and opposing the invasion of Ukraine. I've said it multiple times on this thread and elsewhere that the invasion is an act of aggression and that Putin is clearly guilty of war crimes. I'm not sure how much clearer I can be.
The reason we should learn some of the backdrop is summarised pretty neatly by Chomsky in one of the other articles I shared. I'll quote the passage here:
"It’s easy to understand why those suffering from the crime [the invasion of Ukraine] may regard it as an unacceptable indulgence to inquire into why it happened and whether it could have been avoided. Understandable, but mistaken. If we want to respond to the tragedy in ways that will help the victims, and avert still worse catastrophes that loom ahead, it is wise, and necessary, to learn as much as we can about what went wrong and how the course could have been corrected. Heroic gestures may be satisfying. They are not helpful."
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You don't have to be any clearer. I'm not accusing you of anything, just pointing out that the timing is awful for this kind of commentary. With something as complicated as this you learn after something happened, not during.
Yes ex-diplomats can write nice pieces about what they did decades ago to feel clever but Putin is writing history now. He's changing the narrative and informing the discussion about what we can do in future.
And yes, frig me but I disagree with Chomsky there. Helping the victims right now very much means doing practical, heroic things. Innocent people are dying. Picking apart the politics and trying to get inside the mind of Putin is for when you've stopped those things happening and try to prevent the next Putin.
We didn't end WWII with think pieces in the Times or sitting Hitler down with Freud for a long chat.
posted on 3/3/22
comment by Robbb Kanchelskis ๐บ๐ฆ๐บ๐ฆ๐บ๐ฆ (Please stop the floods
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Some people are so desperate to always see two sides to a story that they give far too much oxygen to the less valid side and that helps people like Putin as normally reasonable people like Berbaking who are smart enough to get their points across well end up muddying the water when this is one of those rare occasions when the vast weight of agreement should be that Putin is the Bond villain style bad guy.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Multiple times in the last few days I've described Putin as a war criminal. I've expressed the immense concern I personally feel given my links to Estonia - my partner of 10 years is from Estonia (and we plan to move over there in a couple years). She's terrified for her family - my family too, now - at the prospect of escalation. She's attended two demos with our Ukrainian friends in Bristol. We both purchased a load of supplies for kids to drop off at the local village hall, headed for Ukraine.
Sharing the work of distinguished scholars of international repute on this issue is not "helping Putin".
Presenting Official Enemies as 'Bond style villains' is an embarrassing but often used tactic in Western discourse. It's convenient to view Official Enemies as 'madmen', 'super evil', 'irrational' figures, because it absolves us from actually bothering to do any research or seek any understanding of what's going on.
Frankly you should be ashamed of yourself for your remarks about me the other day. Absolutely pathetic. If you have any modicum of decency, you'd apologise. I get that emotions are high right now, but it's not my fault if you're unable to distinguish between *understanding* events and *justifying* (which I have not done) them.
posted on 3/3/22
comment by Robbb Kanchelskis ๐บ๐ฆ๐บ๐ฆ๐บ๐ฆ (Please stop the floods Mother Nature ๐) (U22716)
posted 5 minutes ago
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/mar/02/russian-propaganda-anti-imperialist-left-vladimir-putin
Dedicated to Berbaking. Good ol’ Berbs lost me when he dismissed the idea of Russian troll farms exist and said that Russia hasn’t interfered in western politics.
I shall leave him for you guys to deal with โ๐ป
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Without even opening the link, I know this is another hit piece by that muppet Monbiot. This is his his MO: punch left to show everyone that he is "one of the sensibles".
He's been roundly exposed & rebutted for doing this again and again, most notably by Jonathan Cook. Do try to keep up:
https://www.jonathan-cook.net/blog/tag/george-monbiot/
posted on 3/3/22
comment by Bãles left boot (U22081)
And yes, frig me but I disagree with Chomsky there. Helping the victims right now very much means doing practical, heroic things. Innocent people are dying. Picking apart the politics and trying to get inside the mind of Putin is for when you've stopped those things happening and try to prevent the next Putin.
We didn't end WWII with think pieces in the Times or sitting Hitler down with Freud for a long chat.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
He outlines practical diplomatic steps (acknowledging none of them are good at this point) - his argument isn't "do nothing but a think piece".
Nobody is trying to "get inside the mind of Putin", except it seems numerous posters here speculating about his motives without recourse to the diplomatic history. I've no idea what he's thinking - I don't know his mind any better than anyone else - but we do have a history of both statements/actions/diplomacy that we can review. There's really no reason to avoid looking at it. We're all just people trying to make sense of events, at the end of the day.
posted on 3/3/22
I get some of what you are saying in that last post Berba.
It is hard to see Putin as anything other than a super villain. And that was well before recent events tipped it well over the edge.
posted on 3/3/22
comment by Vidicschin (U3584)
posted 21 seconds ago
I get some of what you are saying in that last post Berba.
It is hard to see Putin as anything other than a super villain. And that was well before recent events tipped it well over the edge.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
He's been presented as a kind of Super Villain in Western discourse for a long long time, so I certainly understand why people might form views that align with that caricature.
posted on 3/3/22
comment by BerbaKing11 (U6256)
posted 7 seconds ago
comment by Bãles left boot (U22081)
And yes, frig me but I disagree with Chomsky there. Helping the victims right now very much means doing practical, heroic things. Innocent people are dying. Picking apart the politics and trying to get inside the mind of Putin is for when you've stopped those things happening and try to prevent the next Putin.
We didn't end WWII with think pieces in the Times or sitting Hitler down with Freud for a long chat.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
He outlines practical diplomatic steps (acknowledging none of them are good at this point) - his argument isn't "do nothing but a think piece".
Nobody is trying to "get inside the mind of Putin", except it seems numerous posters here speculating about his motives without recourse to the diplomatic history. I've no idea what he's thinking - I don't know his mind any better than anyone else - but we do have a history of both statements/actions/diplomacy that we can review. There's really no reason to avoid looking at it. We're all just people trying to make sense of events, at the end of the day.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Fair enough, though I would point out that providing reasons for why Putin chose this cause of action is very much trying to get inside his head.
Also, yes learning from history is well and good. But driving the discussion of understanding why X happened when X is still very much happening doesn't make sense to me. What if Putin doesn't stop at Ukraine or goes nuclear? All this intellectualism will be redundant.
posted on 3/3/22
comment by BerbaKing11 (U6256)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by Vidicschin (U3584)
posted 21 seconds ago
I get some of what you are saying in that last post Berba.
It is hard to see Putin as anything other than a super villain. And that was well before recent events tipped it well over the edge.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
He's been presented as a kind of Super Villain in Western discourse for a long long time, so I certainly understand why people might form views that align with that caricature.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It has nothing to do with how he has been presented. It is to do with his actions.
posted on 3/3/22
comment by Vidicschin (U3584)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by BerbaKing11 (U6256)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by Vidicschin (U3584)
posted 21 seconds ago
I get some of what you are saying in that last post Berba.
It is hard to see Putin as anything other than a super villain. And that was well before recent events tipped it well over the edge.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
He's been presented as a kind of Super Villain in Western discourse for a long long time, so I certainly understand why people might form views that align with that caricature.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It has nothing to do with how he has been presented. It is to do with his actions.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
There's good comparative media analysis on exactly this. When our leaders rain bombs on people, or support clients that do, the depictions are starkly different. You shouldn't need me to cite the works to be able to spot that. If Putin is a 'super villain' as a result of his wars, then he's in good company.
posted on 3/3/22
Just because the US/UK has been the villain in the past doesn't mean Putin isn't now.
posted on 3/3/22
comment by BerbaKing11 (U6256)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by Vidicschin (U3584)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by BerbaKing11 (U6256)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by Vidicschin (U3584)
posted 21 seconds ago
I get some of what you are saying in that last post Berba.
It is hard to see Putin as anything other than a super villain. And that was well before recent events tipped it well over the edge.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
He's been presented as a kind of Super Villain in Western discourse for a long long time, so I certainly understand why people might form views that align with that caricature.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It has nothing to do with how he has been presented. It is to do with his actions.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
There's good comparative media analysis on exactly this. When our leaders rain bombs on people, or support clients that do, the depictions are starkly different. You shouldn't need me to cite the works to be able to spot that. If Putin is a 'super villain' as a result of his wars, then he's in good company.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Good is the wrong word.
posted on 3/3/22
comment by Bãles left boot (U22081)
posted 7 minutes ago
comment by BerbaKing11 (U6256)
posted 7 seconds ago
comment by Bãles left boot (U22081)
And yes, frig me but I disagree with Chomsky there. Helping the victims right now very much means doing practical, heroic things. Innocent people are dying. Picking apart the politics and trying to get inside the mind of Putin is for when you've stopped those things happening and try to prevent the next Putin.
We didn't end WWII with think pieces in the Times or sitting Hitler down with Freud for a long chat.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
He outlines practical diplomatic steps (acknowledging none of them are good at this point) - his argument isn't "do nothing but a think piece".
Nobody is trying to "get inside the mind of Putin", except it seems numerous posters here speculating about his motives without recourse to the diplomatic history. I've no idea what he's thinking - I don't know his mind any better than anyone else - but we do have a history of both statements/actions/diplomacy that we can review. There's really no reason to avoid looking at it. We're all just people trying to make sense of events, at the end of the day.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Fair enough, though I would point out that providing reasons for why Putin chose this cause of action is very much trying to get inside his head.
Also, yes learning from history is well and good. But driving the discussion of understanding why X happened when X is still very much happening doesn't make sense to me. What if Putin doesn't stop at Ukraine or goes nuclear? All this intellectualism will be redundant.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I don't know why Putin chose this course of action at this particular time. In fact, I'm greatly surprised that he did, truth be told. I feel somewhat daft repeatedly assuring my partner that it was "highly unlikely" there'd actually be an invasion. My fortunes with the lottery are no better, you'll be unsurprised to learn!
I'm not citing anyone who is 'providing reasons', only explaining the background. Much of that background is highly relevant, potentially, in coming to a negotiated settlement. We're not talking ancient history here. We're talking breakdowns in diplomacy that run right up until present events. That's the reason to learn it - it may in fact be incredibly helpful. It doesn't seem that the diplomatic stalemates can't be revisited, though they'd have to be done with noses held firmly closed since the invasion. I'm not asking that people take time to review some of this as some kind of intellectual hobby (though it's as valid as any other hobby I suppose).
If this goes beyond Ukraine... All bets are off really. I've no idea where we go from there. At the risk of tempting fate, I really don't see that happening. The Ukraine crisis has been simmering for a long time in a way that is distinct from other neighbouring countries as far as I can tell.
posted on 3/3/22
comment by Vidicschin (U3584)
posted 5 minutes ago
comment by BerbaKing11 (U6256)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by Vidicschin (U3584)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by BerbaKing11 (U6256)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by Vidicschin (U3584)
posted 21 seconds ago
I get some of what you are saying in that last post Berba.
It is hard to see Putin as anything other than a super villain. And that was well before recent events tipped it well over the edge.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
He's been presented as a kind of Super Villain in Western discourse for a long long time, so I certainly understand why people might form views that align with that caricature.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It has nothing to do with how he has been presented. It is to do with his actions.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
There's good comparative media analysis on exactly this. When our leaders rain bombs on people, or support clients that do, the depictions are starkly different. You shouldn't need me to cite the works to be able to spot that. If Putin is a 'super villain' as a result of his wars, then he's in good company.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Good is the wrong word.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
A fair qualification!
posted on 3/3/22
I actually think he’s mad enough to sacrifice his nation.
He knows that firing nuclear weapons would do that as the retaliation would be the destruction of his homeland.
A cornered mad man is a dangerous mad man.
posted on 3/3/22
comment by BerbaKing11 (U6256)
posted 1 hour, 46 minutes ago
I'm not citing anyone who is 'providing reasons', only explaining the background. Much of that background is highly relevant, potentially, in coming to a negotiated settlement. We're not talking ancient history here. We're talking breakdowns in diplomacy that run right up until present events. That's the reason to learn it - it may in fact be incredibly helpful. It doesn't seem that the diplomatic stalemates can't be revisited, though they'd have to be done with noses held firmly closed since the invasion. I'm not asking that people take time to review some of this as some kind of intellectual hobby (though it's as valid as any other hobby I suppose).
If this goes beyond Ukraine... All bets are off really. I've no idea where we go from there. At the risk of tempting fate, I really don't see that happening. The Ukraine crisis has been simmering for a long time in a way that is distinct from other neighbouring countries as far as I can tell.
---
My bad, I missed the publication date on John Matlock's article, you're quite right. Though my point remains - those kind of articles right now are in poor taste. Before and after a bloody war, fine. And while I'm sure you're right they'll need people educated in the history of the situation to properly negotiate a settlement, we're a ways off that for now. We need to negotiate a ceasefire first. And really, this whole debate is going down the line of 'if you just tried to understand them..' while ignoring the agreements that Russia made to not invade Ukraine and have just ignored. Lots of people understand the situation well and say it's a disgrace what's happened. It's just as ignorant to keep pumping the line that 'you don't understand' when they say Putin is evil as it is to want his head on a stick or whatever.
That's the thing, right. Who knows what's going to happen? It seems unlikely but there's a chance Ukraine wins this. In which case not much has to change. They fought off the Aggressor and won. They'll get help rebuilding and go on to better things no doubt. They lose quickly, and Europe will be running scared Putin will take a run at other former USSR nations. Or it drags out and they flatten the country while the world switches channels..
Any one of those theoretical scenarios should drastically change how we react, what kind of settlement you negotiate, or if you even can. I have to say, though, quoting Chomsky as a source to espouse the virtues of intellectualism is like asking Trump if hairspray is any good.
Page 11 of 15
11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15